§ The Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate having been read,
§ Sir J. Campbellsaid, that he would, for his part, cheerfully abide by the contract into which the House had entered at the adjournment of the debate last night, that hon. Members should make a contribution out of their speeches to public convenience in order that this great and important discussion might to-night be brought to a close. He should have been disposed altogether to have waived any right he might have to address the House on this occasion, but for the circumstance that no Member from that part of the United Kingdom which he (Sir J. Campbell) represented, had as yet taken part in the debate. It appeared to him, that this was a question of all others, on which the feelings of every part of the empire should be plainly expressed; and, representing as he did, a constituency which would yield to none 655 in independence and intelligence, he would say, that the sentiments not only of that constituency, but of the majority of the people of Scotland, were in unison with those he was about to express. The Resolution of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, met with his entire approbation; and he thought that the happiness of this great empire depended upon the success of this measure. He approved of the connexion between Church and State. He was of opinion, that it was dangerous to trust entirely to the voluntary principle for the support of religion, and that it was a fallacy to apply to this Question the principle of the supply being equal to the demand. He thought, that a religious establishment was necessary to afford religious instruction to the poor, and was especially required in some of the more remote parts of the country. The Establishment and the voluntary principle worked best together; the Establishment corrected fanaticism, while the voluntary principle tended to prevent sloth and apathy. On these principles he respectfully and reverently approved of the Established Churches in England and Scotland, and, with certain reductions he approved of the Church in Ireland. The Established Church of England accorded with the sentiments of the majority of the people; her revenues were not excessive, although the distribution of them might be improved. He was a friend to that Establishment, but he desired to see it made more generally useful by the abolition of pluralities, by the enforcement of residence, and by the removal of other abuses. But he looked on that Establishment as undoubtedly productive of the greatest benefit to the people of this country. When he turned to the Establishment of his own country, he regarded it with pride and exultation. There it met and harmonized with the religious sentiments of the community; its revenues were not excessive, and he wished they might remain untouched. With respect to what had lately been said by the hon. Member for Oldham, he would not give any opinion, whether or not it might even be useful, that the endowments of the Church of Scotland should be extended. There were certainly two places in Scotland, Montrose and Edinburgh, where aid from the public seemed necessary as the whole expense of the Establishment was defrayed by an 656 assessment on the resident inhabitants, whether they were Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics, or Dissenters. In his judgment that was a great grievance. It arose from a seizure by the state of the property intended for the support of the clergy, and as the property had been abstracted by the State, it was worthy of consideration, whether the State now ought to supply the necessary funds. When he came to Ireland, if the question were entirely res integra he should have long hesitated before he thought it right that a Protestant Establishment should be introduced into that country, because the vast majority of the people were of an opposite faith, but finding the Protestant Church established, he would decidedly say, let it at least be accommodated to the religious wants of the Protestant population. He maintained, that the funds of that Establishment were excessive, and ought to be reduced, and applied to a more beneficial purpose. There had been a great deal said of the amount of the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland, he cared little for the exaggerations on either side, but he looked to the broad fact, that the Establishment in Ireland was now as great as the national Establishment was in the times of Popery, when the whole mass of the people was of the Established religion. The tithes, which were then collected for an Establishment administering to the spiritual wants of the whole population now belonged to a Church, whose religious tenets were embraced by a small minority of the people. The Prostestant Episcopalians of Ireland were not more than one-tenth of the population. They were told, that the revenues of the Irish Church did not exceed 400,000l. or 500,000l., because the net revenue was not larger than that sum. But the gross revenue of the Irish Establishment was nearly 1,000,000l. sterling. If, then, one-tenth, of the population required an Establishment paid by the State at the rate of nearly 1,000,000l. a-year, according to this ratio it would take about 8,000,000l. to provide for the Church Establishment of all the population of Ireland. Was not that excessive? If then they looked to those who were under the spiritual care of the Irish clergy, they would find, that the Establishment maintained for their religious instruction was ten times as great as the endowments of the Church in England or Scotland. 657 Let them look also to the melancholy consequences of this state of things, both with regard to the state of religion, and the constitution of society. They had been told, that churches had multiplied, but he was sorry to say, that the congregations had decreased, and what benefit was it to build churches, which were not frequented, which were considered a grievance even by those for whom they were intended, while they were regarded as an insult to those who were of a different faith? The hon. Member for Oxford University stated, that there had been a great increase of churches within the last ten or twelve years, but he had not denied, that within the same time the Protestants in Ireland had greatly decreased. With regard to the increase of churches in Ireland, he would state to the House, that about a year and-a-half ago he visited that beautiful and hospitable country, when there were pointed out to him, upon the most undoubted evidence, various instances of churches erected where there were no Protestant congregations at all, but merely as a job to the builder and carpenter; and he remembered one instance, where it was proved to him that so miserably had the job been done, that the Church had fallen several times, and that they were actually increasing the rates for the purpose of rebuilding it again. When it was found, that such proceedings as these took place, he would ask what the effect must be on society? Could there be a doubt, that the payment of tithes to a dominant Church under such circumstances, had been the great cause of the enormities which had been committed during a series of years in that unfortunate country? It was evident on all hands that it was felt to be an insult and a grievance to be compelled to pay tithes to a Church professing a religion different from that of the payers, and it was notorious that the Irish looked upon that payment as a badge of subjugation. Hence their resistance to the payment of tithes, hence their disposition to disobey the laws, which had been the origin of many crimes. It was, however, only what might have been expected by any person who had a knowledge of human nature, for it was utterly impossible to suppose that an attempt to force a religion upon men which was regarded only as a badge of their subjugation, should have any other effect than to occasion them to 658 cherish a hatred of the cause and abhor the law. There had been various allusions made in the course of the debate, to his native country. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated, that in the beginning of the 17th century there was very little animosity existing between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians; but he would tell the House that when an attempt was made by the Stuarts to thrust Episcopalianism on the Church, that the Presbyterians came to regard the doctrine as worse than Paganism itself. He could not forget the language of the great Marquess of Argyll, whose feelings were not exempt from the prejudice which the proceedings in favour of prelacy had caused. His dying words were that he hated Popery, prelacy, and all superstition whatsoever. Such was the state of feeling in Scotland, that at the time of the assassination of Archbishop Sharpe, that assassination was actually approved of by a majority of the people. There was nothing in recent times to be compared to that assassination, and yet it was a common observation by the people of Scotland that the killing of the Archbishop was no murder. All industry was then suspended; the state of the country proceeded from bad to worse; so that at the end of the 17th century it was in a worse condition than it was in the time of James 1st. There were constant conflicts until the Revolution of 1688 when the persecution ceased. Scenes occurred more serious than what had taken place at Carrishoch or at Rathcormac. Need he remind the House of Drumcleugh and Bothwell Brig where much blood was shed. And ought not. this example to lead them to try to accommodate the present state of the Irish Church to the religious condition of the country? He said that the House ought to reduce the Establishment to such a degree as would be adequate to the religious wants of those who professed the Protestant Episcopalian faith in Ireland. Much might be done in that way. The number of Bishops and Archbishops might still be reduced; and he apprehended that their incomes were excessive as compared with the incomes of the prelates of England. But it was said that Church-property was for ever inalienable? Whatever its amount might be, and however few there might be who belonged to the Established Religion, the property which was once given should for 659 ever remain in possession of the Church. For this doctrine there was no warrant—nothing in the Scriptures—nothing in the law of the land. It was a remnant of Paganism. It was the Pagan doctrine, that that which was once appropriated to religious purposes never should be diverted to any secular use. Clodius the infamous had dedicated the Palantine Houses of Cicero, to the Goddess of Liberty, and it was not till Cicero had delivered one of his most eloquent orations that he was allowed to have that property restored. The doctrine originated in the Pagan religion; and was afterwards adopted by the Catholics. He spoke it without offence to any Member of that persuasion, but they very much encouraged the notion, that what had once belonged to the Church could never be alienated from it. That practice went on to the time of the Reformation, and then the custom was still so much countenanced, that it was then said no good title could be made to any property which had belonged to the Church; and property which had belonged to the Church was sometimes sold at an under price. But could it be expected that the doctrine of Pagan religion—that the doctrine of Popery—that those doctrines which were exploded in the middle of the 16th century should be revived in the 19th century, and should be made the subject of legislative enactment? He held an opinion, which he had formed after great deliberation, that the property of the Church ought not to be touched while it could be beneficially employed for the Church; but it was the property of the State; the State conferred it, and the State might take it away when it could be of no further use to the Church. He knew of no distinction between functionaries in the Church and other functionaries. Those who ministered at the altar ought to be supported by the altar—so said the Scriptures. A judge in a Court of Law was to be supported; a Minister of State was to be supported; those who fought the battles of their country were to be supported; but he knew of no distinction between one functionary and another. All were to be supported by the State for their various services, and when those services for any reason were no longer wanted, the funds appropriated to pay them might be taken away. He apprehended that what he had said was fully supported by the his- 660 tory of tithes. All who had studied that history knew that tithes were originally in the nature of a property-tax. The Christian religion was planted in this country probably some ages before tithes were known. At that time there was very little personal property. Married women could only be provided for by a dower of the third part of the land of their husbands, and the only mode by which it was found religion or the clergy could be provided for was by a property-tax of a tenth of the produce of the soil. But at that time the tenth was not all given to the clergy only—the division was fourfold—one part to the Bishop, one to the incumbent, one to the fabric of the Church, and a fourth to the poor. So were tithes appropriated in their origin, and he would contend that tithes still continued to be of the same nature, and subject to the control of the state. Tithes were not the voluntary donation of the faithful; they were imposed by the Legislature, and though they had now become property, to be held separately like the unredeemed Land-tax when given to a stranger, from the land, in their origin they were a Property-tax. Then, with regard to the land with which the Church was endowed, generally speaking that likewise belonged to the King or the state; and whether the clergy were supported by landed possessions, or by pecuniary incomes, was quite immaterial; if by pecuniary income, and that was too much, it might be diminished; if by land, and that was too much, that might in part be taken away. Within the last few years the salary of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench was diminished; it had been 10,000l. a-year, but it was now reduced to 8,000l. The Chancellor of Ireland's had been 10,000l., it was reduced to 8,000l. Was there any crime in robbing the law, or in reducing the incomes of the law functionaries? He knew of no distinction between the law and the Church in this respect It was thought, wisely or not, was not the question, that those incomes were excessive, and they were reduced, without any injustice to any part of the community. If that were so, he wanted to know why the Legislature might not deal with the clergy as it dealt with any other public functionary in the land? When it was said, that however great the property of the Church might be, it could never be touched, he would 661 ask, supposing that half the property of the whole country belonged to the Church, and that that was a crying evil in the mouth of every one, could it be said, under those circumstances, that such property could not be touched? Before the reformation in Scotland not less than one-third of the property of that country belonged to the Church, but they afterwards dealt wisely with that property, because they allotted a distinct proportion of it for those who administered at the altar, and applied the vest to useful purposes. If that were so, there could be no doubt that the Irish Parliament, before the Union, would have had a right to reduce the Church Establishment to the wants of the people, and to have lowered the salaries of those in the Church whose incomes were excessive. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies had allowed that that might have been done in Ireland before the Union; and if so, what had occurred since to prevent the same power from being exercised by the Imperial Parliament? There had been a legislative Union; we were now one great united empire, and he hoped we should continue, so for many ages; but would it be said there must be a uniformity of religious feeling—that there must be one religion for the majority of those who formed the legislative Union? He knew of no such law; it was contrary to anything that could ever have been contemplated by the population of Ireland. Then, what was there in the articles of Union that forbade the proper and adequate reduction of the Church Establishment to the wants of the people? He apprehended that all the articles of the treaty of Union were to be interpreted and construed or modified according to what the public good might require. Of this the House had a most distinguished instance in what took place during the time the right hon. Baronet opposite was at the head of the Home Department. By the articles of Union with Scotland it was provided that there should be a Court of Admiralty in Scotland, and that that Court should be preserved. With the sanction of the right hon. Baronet not only were measures in contemplation for reforming that Court, but on finding it could not be reformed, so as to be useful, it was entirely abolished. There was at that time no cry of a violation of the articles of Union between Scotland and England, As Mr. Speaker 662 also well knew, the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, which was likewise recognized by the articles of Union, was, if not entirely abolished, so much modified that there was now no separate judge of that court. That certainly had been for the benefit of the Scottish population, because, the business was now better done; and Mr. Speaker instead of proceeding in a mock court, which sate to adjourn, was now most usefully employed in presiding over their deliberations. That being so, there could be no objection to an amendment in the law affecting the clergy. Even if instead of the Church property having originally belonged to the state, as he averred, and having been conferred by the state, it had been the gift of an individual, the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, was altogether without exception. He would not say that all mortmain property the moment it was in mortmain belonged to the state, and might be diverted to any purpose. With regard to property in mortmain, the will of the donor was to be observed as long as it could be so beneficially; but when a change of circumstances arose, and it was found that the plan which the donor had in view could no longer be acted on, then, according to the principles of equity, the principles of jurisprudence, and justice, the will of the donor was no longer to be regarded, because it was to be presumed, that if he were alive he would dispose of the property in another way. It was well known that in a court of equity, when property was given to a charity and found no longer to answer the original purpose, a reference was made to an officer of the court to approve of a scheme analogous to the original purpose, and which the donor, if alive, would have been likely to assent to. Then, if this property was conferred by individuals, to whom was it a gift? It was a gift by Catholics to the Catholic religion. With reference to that religion he would remark, though he sincerely esteemed and loved many of its members, yet, when he considered the power it gave to the priesthood, and its tendency to enervate the human mind, the dislike with which he contemplated it in his earlier days was not at all diminished. But at the same time he must state, that the Catholic religion, such as it was long prior to the Reformation, existed nearly the same to the pre- 663 sent day; and it was monstrous to suppose that those who had endowed it with property at that time, would, if they existed now, apply it to the purposes of the Protestant' clergy. He thought it but fair to presume, that if the present state of affairs could have been foreseen, the parties bestowing the property would, in the words of the Resolution, have recommended the application of the funds in the way now proposed—that is, to the moral and religious instruction of all parties. They were told that this was not the time to bring forward the Resolution of his noble Friend. Some said, wait for the Report; others threw out taunts with respect to what had taken place last Session. The noble Lord (the Member for Lancashire) had said, he cared not about the Report; it was immaterial to him whether the amount was large or small in proportion to the number of Protestants to be instructed, still Church-property was inviolable. With regard to the charge brought forward against them, as to the difference in the proceedings now and what took place last Session, he would remind the House of the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet, whereby the Church-property of Ireland was to be for ever appropriated to the Protestant Church. The right hon. Baronet declared, that that Resolution was nothing at all, and it was carried by a small majority. But it would be a totally different thing when the Bill to carry it into effect was brought in, because the Act framed on that Resolution would have to declare and enact that from all time thereafter in secula seculorum there should be no further Reform in the Irish Church, and that though the number of Protestants should become ever so small, still the appropriation of the property should remain the same. When the right hon. Baronet came and stated that it was quite time the opinion of the House should be taken on the real Question, this made the difference, and it made this the latest time at which an effort could be made to rescue the country from the calamity of such a Bill being enacted. He did not doubt from the course the debate had taken, that the Resolution would be carried by a large majority. What the effect of that might be he was unable to say; but he would state most sincerely, that he should rejoice to find that the right hon. Baronet bowed to the opinion of the House; that even after some "sharp 664 convulsive pangs of agonizing pride," he yielded once more, altered his course, and conformed to the will of the majority of that House, and the general sentiments of the country. If he would do so upon this and other subjects—upon the appointment of those whom he sent to Foreign Courts, and upon his general policy, foreign and domestic, he, for one, wished that the right hon. Gentleman would continue to sit where he was. He was connected with the late Government, and he could truly say, that to return to office was no object of ambition with him. From the station he occupied at the English bar, it was more desirable and more profitable to him to remain a private Member in that House. But if the right hon. Baronet would not change his course, if he still persisted, or (without meaning any disrespect to him) if he allowed himself to be guided by those who were associated with him in office, then it would be of the last importance for the good of the community that the present Administration should be brought to a close as soon as possible. He sincerely loved a monarchical form of Government, he wished the prerogative of the Crown to be preserved, but he would say, that prerogative and the monarchy of this country had sustained a deep wound from what had taken place within the last few weeks. The right hon. Baronet could not suppose that he could without ruin to the country attempt to rule contrary to the inclinations and wishes of a majority of the House of Commons. The precedent of 1784 formed no analogy to the present. Now, for the first time in the history of the English Parliament, the Prime Minister, having a Parliament of his own choosing, was in a minority, and yet he remained in office. In the Parliament of 1784, Mr. Pitt was undoubtedly in a minority, but that Parliament had been called by his rival, Lord North, and he had the voice of the country with him. Could the right hon. Baronet believe in his conscience that his Cabinet had had the voice of the country with them? He could only say, that he believed from all he could learn, and from all he had heard, that the present Cabinet had done enough to destroy their public character in the eyes of the community, without giving satisfaction to any class whatever. They had gone far enough to show they had no regard to consistency, but they had not gone far 665 enough to satisfy the just wants of the community. He would not enter into any severe examination of the votes, nor criticism of the conduct or speeches of the right hon. Baronet, but looking at his Cabinet, he would say, that their present conduct, though they did send Lord Londonderry to Russia, though they did vote against the London University having a charter, had utterly disgraced them in the opinion of the British public. Indeed, he might say the right hon. Baronet himself had not ventured to defend his Cabinet. He had only talked of his own consistency; he had thrown his colleagues overboard. But was the nation still under similar rule to the three weeks during which the Duke of Wellington was the sole adviser of the Crown, and set a most dangerous precedent? Did they still live under a dictatorship? Was there only one responsible adviser of the Crown? Did the right hon. Baronet absorb in his own person all the offices of the state? If that was so, they must look back to what was done when the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Strafford followed a similar line of conduct. It seemed to him to be of the last importance, that if the right hon. Baronet would not conform to the will of the majority of the House and of the English nation, he should make way for another Ministry; whatever Ministry the King might form, it must have the confidence of the House and of the people. They had heard of disturbances; he disliked agitation; he would say peto pacem; but the only way to prevent agitation was to have Ministers of the Crown who would adopt such principles, and bring forward such measures, as would be in conformity with the wishes of the people. He would, before sitting down, observe, that he had heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire last night with unfeigned sorrow. He said so for that noble Lord's sake; he said so for the sake of that noble Lord's reputation. Having had an opportunity of knowing the vigour of intellect, the eloquent, the noble, and independent spirit and liberal principle of that noble Lord, it did afflict him more than he could describe to hear him openly declare, that however great the property of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland might be, and however few its Members, in his judgment that Establishment should continue for all time to be supported as it now exists. He did not mean to say 666 anything disrespectful of that noble Lord, but it did seem to him that the noble Lord laboured under some sort of monomania on this subject. He went beyond the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, or the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. He hoped, however, that this question would be soon settled, and that the noble Lord would be restored to that party of which he might be the life and ornament. Then, with respect to the opinion of another noble Lord, whom he esteemed even still more than he did the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, he thought he was fully entitled to set off the opinions of Earl Grey against those of the noble Member for Lancashire. He certainly had, personally, no authority to state what the opinion of that noble Earl was, or that he concurred in the sentiments expressed by himself; but he had the greatest reason to believe the noble Earl's opinion was in favour of the Resolution. He differed from the noble Lord respecting the 147th clause of the Tithe Bill—the appropriation of the Church-property; and, if there had not been that unfortunate difference between them, they never would have separated. He conceived, therefore, that he was perfectly right in stating that that noble Earl's opinion was to be taken as favourable to the Question now before the House. That noble Earl was not one universally admired for his talents, but he was allowed, even by his political opponents, to be a man of moderate, rational, and constitutional political principles. He would not detain the House longer. He hoped he should be considered as having performed his part of the contract to be short. In what he had stated, he had certainly intended nothing personally disrespectful to the right hon. Baronet, opposite, with respect to whom he would only further add, that the right hon. Baronet could not, in his heart, be a bigot, that he had great hopes of the right hon. Baronet's conversion, and he could almost say, cum talis sis, utinam noster esses.
§ Mr. Richardsagreed with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that it would be presumptuous for any one to set up a standard for all others in religious matters, as all were amenable to God, not only for the sentiments entertained, but for their actions in life. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lan- 667 cashire, to whose talents he bowed with the greatest deference, seemed to lay it down last night as a proposition not to be departed from, that the property of the Church was inalienable, and that the House was bound to regard it in that light. He even ventured to put the extreme case, a case that seemed to startle the House, that if it should be seen in any part of Ireland that there was not a Protestant to be found, the Church-property even there was still inalienable, and that he should support that proposition. The right hon. Baronet near him, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, appeared to contend that the property of the Church was perfectly inalienable, as if it were a something which was created, not for the good of the people, but for the benefit of a class. That certainly was not his view of the question; he had not so learned to judge of what was due to the people of this, and other countries: however, the Church of England and Ireland was established by law, and the question was, should or should not that Church be continued under its present form, as now established? Now, that question was one which he thought ought to be discussed solely upon grounds of expediency; upon those grounds, and upon those only, should he give his vote. Supposing that he had to state what appeared to him the proper course to pursue, in settling the religious system of a state de novo, it mattered not to him whether the population of that State amounted to 100, or 1,000,000, the principle would remain the same; and that, according to his opinion, should in such circumstances be the voluntary principle; in a new State, so circumstanced, it was the only expedient, the only just principle, being as it obviously was, a following out of the great Protestant principle of the right of private judgment. But the Legislature of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, had a different duty to perform. The Church—the united Church of England and Ireland—was by law established, and had been so for centuries. In consequence of having been thus long and completely established, it became interwoven with, and inseparable from all our civil institutions, united and identified with all our feelings and interests. The question, then, with which the House had to deal was, not one of abstract right, or of experimental policy, but one having re- 668 ference solely to the most expedient way of managing the revenues of a Church, not that had existed, or was expected to exist, but that now at the present moment was in full being, and in complete operation. The question, then, must be discussed solely upon the grounds of present expediency; and upon those grounds he should decide it. He complained that the terms of the noble Lord's Motion were disingenuous. The noble Lord did not openly and manfully declare the Established Church of Ireland unfit for the purpose for which it was intended; and, therefore, that it ought to be abolished, and some other mode of religious belief set up in its stead—though his Motion, stripped of all disguise, is to that effect; what, indeed, the noble Lord had failed to do, his right hon. Friends about him had abundantly said; and in endeavouring to understand the object of the noble Lord, he looked not merely to the terms of his Motion, but to the speeches of those by whom it was supported. If the object of the noble Lord were to subvert the Protestant Church in Ireland, and establish in its place the Roman Catholic, let him speak out. The institutions of the State ought to be for the good of society; and, if the noble Lord could show him that the peace and happiness of Ireland could only be ensured by subverting the Established Protestant Church, and establishing on its ruins the Roman Catholic, the noble Lord should have his support; but he believed that the noble Lord could show him no such thing. What were the facts? The United Protestant Church of England and Ireland was established by law; but all other religious persuasions enjoyed the protection of the State. In this respect there was a wide difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Churches. What, indeed, was the great distinction between the two? Why, the Roman Catholic Church admitted not of the exercise of private judgment, but set up the authority of the Church. Between the Church of England and Ireland, and Protestant Dissenters of all persuasions, there was one great common principle. They equally protested against the authority of the Church of Rome, and insisted on the right of private judgment. He found no fault with another man for a difference in doctrine; but the Protestant religion was better calculated to promote and uphold civil and religious liberty, 669 than the Roman Catholic. But the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, would not admit his statement of the question. He moved for a Committee "in order to consider the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of its revenues not required for the spiritual care of its members, to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." The Motion assumed that there was something wrong in the present state of the Church of Ireland—it assumed that the revenues of that Church were more than enough for its legitimate purposes—and it pledged the House to apply the surplus revenue, that it assumed to exist, to the education of the people. With respect to the assumption, that there was something wrong in the present state of the Church of Ireland he distinctly avowed, although nothing would induce him to consent to the abolition of the Church, he was quite ready to assist in correcting those imperfections and abuses which, either the lapse of time, or the decay incident to all human institutions, might have occasioned. As regarded the second assumption of a surplus revenue, let it be proved to exist; and he should then be quite ready to assert the right of the State to apply such surplus as would best conduce to the benefit of the people. But he distinctly opposed the noble Lord's proposition, that the House should pledge itself, if there were a surplus revenue, to apply it to the purposes of education. There were three parties deeply interested in the satisfactory settlement of the present Question—the Catholics of Ireland, the Protestants of that country, and the people of England; and the material consideration, therefore, in legislating upon such a Question was, to see how they could best meet the views of the three several parties. In coming to a right judgment upon a question of that nature, it was to be borne in mind that there existed in Ireland a strong religious feeling—that Protestants were not mere believers, but steady, earnest, zealous, and devoted in their attention to religious observances; the same was true of the Roman Catholics. He had lived much in that country, he had partaken of the hospitality of both Catholics and Protestants, and from his knowledge of them he could testify to the force and depth of their religious feelings. Hon. Members, then, should take along with 670 them the existence of such feelings, should make due allowance for them, should take care that no legislative proceeding received their sanction that was calculated to wound those feelings, or in any way inflame the passions of so excitable a people. He should now come to consider the scheme of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, by which he proposed to settle the Question; that scheme amounted to this: he proposed to take a part of the revenues of the Church for the purpose of applying them to the education of the people without distinction of sect or creed. He could not help complaining that the terms of the motion were disingenuous. No surplus revenue was as yet ascertained, and it was an actual deduction that the noble Lord proposed from the revenue as it stood, for the purposes set forth in this resolution. He (Mr. Richards) objected to this, as a taking of the property of the Protestants to give it to the Catholic religion. It had been stated, and he was not then about to question the statement, that the Catholics formed about seven-eighths of the people of Ireland; then the effect of the resolution would be to take the property of one-eighth and confer it upon the other seven, or rather on the whole population. In his opinion, then, the terms of the motion were open to objections enough, but he looked not merely to the terms alone, but the speeches that had been made in its support, as well by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire, and by the right hon. Member for Nottingham, as by other Members in that House. Those right hon. Gentlemen were distinguished members of a highly respectable party, and they contemplated bestowing the funds of the Protestant Established Church upon the Catholics in Ireland. He had put down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Nottingham, who required that the Catholics should be allowed "to participate in the advantages of the Established Church." In what way participate? In the religious advantages they had no desire to participate—in what, then, could they participate, unless in the revenues? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Staffordshire, had said, that in most of the Lutheran countries of Europe an equal provision was made for the ministers of all religions. He would ask, why had the right hon. Gentleman adverted to that circumstance, unless it were for the purpose of holding 671 out the practice as an object of imitation to the people of England? Why, also, was there an allusion, by the same right hon. Gentleman, to the circumstance of the Roman Catholics of Ireland forming 7–8ths of the whole population, unless with a view to bestowing a large proportion of the revenues of the Established Church upon the Roman Catholics? Although he desired to see the abuses of the Established Church remedied, and its income applied to the best advantage, he could not bring himself to support the motion of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, for he feared that its adoption would be the signal for civil war. The Protestants were in possession of the revenues of the Church, and did any man suppose that they would give them up without a struggle—and did any man in his senses doubt that violence and bloodshed would thence ensue? The House had to consider not only how the plan would be received, but the probable consequences to which it would lead. Could the noble Lord go down to his constituents, after having been the leader in such a proceeding, and tell them that he had accomplished any practical good for the people of Ireland, or for the community at large? Could he tell them that he had been the advocate of anything more than a mere abstract proposition? Had he done anything towards feeding the hungry or clothing the naked? Of nothing so beneficial could the noble Lord boast; and whenever he might present himself to his constituents, he could lay claim to no merit as respected his proposition, for the benefit, or rather the alleged benefit, of the people of Ireland. Besides that, whenever and wherever questions of that kind came to be discussed, the parties discussing them would recollect that the Whigs had passed the Septennial Act—that they had introduced the excise, and would have forced it into private houses if they could; they would recollect, too, who was the unsuccessful author of the Dissenters' Marriage Bill. It was now, then, for the House to consider what had best be done under the circumstances of that unhappy country, for it was quite evident that the scheme of the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, would never do any good—that it would never satisfy the people of either country, and that it would lead to nothing but confusion and bloodshed. With the permission of the House, he 672 would himself lay before them a plan which he thought would meet the occasion—he would revert to the original design of tithes. They were, as it was well known, chiefly intended for the benefit of the poor, and the mass of the people of Ireland came under the description of poor. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the town of Cambridge, stated in the strongest manner the case of the poor, and acts of Parliament fully recognized their rights. By more than one statute of Henry 8th, the claims of the poor were fully admitted, and Dr. Doyle, in his celebrated letter to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the town of Cambridge, said, "there is little doubt that in the more ancient and pure times of the Church all its revenue was the patrimony of the poor;" and Selden, whom he could add to the authority of Dr. Doyle—Selden stated that between the years 800 and 1200, tithes were called patrimonia pauperum et stipendia pauperum—they belonged to the poor, and were granted to the clergy in trust non quasi suis, sed quasi commendatis. He could not be brought to believe that if there were any surplus it ought to be given to education—it ought to be given to assist the aged and the infirm, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide generally for the wants of those who could not provide for themselves. By every motive of humanity, by every consideration of a prudent policy, he entreated the House to look to the origin of tithes, and pay some respect to the wishes of those by whom they had been granted. The 27th of Henry 8th, cap. 28, and the 31st of Henry 8th, cap. 13, which gave the property of the monasteries to the King, contained an express saving of the rights of the poor, and Dr. Doyle, at one time, nearly resolved to try the question of that right, but he said that Lord Manners was Chancellor, and that the temper of the times was unfavourable. Having done all in his power to press upon the attention of the House the claims of the poor, at least so far as it was in his individual power to do so, he should now proceed to urge those claims in language much more eloquent than any of which he was master. In the words of Dr. Doyle, he should say—"You complain of rack-rents and tithes, and want of employment, and of the ejection of poor tenants from their holdings. There is but one legal remedy for these evils—let no man deceive you, 673 there is but one remedy for them, and that remedy is a legal provision for the poor. Let every man, therefore, who wishes that a competition for land should cease—let every man who desires to see the poor exempted from famine and disease—who desires to see the widow clothed, the orphan fed, and the stranger taken in,—let every man who is sincerely anxious that the law of nature be not violated, and the law of Christ fulfilled, petition Parliament to enact a legal provision for our poor. Let every man who is sincere in his professions of desiring to see the income derived from the soil of Ireland expended within the country in the improvement of that soil, and in the employment of a people to be supported as labourers, that they may not be paupers, let every such man lay aside his doubts and fears, or schemes of personal profit to be realized from the life-blood of his fellow-countrymen,—let every such person petition Parliament for a legal provision for the poor." To this he should not attempt to add anything. He should content himself with saying, that if the House affirmed the Motion of the noble Lord, he should move as an Amendment, to leave out the words in the original Motion "the general education of all classes of his Majesty's people, without distinction of religious persuasion;" for the purpose of adding these words, "be applied to the relief of the poor in such manner as Parliament in its wisdom shall see fit." [Mr. O'Connell: "The hon. Member has not stated how he will vote."] The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had reminded him that he had altogether forgotten to say which way he intended to vote. Now, he would say, that seeing the dangers to which the Resolution of the noble Lord would lead—seeing that with all the noble Lord's wisdom and sagacity, with all the long time which he had occupied in the concoction of that resolution, assisted as he was by his party—he had at last only produced a measure which, if acted upon, would lead directly to a civil war in Ireland, he (Mr. Richards) felt that he should degrade himself and depart from the duty which he owed to his constituents, and to the country at large, if he voted for it. He would cordially join in meeting it with a direct negative.
§ Mr. Sergeant Wildeassured the House that he was at all times unwilling to obtrude himself on its attention, and in 674 doing so on this occasion he would bring as a claim to their patient indulgence, the intention to confine himself strictly to the merits of the question before them. The importance of that question was admitted on all hands. The discussions on it would go forth to the public, and it was more than insinuated that the public would take a very different view of it from that which he confidently hoped would be taken by a large majority of that House. To prevent any mistake being made elsewhere as to the grounds on which he should vote, he felt it necessary to state the opinions which he held on it. It appeared to him that notwithstanding its importance considerable misrepresentations had already been made as to the nature and objects of this Motion. Objections were made to it on the ground of the form, the time, and the circumstances under which it was brought forward. He knew nothing of the intentions of the noble Lord who brought the Motion forward but what he learned from the proceedings in that House, but he owned that he did rejoice that it was brought forward at the present time and in its present form; and when it was said that it was a question of confidence or no confidence in Ministers, he did hope, that in the sense in which he viewed it, it would not be decided without reference to that question, and, in that respect, he thought it was wisely, judiciously, and fairly presented to their notice. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had himself more than once expressed a hope that the question should be so placed before the House, and it was only fair towards the right hon. Baronet that he should be placed in a situation to know, and that hon. Members should have the opportunity of showing to their constituents, what were the opinions of the House with respect to the right hon. Baronet's Administration. Circumstanced as the country now was, he thought it was the duty of hon. Members to lose no time in stating, if they so thought, that they had no confidence in the present Government. The noble Lord had, therefore, he repeated, taken a wise and judicious course in submitting this question as a test of confidence or no confidence in the present Administration. The right hon. Baronet was admitted on all hands to be possessed of admirable talents, and there was none in which he more excelled than the talent for debate. If, then, the question of confidence or no confidence 675 had been brought forward in a simple and isolated form, no man knew better than the right hon. Baronet how such a question could be defeated. He could easily imagine the arguments by which the right hon. Baronet would attempt to show how little grounds the House had for taking such a course, and how little information the House yet possessed for coming to a conclusion on a motion in that shape. What were the circumstances under which the right hon. Baronet came to office? He would admit that the right hon. Baronet had not accepted office from any interested or ambitious motives. On the contrary, he did the right hon. Baronet only justice in believing that he had taken office solely from a sense of public duty. If the House should declare its confidence in him, no doubt a sense of duty would urge him to continue his services to the Crown and to the public; and there could be as little doubt that if the opinion of the House should be declared against him, the same sense of public duty would induce him to retire from office. How could the House and the public know the grounds which existed for confidence in Ministers? They could only judge of those grounds by their knowledge of the principles on which they were disposed to govern, those principles being taken from their declarations or acts. Now the right hon. Baronet had declared that he did not understand the principles of the Reform Bill; and he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) would say, that no man was fit to be a Minister of this country who did not thoroughly understand, and who was not prepared to carry out, the principles of the Reform Bill. For his own part, he would say that no one ought to be in any doubt as to what the principles and objects of the Reform Bill were; to bring the institutions of the country under the correction of the public, exercised by its representatives in Parliament—to review our institutions—to see if they answered the purposes for which they were designed—to see if they required modifications to make them useful for their original object. Knowing what he did of the opinions of the right hon. Baronet, and considering his declaration as to Reform, he had little doubt of the course the right hon. Baronet was likely to take; but if he had had any doubt on the subject, it would have been dissipated when he saw those who were the right hon. Baronet's supporters; and who were they? Were they not those who 676 could not see that there was any abuse to remedy, and who therefore naturally enough opposed all the remedies which had been suggested by others? But the right hon. Baronet had said, that he was a reformer. Everybody said that he was a reformer nowadays; but to bring this to a test, the question was not whether a man said he was a reformer, but what was his power of discovering and his estimate of an abuse. Now, when he saw those hon. Gentlemen who supported the right hon. Baronet—when he found from their speeches and their votes what was their estimate of an abuse, he owned that he had made up his mind to this—that if the right hon. Baronet attempted to carry on the government of the country by the agency of such men, it never could be efficient as a Reform Government; and he owned that his confidence in the Government of the right hon. Baronet was not increased when he heard the right hon. Baronet himself declare that he, as a Minister, had this advantage—that his measures were more likely to be carried in the House of Lords than if they had come from other quarters, thereby intimating, as he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) understood it, that there were some who would wish to see a collision between the two Houses. If there were any such, he was not one of them; but he was, he admitted, much surprised to hear such a statement from the head of an Administration, on whose behalf the doctrine of "measures, not men" had been so strongly put forward.
§ Mr. Charltonrose to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, he considered, out of order. The Question before the House related to the Irish Church Establishment, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was now speaking wholly on the question of confidence in Ministers.
§ The Speaker intimated to Mr. Sergeant Wilde to proceed.
§ Mr. Sergeant Wildesaid, he was sure the hon. Member who had interrupted him had altogether mistaken the subject of the debate. He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) was alluding to a declaration of the right hon. Baronet, that he possessed an advantage which another Minister was not likely to have—that measures of his would have a chance of being favourably received in the House of Lords. What was that but to say, that the Lords would not decide by the merits of the measures which might come before them, but rather by the men 677 by whom such measures might be introduced. This then was, in effect, to say that the measures to which that House might agree were to be decided by the Lords, not on their estimate of the opinions of that House, but rather on their opinion of the individuals by whom those measures were introduced. Whatever might be the opinion of the right hon. Baronet as to the advantage which he possessed in this respect, it certainly afforded no ground to him (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) for any confidence in the right, hon. Baronet's Government. When Parliament met, it became important to know what would be the estimate of an abuse by the hon. Members whom the right hon. Baronet had chosen as his colleagues in the Government; and who were they, and what were their opinions? They thought that the Test and Corporation Acts were not an abuse—that the Grievances of the Cutholics were not an abuse—that the Slate of Negro Slavery was not an abuse—and lastly, that the State of the Representation before the Reform Act passed was not an abuse. Under these circumstances, what ground of confidence could he have in a Government, consisting in part of, and generally supported by such men? On these grounds, then, he was glad that the noble Lord had brought forward the present motion in its present form; and he would beg to ask hon. Members opposite, whether they considered the present state of Church property in Ireland an abuse? He would ask them did they consider the Irish Church with its immense revenues—its highly paid clergy, so many of whom were without congregations—an abuse? If they did not, he could have no confidence in the Government of which they formed a part, or of which they were amongst the most prominent supporters. He begged pardon of the hon. Member who had called him to order if he had not sufficiently impressed on him that there was a close connexion between the Question of the present condition of the Irish Church, and the Question of confidence or no confidence in the present Administration. The next topic to which he would advert, was one which often occupied the attention of the House, he could not say always advantageously; he meant the question of inconsistency. It was a question which might be important to an individual, but the question, whether the measure he proposed was valuable—was much more im- 678 portant to the community. He owned, however, that the charge of inconsistency which had been advanced against the noble Member for Devonshire, appeared to him to be without the slightest foundation. He did not presume to be the noble Lord's defender; he trusted that the noble Lord would not suppose that he could be guilty of such officiousness; but, looking at those records by which the country at large was put in possession of the details of what passed in that House, he must repeat, that he could not discover the slightest foundation for the charge of inconsistency which had been brought against the noble Lord. The late Ministers had expressly declared, recognised, and proposed to act on, the principle which was comprehended in the Motion which was now before the House. No pledge had therefore been necessary from them on the subject. They issued a Commission of Inquiry. In so doing, they recognised the principle; and that being done, they suspended the proceeding until the Report of that Commission had been made. Whether or not this last step was an expedient one, he was not prepared to say; but this he would say, that when that Government which recognized the principle of reform retired from office, and was succeeded by a Government which repudiated the principle of reform, the difference was one of vital importance to the best interests of the people. Under the one Government, the country knew that all the measures proposed were directed to the benefit of the people—under the other Government, the country knew that there was reason to apprehend the very reverse; to apprehend that the measures proposed would not be directed to the benefit of the people. It became highly important therefore, to know whether or not his Majesty's present Government thought the present state of the Irish Church, an abuse; whether they thought that it would be desirable to correct that abuse, with a view of applying funds so abused to more legitimate purposes. Deep as was the interest which they must take in all that concerns the honour and consistency of the noble Lord, he trusted that the House would be guided in their decision on the present Question, solely by the consideration of the effect which that decision would have on the interests of the country. In addressing the House, he addressed it as a zealous Protestant, and as one con- 679 vinced of the necessity of a separate Establishment, and anxious to support it. He would not wish to reduce the emoluments of the Establishment, so as to diminish its usefulness; but he called on the House as a Protestant himself, and as a friend of the Protestant Establishment, to adopt the Motion before them. He believed it to be the duty of every sincere Protestant to contribute to this desirable result. He could easily conceive that Catholics might object to the Motion; but he could see no moral reason whatever why a Protestant should do so.—Much had been said of the inalienability of the property of the Church. He was glad to hear his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, apply himself to this part of the Question, because he well knew that all which talents and diligence could bring to bear upon it, would be brought by his hon. and learned Friend. But his hon. and learned Friend had completely failed to establish his proposition; and he defied any one to establish it. The principle on which the proposed interference with the property of the Church Establishment proceeded, had been recognized by the law over and over again. At various times, statutes had been passed applying the surplus revenues of the Church to other purposes. At various times, after the reign of Henry the 8th, and the suppression of the monasteries, statutes had passed taxing the Church revenue in some cases a tenth, in other cases a twentieth; and applying the proceeds sometimes to Ecclesiastical and sometimes to Secular purposes. What, he should like to know, was to become of the titles of lay impropriators, if Parliament had not the power to apply the revenues of the Church to any but Ecclesiastical purposes. This part of the Question was not treated by his hon. and learned Friend on the broad and intelligible principle on which it really stood. The property under consideration belonged originally to the Catholic Establishment. It was beyond all doubt originally the property of Catholics, whether by donations of private individuals or by gift of the Crown. But he had never heard that the property had been transferred by the Catholics. The property was not taken from them, but they were taken from the property; and, after the Reformation was established, certain oaths were ordered to be taken, which excluded those who were conscien- 680 tious adherents to the Catholic religion, from having any share in, or dominion over, Church-property. Thus the followers of that religion, which certainly had done more acts of piety and benevolence than any other, were driven from the ownership of that property which, by various titles, they once possessed. The argument of those who opposed any interference with the grants of the Church, went to the declaration that the character of that Church was wholly unimportant. As if those grants were made only to the professors of a religion, and not to the professors of that particular religion which had with it the hearts and affections of the people. They had now a Church Establishment in Ireland supported by property originally directed to the support of the Catholic religion. When the Catholic religion ceased to be the religion of the State, that property could not in many instances be applied according to the intentions of the donors? What was then to be done with it? It could not be returned to the donors. The State seized and took possession of it, and applied it as public property for the support of religion. He would never be a party to the withdrawal of one shilling from the Establishment, which might be required for its efficiency: but could any individual doubt that the Irish Church stood in a situation requiring investigation and reform? His hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, had called their attention that night to the fact that the present Establishment of that Church was one sufficient to maintain it when the whole population was of the Catholic religion; and when they looked to the increase which had taken place in the value of the property since that time, and the small increase of Protestantism in the same period—when they saw that many Bishoprics had been found unnecessary, and that there were many parishes without a single Protestant in them but the paid clergyman, did they not see a case calling on a British Parliament for inquiry and reform? He would take the same view as had been taken by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland—he would consider this as trust property—and he would appeal to him whether the trustees were not now abusing that property? What he asked the House was simply this—that they should faithfully and honourably execute the trust annexed to it. He contended that the 681 Legislature had a right, beyond all doubt, to dispose of it; but he would admit the qualifications and restraints imposed by the right hon. Baronet. There had been a mistake hitherto committed in this discussion which he thought to require notice. For whom was it that the Church Establishment had been instituted? Was it for the Ministers of the Church, or for the congregation? The question had been argued as though the Establishment had been erected merely for the purpose of supporting so many clergymen. Dr. Paley had been quoted? but how did he treat the matter? He had said, "A Church Establishment is no part of Christianity; it is only the means of inculcating it." He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) called on the House to apply the property to those means. Let them see what had been the consequence of its present application—what had been the result of the revenues originally devoted to the support of the Catholic religion, being for so many years in the hands of the Protestants. Had not Protestantism declined? Had those funds been applied, then, in the most beneficial manner for the purposes to which they were originally destined; He owned that he was surprised, after the speeches he had heard from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, how they could reconcile it to their honour as gentlemen, or to their characters as statesmen, after what they had heard from the right hon. Member for Cambridge, of so many Protestant clergymen deriving large revenues, not for the performance of clerical duties, but deriving them from parishes where no Protestant congregations existed—he was, he repeated, at a loss to know how they could reconcile it to their sense of justice to call this a right application of the trust for which such property was given. Would they maintain that this property was held in trust solely for the ministers of the Church, without any reference to the fact of whether or not they had congregations? If they did, he would only observe, that there were still some, who, while they got rid of schedule A in politics as a disgrace, consented to retain it in religion. He had already referred to the opinion of Dr. Paley on the subject of a Church Establishment. What had that reverend Divine said of those clergymen who pocketed the revenues of the Church 682 without the performance of any clerical duties? He had broadly stated it as his opinion, that they were guilty of little less than robbery. Now when they heard, as they did every day, of complaints of the state of destitution, of the state of gross ignorance in which so many of the peasantry of Ireland were kept, he would ask, was it to be stated that it was necessary for the interest of the Protestant religion that these poor people should be denied the advantage of religious instruction? He did not ask to give anything to the Catholics by taking away what was necessary for the Protestants. But was it not unreasonable, was it not unjust, to refuse to the Catholics for their moral and religious instruction that which the Protestants did not require? He would say to the Protestants, but do not decide on this question against the principles of the religion which you profess. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had professed himself a religious man—a profession, he hoped, there was no Member of that House who would not be ready to make when necessary; but he feared that, if hon. Members were to vie there in professions of religion, the House would soon be distinguished by some of those characteristics of which the right hon. Baronet spoke in alluding to a former period of our history, and that many would be found amongst them to whom some of the terms of the historian, quoted by the right hon. Baronet, would be applicable. He, of course, did not, in any degree, allude to the right hon. Baronet himself, the sincerity of whose professions no one could for a moment doubt. He would now ask, had the revenues of the Church been applied to useful purposes? And here he would say, that, if he had to deal only with the right hon. Baronet, it would greatly shorten the discussion. The right hon. Baronet, when the subject, was under discussion on a former occasion, had not objected to it on the ground that he required any additional information to that which he then possessed. He had not then stated that it would be necessary to wait for the Report of Commissioners; for that all that was necessary to form a practical opinion on the subject was at that time within their reach. Now, half the time of the present discussion had been consumed in objecting to the Motion on the ground that no adequate information respecting it was before them. The right hon. Ba- 683 ronet had, however, taken different grounds; and, if his argument would have applied then, it would apply with more force at present. "Do you think," said the right hon. Baronet, "that you are taking a safe course, and that you can keep the public in Ireland in tranquillity, so long as you keep this great Question in abeyance?" He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it was not safe, and it was still less so now than it was then; but the question had been allowed to remain in abeyance ever since. The right hon. Baronet had well said, that Ireland could not be kept in tranquillity while the question was undisposed of, and that it would be wrong to wait until such complicated inquiries as the Commissioners were to make should have been gone through. The question, the right hon. Baronet said, was not one of abstract right, for on that there could be no difference of opinion; but it was simply whether they had a right to apply Church property to secular purposes, and they were as ripe for the decision of that question then, as they could be if they waited for the result of long and tedious inquiries. These were the opinions of the right hon. Baronet, and they were distinguished for that good sound sense which generally marked every thing that fell from him in that House. Without going further into them, he would leave the hon. Gentlemen opposite to settle that question, as to insufficient information, with the right hon. Baronet, before they proceeded farther. It had sometimes been held and considered that public suspicion in reference to any great question was a proper and sufficient ground for Parliamentary inquiry and alteration. Look, then, at the state of the Irish Protestant Church; and would any man assert that, in respect to it, the public mind was not pregnant with suspicion. That had, as yet, not been denied; for how had the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) met the arguments contained in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridge? In short, how had the arguments advanced by those hon. Members who had spoken from his (Mr. Sergeant Wilde's) side of the House been answered by hon. Members opposite?—he ventured to say, in no one way. Now was the time when the great principle contained in the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, ought to be recognized by the Commons House of Parliament—a 684 principle which, he would add, was not limited to the present Question, the first, he trusted, of a series in the progress of reform; and he was rejoiced that, by the present Resolution, the Question of the adoption of that principle was not raised upon a trifling matter, but upon a subject of the deepest general and public importance. He would ask, could any abuse, whatever have so evil a tendency as that which had a tendency to draw the affections of the people from the national Church? Such a slate of things proved a fitting subject upon which to commence a series of reforms; and, above all, the existing condition of the Church of Ireland, and the effects consequent thereon, presented a case showing the necessity of immediate inquiry. That being so, was the House now in a situation to enter into an investigation?—was it merely for the sake of perplexing the House with mere figures, that it should delay such investigation until it was precisely found what was the number of parishes in Ireland in which the ministers had no duties to perform, and until returns were made of the number of sinecure clergymen, and the amount of their stipends? Was it necessary to delay inquiry when it was admitted that sinecure parishes did, amongst other abuses, exist? It was true, it had been said, and, indeed, it was the only answer attempted to the statement as to sinecure incumbencies, that, if the number of all sinecure clergymen were to divide all their emoluments equally, it would be found the average stipend was about 300l. per annum to each. This might be true, but, on the other hand, it had not been stated what would be the saving effected, if 300l. per annum was paid, to every incumbent who had duties to perform, while all payments were withheld from the sine-curists who had none. Such a calculation had not been submitted to the House during the whole of the present discussion. But these facts were, in his humble judgment, amply sufficient to justify this inquiry, and he dismissed the proposition suggested of waiting for the consideration of these particulars and figures, because the House was not, on the present occasion, dealing with the revenues of the Church, but with a question of principle. It, however, was impossible not to say that there must be a surplus of those revenues. If those revenues were fairly distributed and administered, it appeared to him that 685 there would be no fear of the public misunderstanding this question—they would not be mistaken in a measure directed to the support of the Protestant Church Establishment, because by the application of its surplus funds to the purposes of education, that application was calculated to increase that Church and the blessings which it bestowed. Such was the object of the present Resolution, and unless the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government could persuade the public that clergymen who had no duties to discharge ought to enjoy those revenues, or could convince them that such a system was beneficial to the Church, they would not doubt the principles of those who opposed and those who supported the present proposition. What was asked by those who thought with him was this—how, when it was found the revenues of the Irish Church had nut produced the good which had been contemplated, when the cause of Protestantism had not been advanced under the present distribution—when whole parishes were existing in which sinecure clergymen had no duties to perform—when it was apparent to every candid mind that the revenues were more than sufficient to enable the Church to perform every duty it was called upon to discharge, how were those surplus revenues to be applied? Was the surplus to be retained with a view to increase funds already sufficiently large properly to remunerate the clergy, and to afford them the means of independently exercising their office, and that, too, without the degradation to which, under the present system, they were exposed? His friends, and many hon. Members who concurred with him, were the advocates for strict law—that the ministers who had duties to discharge should be supported in their characters as Christian ministers; but were they not justified as men, as Christians, and as legislators, in seeing that the remuneration was not excessive? Were they not right in asking for such an application of the surplus as that suggested in the Resolution? Of this he entertained no doubt. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge, had last night shown that general education had already been made a charge upon the members of the Irish Protestant Church. How had the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, answered that statement? Why, by stating that the act was that of 686 a conqueror. It, however, ought not to be forgotten, that the same conqueror who had made the charge for education had also given the religion to the country in which that charge was imposed. How had that been treated by the right reverend Prelates who had been referred to? They had not repudiated the Act as one of spoliation on the part of Parliament. On the contrary, they had felt that, unfortunately, there was a want of due attention to education—that the Reformed Church had failed of its object—and that, though possessed of revenues, the Church had kept the whole grant in their own pockets instead of applying a portion to educational purposes. What then was the principle established in the instance cited by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge—an instance which still remained unanswered? It was neither more nor less than the principle which was to be found in the present. Resolution that the surplus revenues, after all the wants of the Church were supplied, should be appropriated to the religious instruction of Christians of all denominations. Would it be denied that the reason why the Protestant Church had made so few converts was the ignorance in which the people had so long been allowed to remain? And he would ask, what could increase the strength and the stability of Protestantism in Ireland so much as the education of its children? Here he must complain of the misrepresentations which, in the course of the present debate, had been made by hon. Members opposite of the arguments which had been advanced by those who occupied the same benches as himself; in short, every statement which had been advanced in favour of the adoption of the proposition under consideration had been treated as so many recommendations for it Repeal of the Union. Equally, too, had the necessary reference which had been made to the grievances affecting Ireland been misapplied. But how stood those grievances? To that to which the Resolution referred only would he apply himself. The mark of degradation had been placed upon the Roman Catholic Church, and against it, and in support of the Protestant Church, the most cruel persecutions had been resorted to. If he did not feel that it would be neither proper nor useful, at this period of the discussion, he would call the attention of the House to the horrid and scandalous bar- 687 barities practised in Ireland, which would most abundantly account for the state of Irish feelings towards the Protestant Church Establishment in that country. Suffice it to say, that the Protestant Church in Ireland ever had been, and was still, a monument of the wrongs inflicted upon, and the injuries endured by, the Roman Catholic population. It was the desire of those who supported the Resolution, to correct the existing errors, and to remedy the consequences of these wrongs—to increase the strength and prosperity of the Protestant Church—to do an act of kindly justice to the Roman Catholics—an act also beneficial to the best interests of the Protestants, but, at the same time in no way to benefit the Roman Catholic Church. He, for one, firmly believed that the adoption of the Resolution would lay a strong hold upon the intelligence of Ireland, and would eventually increase the number of the Protestant population. In his judgment, also, the only means of placing Irishmen in a situation truly to estimate the principles of the Protestant Church, was the education of the people. If unhappy feelings now existed between the Protestants and the Catholics, how different would be the case in future times, when the children of both had been, in their earliest years, brought together and educated in the same school—the place of all others best adapted for the creation of those friendly associations never afterwards to be disturbed: this association would grow up with the parents, who, finding their children educated at the expense of the Protestant Establishment, would lose their hostility to it, and regard it as a protector. In short, it would soften the asperities of each class. He said, then, that the alienation sought was not an alienation for purposes other than Protestant purposes. The education of the people was one of the duties incumbent upon the Legislature. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has confined those duties to two objects, viz., "to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry." The hon. Member had omitted to add the third, "to instruct the ignorant." As a Protestant, did not the hon. Member imagine that he had a duty to perform in improving the moral character even of the Catholic? Were not Protestants interested in teaching the Catholic the duties of civil obedience, the duties of charity, the duty of 688 stifling feelings Which led to outrage and violence? Assuredly they were; and not only did they give themselves the chance, indeed the certainty, of making proselytes, by rendering the Catholic educated instead of ignorant, but the satisfaction and advantage of converting a turbulent and discontented people into orderly and loyal subjects. But it had been said, that there would be no surplus funds to apply to this desirable object. Now he could not help thinking that if the Protestants could gain the credit of so charitable a resolution without expense, there would be less opposition to it. If hon. Members opposite in their hearts thought that nothing but the expression of opinion would result from the Resolution, he believed they might agree to it. He was inclined to think, therefore, that the vigour of their opposition arose from some latent doubts that what had been enough for the Catholic Establishment in its full vigour, that what had allowed of several Bishoprics being suppressed, would, in the result, yield a surplus capable of being applied to the purposes contemplated by the Resolution. Nothing in the shape of a reason had in reality been urged in answer to the arguments advanced in support of the Resolution. It had, indeed, been said, that this step must be opposed, because it was the first of a series; but who was to decide upon what the next step should be? The Catholics of Ireland? No, but the British Parliament. Would the Catholics acquire any addition of physical force by the success of this Resolution? Would they acquire any accession of moral force? That would depend upon the nature of the next proposition they made. If it was one which they might in justice ask, and which they, as a Christian Legislature, ought to grant, he did trust that the education he hoped they would receive would indeed give them sufficient moral force successfully to press their claim upon the House. If they asked what was not consistent with the safety of the Protestant Church and of the country, what would become of the noble Lord and of the right hon. Baronet opposite, or of their children, if they were not here to oppose it? Surely, the next Parliament might be supposed to have discretion sufficient to judge of the propriety of any proposition submitted to them. What practical statesman had ever said, "Before I grant you this request, I must know 689 what will be your next demand?" Would acting unjustly, unwisely, and irreligiously by this Motion, enable them the better to resist the next, if it were a proper one? Let them recollect what they said when Catholic Emancipation and Reform had been urged upon them. He was astonished that right hon. Gentlemen could take so narrow, so unstatesman like a view of this question. A right hon. Baronet had called the present Motion a wedge. Was not the Reform Bill a wedge? And what would hon. Gentlemen say, if that question was decided with reference to the series of demands that would follow next after its concession? When the Reform Bill was passed, it was with the intent of its being a wedge to other reforms. Were they who spoke in favour of the Resolution Destructives? What could they gain by the destruction of the Church? It was to that Church they owed many comforts and benefits. By duty they were endeared to it, and they could have no possible interest in wishing to destroy the Protestant Establishment of the country. He hoped that this was the first of a series of good measures that would afford satisfaction and relief to the Catholics of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen said that, having passed the Reform Bill, it was treated with contempt; and they always brought forward similar futile arguments when questions of Reform were agitated. Ireland was in a state of agitation until the Emancipation Bill was passed, and if that measure did not fully relieve their grievances it was but just for them to ask for ulterior measures. Would the British public, not to speak of the Irish people, allow the continuance of the present state of things? If the present Resolution was met with a negative it would be but a short respite to the existing Government, and the rejection of it would cause the British public to doubt the views of Reform, and the practical measures of popular relief promised by that Government. This measure was first opposed with reference to the measures it was said it would lead to, and hon. Gentlemen on his side the House were next told to look to their associates, and asked what might not be expected from them. Why, Gentlemen on both sides the House professed themselves Reformers, and he did not expect such a taunt, for he might retort it, and ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, hitherto Reformers, to look to their associates. There could 690 be no great unanimity among them, for the view of the matter taken by the hon. Member for Knaresborough was that the surplus fund should revert to what he deemed its original destination, the relief of the poor, while other hon. Gentlemen on the same side insisted that it should all remain devoted to Ecclesiastical purposes. He did not consider that there was good sense or fairness in the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. For his own part, he begged to say, that he was always ready to support any Government that brought forward good measures for the people, and he would be no partisan, of any other. Let the right hon. Baronet bring forward good measures of Reform, and he would soon be on the same side of the House with the right hon. Gentleman. He agreed with the hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House only to a certain extent; but whilst he avowed this he saw no absurdity in voting for the present Resolution, as it did not pledge him to go to an unlimited extent. He was ready to assist in reforming the abuses of the Church, but he would go no further, and he would leave them when they proposed any thing that extended beyond that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite amused themselves with supposing that all persons who voted for the present Resolution were agreed as to how far they should go, and they argued that, as some hon. Members on his side of the House were for the Repeal of the Union, those who supported them now should support them also on that Question. All he said in answer was, that when hon. Gentlemen brought forward the question of the Repeal of the Union, he should be found voting against them. Let hon. Gentlemen go beyond the principle involved in this Resolution, and they would speedily find their party considerably diminished. He would again repeat, that nothing could be more delusive than to discuss this Question with reference to ulterior measures. Arguments should be weighed and directed to the measure more immediately under consideration. It need not be feared that they would go too far, for the moment he saw opinions advanced in support of measures inconsistent with the interests of the Established Church, that moment he would oppose them. What he wanted was to purify the Church, and, by doing so, more firmly fix it in the affection of the public. It was wrong to judge the arguments of Gentlemen on his 691 side the House, not by their intrinsic merit, but according to the opinions of some individuals who voted in favour of the same question. Such a judgment was unjust towards the country and towards the individuals who were in favour of the Resolution solely with the view of supporting the Established Church, and advancing its real interests. He hoped, that in supporting the Resolution, he should not be considered as doing so with the design of injuring the Protestants, for all he wished was, that Irish children should be educated according to the wishes of their parents. It was not proposed to draw from the Protestant Establishment one shilling that was necessary for it—it was not proposed to meddle with the interests of any person living; all that was sought for was to apply the surplus revenue, if any, of the Irish Church to the purposes of general education. He did not wish to deprive the Catholic Church of the means of improvement; he did not wish that it should consider itself a persecuted Church, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would throw off the appearance of wishing to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by calling upon all hon. Members who wished to perpetuate the Irish Protestant Church to agree to the Resolution; and as he had heard no sufficient arguments urged against its adoption he sincerely hoped that it would be carried by a large majority.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnexpressed himself sensible of the disadvantages under which he laboured in rising to address the House at that late period of the discussion; but his position gave him this advantage, that he had not only before him the motion of the noble Lord, guarded in its terms so as to unite as many as possible against the Government, but the opinions of the different parties who supported that motion, both as they appeared in the speeches of those who had addressed the House, and as they might be gathered from the no less significant silence of others. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had said, that the resistance of the Government to this Motion showed a determination to resist all reform; but, on the part of the Government, he denied the soundness of that proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, moreover, been pleased to characterize the Church of England as established in Ireland a sinecure Church 692 but that proposition he denied also. The duties discharged by the Ministers of that Church were not to be estimated by the numbers professing its doctrines, but by the difficulties that obstructed the execution of their duty, and the progress of the religion of which they were the ministers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Irish was a sinecure Church, because the right hon. Member for Cambridge had produced a certain number of instances in the diocese of Limerick in which there were few or no resident Protestants. He knew not the sources from whence his right hon. Friend had drawn his information—he knew not the grounds upon which his statement was founded; but he knew, he thought, enough of the state of Ireland to be enabled to afford an explanation that would be satisfactory to the House as to the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He believed that the absence of individual Protestants in the parishes to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, arose not from any want of the proper discharge of the duties vested in the Protestant clergy, but from that which he and his right hon. Friends around him were as anxious as the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House could be to remedy; namely, the grievous abuses which existed in the Established Church; and to remedy which was the great object of the Government in maintaining the revenues of the Church. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House might cheer, but he contended that, unless the revenues of the Church were maintained, it would be impossible for Parliament effectually to remedy the abuses which existed in it. He was further confident that the particular cases to which his right hon. Friend referred, were parishes constituting parts of unions in Ireland. It was not new to the House that in that country it had been the practice—a practice which he had always denounced—a practice which he (Mr. Goulburn), long before the question of Church Reform was brought forward, had deprecated, and for the remedy of which he had actually introduced a measure to Parliament, the practice of uniting several parishes together, and giving to them all only one Church and one clergyman. He had always regarded those unions as one of the great practical evils of Ireland; and, as he had already stated, he had introduced 693 a measure for the purpose of dissolving them. He was not, indeed, a Reformer in the sense of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because when he found an evil, he endeavoured to discover an appropriate remedy for it, and did not turn round upon the Established Church and say, "I will not seek to purge your abuses, but I will destroy you altogether." He had no doubt that the parishes to which his right hon. Friend referred were parts of unions; and it was obvious that where several parishes had been united for the purpose of forming one benefice, the Protestant population were necessarily withdrawn from those parishes in which there was no Church and no clergyman to the one particular parish of the union in which the Church was situated, and in which the residence of the clergyman was placed. He said, then, that when the hon. Gentleman opposite took particular parishes, and said, "Here is no Protestant—here you have neglected your duly, and abandoned your charge—here you have no flock—here you are not necessary;—here, therefore, you shall be abolished;" when such language was used, he said it was most unfair in point of argument, and utterly unfounded in point of fact. Without having any reference to documents, and without knowing the names of the parishes to which his right hon. Friend had referred, he was satisfied that it was correct to state, that they constituted parts of those unions which he for one, had always so strongly deprecated. Such, then, were the circumstances upon which the argument against the Established Church in Ireland was founded. For the sake of the argument he would admit for a moment that the Church in Ireland was a sinecure. If there were one office which, by the misconduct or neglect of the holder of it, had become a sinecure, but which was yet a necessary office, what would be the proper course to pursue?—to abolish it, because, though it was necessary, it had been neglected, or to adopt some means by which its original efficiency and usefulness might be restored? In his opinion, the latter would be the more accurate, nay, he might say the only proper course to pursue. In his opinion, it was better to reform than to destroy. He spoke not from surmise, but from the recorded authority of one whose religious views differed from those of the Established Church, when he stated that when 694 churches were erected in Ireland, so far from finding no Protestant congregations, there did invariably come out of the multitude around persons who previously, from the want of any instructor in their own views of religion, had conformed to the forms of a church with the doctrines of which they were in their hearts totally at variance. Such then would be his mode of correcting the sinecures to which his right hon. Friend had alluded ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. O'Connell]. He heard and understood the cheers of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; but to that hon. and learned Gentleman he was not addressing himself. His observations were directed to another, who professed, and he (Mr. Goulburn) was sure felt what he professed, a desire to maintain the Established Church in Ireland. If there were such instances as had been stated, in which religious duties had been neglected—whether the evil arose from the culpability of the incumbent, the error of Parliament, or the want of proper attention in former governments, he still maintained that it was the duty of the House in the first instance, to apply the revenues of the Church towards the remedy of the evils that had crept into the Church. But if they adopted the Resolution of the noble Lord which was then before them, they would effectually incapacitate the Government, and the Legislature from putting the Church of Ireland upon that proper footing upon which it ought to stand; and, moreover, they would violate one of the first and most sacred principles by which a Legislature ought to be actuated. They would take the first step towards the utter subversion of that part of the Established Church which was situated in Ireland; they would compromise the rights and property of the Established Church in that country. What did the noble Lord's Resolution propose? It assumed, in the first place, that there was a surplus of revenue in the Irish Church after having provided for the spiritual instruction of the population in the forms of the Established religion. He said assumed that point, because it was impossible to revert to the course that the debate had taken upon this question without perceiving that, whilst every Gentleman who had spoken on the opposite side of the House had boldly asserted that there was a surplus, yet not one had explained how that surplus was to arise. In point of fact, they 695 had statements before them to show that, instead of any surplus, the funds of the Church were actually inefficient, and must for years continue inefficient, to meet all the purposes of the Established Church. But the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh, exclaimed, "Tell me not of accounts—weary me not with statements of figures—attempt not by such means to show me whether there be a surplus or not—it makes no difference in my opinion. I call this a sinecure Church because certain statements have been made which inform me that in some instances there are no Protestant congregations." The passing of the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord—if the house should be ill-advised enough to adopt it, would produce this result. Hereafter the revenues of the Church would not be administered with a view to promote the spiritual welfare of the people and having raised the expectations of the Catholic population that they were to benefit by the surplus to be obtained out of the revenue of the Established Church, the next course necessarily taken would be to make a surplus that should be adequate to the expectations of the people. The Resolution told the Roman Catholic population that large funds were to be applied to their advantage, when every man who inquired into the subject was fully aware that if the wants of the Established Church were properly provided for, the surplus of its revenue—if, indeed, there were any surplus at all—would be extremely small. This was admitted by the hon. Member for Limerick. Gentlemen were too apt (and he had observed it, with regret, in the course of the present discussion) to consider that part of the Established Church which was situated in Ireland as being an object of attachment and veneration only to those who were the acknowledged members of it. But the Established Church in Ireland stood as a pillar of the true faith, to which not only its own Members, but the other Protestants of Ireland looked for protection and support. He was happy indeed to hear, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Littleton) the Member for Staffordshire last night, an admission to this effect—that the Establishment in Ireland was dear not only to the members of the Church in that country, but also to those Protestants who differed from the Church of Rome, and who looked to the Established Church st heir strongest support and stoutest 696 bulwark against the ingress of infidelity. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Staffordshire, told the House that Ireland had lately been divided into two great parties, the one eager to support, the other to destroy, the Established Church—that large meetings were held by both parties, and that the effects of the meetings of the one party were as injurious as the meetings of the other. The right hon. Gentleman alluded particularly to a Protestant meeting that had taken place in the county of Down, for the purpose of upholding the Church against the attacks that were supposed to be meditated against her; but the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the minuteness of his account upon other particulars, forgot to mention that that meeting was composed in great part of the Presbyterians of Ireland, who were anxious to combine with the members of the Established Church, not for the support of that Church merely as a Church representing the doctrines of the Church of England, bat as a Church which they looked upon as affording the best bulwark to Protestantism in Ireland. Upon tha ground they felt it to be their duty to support it. It was, then, because he saw in the noble Lord's Resolution the first step towards the invasion of the means by which the Church was to extend its influence, that he could have no hesitation in expressing his firm determination to oppose it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) who last addressed the House, had told them that the Resolution made no allusion to any alienation of Church-property to other purposes than those connected with the Established Church. It might, perhaps, be presumption in him (Mr Goulburn) to differ from an hon. and learned Gentleman so thoroughly conversant with the laws of the country; but when he heard the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman used upon that point, he confessed he felt no inconsiderable degree of surprise. He (Mr. Goulburn), for his part, was satisfied, that although no man could doubt or deny the power of Parliament to appropriate this or any other property to any purpose it might think fit, yet, in his opinion, the diversion of Church-property to purposes other than Ecclesiastical, was utterly at variance with the solemn and religious duties which were imposed upon every Legislature. How did the hon. and learned Gentleman vindicate such a diversion? 697 He said that Henry the 8th seized upon the property of the Catholic Church, and applied it to the enlargement of the estates of private individuals. The hon. and learned Gentleman was historically correct; but was there ever any man who did not consider the conduct of Henry a violation of the right of property? Was there ever a man, no matter what his religious opinions, who did not feel that the violent abstraction of the property of the abbeys and monasteries, and the application of it to other purposes, was an unjustifiable act of oppression? It had always been considered so by those who had any regard for the rights of property, whether private or corporate. But were they in these days to go back to the reign of Henry 8th for a precedent? Were they to learn from the arbitrary acts of that Sovereign how they were to administer the property of the Church in these days? Were they to imitate those acts of spoliation. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument brought them, also, to this conclusion—that if the great act of spoliation in the reign of Henry 8th. were to justify acts of a similar nature up to an interval of several hundred years, no portion of the property of the Church could for one moment be considered safe. When such an argument was adduced, what were they to expect, if they now began, by a fresh act, to divert the property of the Churches from those uses to which it was formerly devoted? He entirely concurred in the argument that had been used upon this subject by his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, who had established in the clearest manner that the property of the Established Church of the country devolved upon it, without reference to its first origin. If they were to look back at the periods, at which the greater mass of the property was left to the Established Church in England and in Ireland, they would find that by far the greater part of it was conferred at a time when the abuses at present complained of had not crept into the Church. If therefore, the Church were again purified, the funds which it derived from the munificent donations of our ancestors would be applied to all the purposes for which they were originally intended. He had said that the principle of the noble Lord's Resolution was, first, to assume a surplus of revenue. In that assumption he maintained the Resolution was, at least, prema- 698 ture. Its next object was so to administer the revenues of the Church as to be certain of procuring a surplus. But he (Mr. Goulburn) maintained that the indefinite character of the Resolution was, in itself, an element of danger. There was one point, upon which he had not heard any argument adduced; and it was one upon which he was induced to consider the noble Lord's Resolution as invading property, not merely of a corporate character, but property which had, at all times, universally been regarded as private property. The object that the noble Lord proposed to himself, and which had been shadowed out by the hon. Member for Limerick, was this—that where there were no Protestants in a parish, or where the number of Protestants, as compared with Catholics, was small, the property of the Church should be confiscated, and appropriated to the benefit and advantage of the Roman Catholic population. He knew not how the supporters of a Resolution having such an object in view, could reconcile to themselves such a mode of dealing with that species of property, which consisted in the private advowsons of the Church, and which he. (Mr. Goulburn), had always regarded as property of a private nature. In Ireland, no less than one-fourth of the whole Church preferment of the country stood in the condition of private advowsons of that description. If the noble Lord proposed to take from those parishes the means which they at present possessed of maintaining a Protestant clergyman and a Protestant Church, he wished the noble Lord, or some Friend of the noble Lord's, would explain to him how he proposed to get rid of the difficulty in which he would involve the tenure of that kind of private property. How did the noble Lord propose to escape from violating the vested rights of individuals over which the law had no control? See then, how the proposition worked—see how it remedied the evils that had crept into the Church. Some of the livings, situated as he had described, were amongst the largest in Ireland. Would the noble Lord, would the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was anxious for the abolition of sinecures, provide, that in those parishes the clergyman should remain in receipt of his income, whilst in the parish adjoining, where the proportion of Protestants to Catholics might be greater, no tithe at all should be collected? Was that the course by which 699 the noble Lord proposed to tranquillize Ireland? Did the noble Lord think that there would be that feeling amongst the Irish peasantry, that they would consent willingly to pay the whole tithe where the advowson was in the hands of a private patron, whilst in the adjoining parish there was a total remission of tithes, and a portion of the surplus of the Church revenues applied, (under the operation of the principle involved in this Resolution) to the relief of the Catholic population, and to the education of Catholic children in the Catholic faith? Would not such a system, instead of producing harmony, tend rather to arm those, who he was told were now armed, against the Church in consequence of the manner in which tithes were collected—would it not tend to arm them against the landed interests of the country? He said, then, that the noble Lord must either absolutely violate the rights of private property, or else render his proposition altogether nugatory as a pacifying measure. He could not help adverting to what he considered to be a very extraordinary argument used by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Nottingham, who laid it down in the broadest manner that Parliament had a right of appropriation of Church property—upon what principle?—because he had found it stated in Black-stone, that the Church of England was described as being a Church "by law established," and therefore, said the right hon. Baronet, "if it were by law established, so could it be by law abolished." He would admit that Parliament could pass any enactment it pleased, not only with respect to Church-property, but with respect to every other species of property; the argument therefore of the right hon. Baronet was equally applicable to property of every description; for upon what tenure was it that any hon. Member held his property, otherwise than upon the tenure "by law established." It had also been argued, that whatever might be done with respect to the Church in Ireland, it could not be taken to affect the interest or safety of the Church in England. But he could not admit that there were two separate Establishments. The Churches of England and Ireland were one united Church; and if they applied to the Church in one part of the empire a rule which was destructive of its property and subversive of its existence, they should, in fact, endanger the whole establishment, whether in Ireland 700 or England, and give a precedent for the overthrow of both. Was the House then prepared to sanction the principle embodied in the Resolution? or was it willing to stand with him, and resist the application of a principle, which, in overthrowing the Church in one part of the United Empire, would open the door to its universal overthrow? For they might depend upon it, if the present Resolution were adopted for the benefit of the Roman Catholic population in Ireland, and that they might receive religious instruction according to the tenets of their own faith, the matter would not stop there. Applications would from time to time be made for the abolition of what would be called by some hon. Gentlemen sinecures of the Church in England, in order that the revenues might be applied to other purposes than those bylaw established. He was not over ready, he hoped, to indulge in personalities; but he did conceive it was personal to advert to the previous conduct of hon. Gentlemen for the purpose of illustrating his own arguments, or of refuting those of his opponents. Now, it had been said, that upon the question of appropriation the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were entirely agreed; and that, if the late Government had continued in power, they would have brought forward the very Resolution now before the House, or a measure tantamount to it. But no man could have attended to this debate without entertaining strong doubts upon that point. The noble Lord had, it was true, so framed the Resolution as to embrace persons of all shades of opinion as to the extent of appropriation, from those who went the least way even to the right hon. Member for Nottingham, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire, and the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, who went to the whole extent of declaring that the Church in Ireland was a nuisance, and ought to be abolished. But upon this very question of unanimity, could hon. Members forget the reports of what had been said upon this very subject in another place, by a Member of the late Government—one who was not inconsiderable in point of talent, who was most considerable in point of station, most active in the discharge of his duties, most able in defence, and most careful not to commit himself—could they forget that Lord Brougham went down to the House of Lords, and in his place there made an explicit declaration, that for his 701 part he could not approve of the appropriation of any portion of the funds of the Church in Ireland to any other than Ecclesiastical purposes in the first instance, and then, when those purposes were satisfied, to purposes of education; strictly guarding himself against misconception, by stating that such education must be according to the doctrines and principles of the Established Church? The House had been told, that the appropriation of a limited surplus in the mode sketched out by the Resolution would ensure a readiness in the payment of tithes in Ireland. But had it not always been said, that the objection to the payment of tithes was not in respect to their amount, but because they were paid by persons of one religious persuasion to clergymen of another? Did the House, then, believe that less exertion would be necessary to enforce the payment of tithes in Ireland when the measure should be passed, than was required at the present moment? So far from gaining additional strength for enforcing the payment of tithes by such a measure, they would raise up a feeling in Ireland which would make it impossible to collect any tithes whatever. Believing that the Resolution now proposed was contrary to the law of the land, and would, if carried, be dangerous to the State, and would hazard the existence of the Established Church, even in this country itself as well as in Ireland, he should give it his most, strenuous opposition. He objected to it for this further reason also, because he thought, that so far from being effective to allay irritation in Ireland, it would afford the greatest additional excitement to irritation in that country, where excitement already too much prevailed.
§ Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, that in rising to suggest an amendment which he thought might with great propriety be adopted on this occasion, he should hardly have thought it necessary to advert to an accusation that had been made against Gentlemen at that side of the House, of having acted from party motives and a desire to embarrass his Majesty's Government. He should not, he said, have felt it necessary to advert to this charge, if he did not feel himself conscientiously bound to protest, that although he admired the ability of the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, who had spoken last but one, yet there was one point in that speech in which he could not concur. That hon. and learned Gentleman had 702 said that the object of this Motion was to try the claims of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that the question was, substantially, one of confidence or no confidence. The question was, in his opinion, of a very different nature; and the maintenance of the Church, and the spread of education, in Ireland, were subjects of such deep and vital importance, that the House ought not to deal with them as mere questions, upon which to try the strength of parties. Now, what were the different topics which had been placed before the House? The noble Lord who introduced the Motion had told the House that, upon the settlement of this question, hinged the settlement of the Irish Church, and the establishment of peace in Ireland. The noble Lord had told the House, after what had passed, to see what the distractions in Ireland were, and to see what those distractions might be hereafter, and the Gentlemen who followed him on the other side, had introduced considerations equally important to the Protestant Church, and stated that the interests of that Church were at stake, and that if this measure were carried, Protestantism would abandon the soil of Ireland. With such important considerations as these before his eyes, he could not listen to considerations which in his mind were comparatively trivial and insignificant—such as the existence of a particular Administration, or the triumph of a party. There was no man in that House who had more confidence in the noble Lord than he had; there was none who had reason to feel deeper gratitude to the Administration to which he belonged, because they had accomplished a measure which he sincerely believed would never have been carried except through their agency. But in acknowledging this obligation, he must add that the present Question was beyond the influence of such considerations; and that, in discussing it, he would be actuated only by what he held to be his duty on so great and momentous a subject. Upon mature consideration, this Question seemed to him to have resolved itself into three distinct propositions. The first was, whether there was a surplus fund beyond the moderate necessities of the Irish Church at present? the second—which was also a very important consideration, although it had been in a great measure lost, sight of during the debate—whether there was a surplus beyond the necessities of the Irish 703 Church in case it should, as he hoped and expected it would, increase? and, thirdly, having made provision for the wants of the Irish Church, as it now was and as it hereafter would be, and an excess still remaining—how was that excess to be applied? With regard to the existence of a surplus at present, he believed there was one. He did not mean to follow the minute calculations which had been made to prove this proposition, but he would take one broad fact that the endowments of the Church of Ireland were greater in proportion than the endowments of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken conscientiously believed that the possessions of that Church were not greater than it required, but in his (Mr. Buxton's) mind there never was so unfortunate a mistake as to suppose that a Church acquired weight and influence by wealth and power. If wealth and prodigal endowments rendered the Church effectual for the conversion of the people, there would not have been a Catholic in Ireland at this moment. It had had wealth, it had had the power of the Orange faction, the supremacy of Protestantism, every thing had been done that could be done, every effort had been made, the experiment had been tried to the last extent, and to the last extent he said it had failed. He believed it was fated to fail. It was natural that it should fail. But he should like now to see the experiment tried of a body of men, who, if they entered the Church, could enter it from no other motive than a desire of doing good; who could be influenced by no hope of affluence; and, though he thought it was natural, and to be expected, that mere human and worldly means should be inefficient, yet, he said, it was not in human nature to resist the efforts of a man, who, by his disinterested energy—by his self-denial—by living in decent privacy—by the purity of his conduct—by his charity—by what he would call the visible eloquence of his virtuous life, showed that he sought higher rewards than mere worldly acquisitions. He would, therefore, dispense with these advantages, which the Protestant Church possessed. He believed they were not effectual, and he would place the Protestant Church in that more sound and elevated situation. But he was met by the exclamation,—"Interference with the Church of Ireland will be a precedent for interference with 704 the Church of England. Take care what you do." He said the sooner the better. He wished for nothing better than that to some parishes which he could name this principle were applied, and that the superfluity should be taken away from the clergy for the benefit of the people. He wished for nothing better than that in a parish where there was a rector richly endowed and not resident, and a curate who worked as hard as a day labourer, and received the pay of a day labourer, and where, owing to the absence of the one and the poverty of the other, there were no schools, but the people were living in barbarous ignorance—he wished, he said, for nothing better than to reduce the salary of the rector for the purpose of providing for the minister who did the work, and of supplying religious and moral education to the people. And so far from being an enemy to the Protestant Church in entertaining this wish, so far from being guilty of a sacrilege, or an unholy invasion of its property, in carrying it into effect, he should think, and he believed he should be confirmed by the hon. and learned Member for Newark, who thought that Church-property ought to be sacred to religious uses—that this would be not an invasion of Church-property, but a restoration of it to the purposes for which it was originally and legitimately intended. Coming back to the Question regarding the Church of Ireland, he believed it would be found that there was a surplus; and if he wanted an argument to support this view, he should have found it in the observations made last night by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, in allusion to the Archbishop of Armagh. The right hon. Gentleman said the House would hardly believe such an extraordinary instance of self-denial; but he could assure them that that most reverend Prelate had not at that moment more than 10,000l. a-year.[An hon. Gentleman said "14,000l."] He begged pardon, 14,000l. It was immaterial—it was one or the other. Now did the right hon. Gentleman think, considering that the House was told by other Gentlemen opposite that there were poor curates as well as rich prelates—that this amount was so very small? He felt the highest respect for the right reverend Prelate's character; but he must say he thought there was some room for reduction, even in that particular quarter. Could 705 any man sincerely say that there was not room for reduction in the Church? He said, only show him a rector who was nonresident and wealthy, and he said a reduction ought to be made. He should now come to the second question, namely, "Is there also a surplus provided the Church of Ireland should increase?" How did they know that the Irish Church would remain exactly as it was? How did they know that it would increase? He, for one, thought it would necessarily increase, first because the strong impression upon his mind was, that the Catholic Church had had very peculiar and incalculable advantages—it had had the peculiar advantage of being a persecuted religion. There was something so outrageous to natural justice—something so inconsistent with the very name of the religion which we professed, in condemning a man to pains and penalties for his religion—there was so much not merely of cruelty, but such refinement of cruelty, in our ancient proceedings, in offering a bribe (to be sure it was at some distance of time that the practice prevailed)—in offering a bribe to the son—to do what? to desert his religion—and by what temptation? the offer of his father's property; that the feelings of mankind revolted against it; when the Protestant religion (he begged pardon, he meant the Protestant ascendancy—he reverenced the Protestant religion, but he had no sympathy with those who made it an engine of political faction)—when the Protestant ascendancy condescended to appeal to the worst and basest passions of human nature, it was no wonder that a barrier was placed in the way of conversion; it was no wonder that that religion could not reach the heart of the Catholic, or that he closed his ear to the Divine truth which was held forward in one hand, while a sword was grasped in the other. It was not surprising that he would not listen to the overtures made in so odious a form; but he was happy to think that those days were now past, and that the Protestant religion was no longer an object of factious advantage. In the South of Ireland the Catholic religion was no longer the persecuted religion—it was the triumphant religion. It was another class that was much nearer to being the persecuted class; and, therefore, he thought the time was approaching when the Catholic, laying aside the prejudices he had conceived, and the goaded and 706 exasperated feelings which had been excited in their breasts by the conduct of those placed over him, would be placed in a position in which he would have leisure to consider and reflect whether the doctrines of the Protestant Church were in accordance with reason and conscience, and whether some of the pretensions of his own Church rested upon a secure and solid foundation. He thought the Protestant religion had had great disadvantages to contend with, one of which was intended for its benefit, namely, the disadvantage of being the most wealthy and the most worldly establishment in the world. But the times were changed in that respect also. The ministers of the Protestant religion in Ireland had been exposed to the fire of persecution, and out of that flame had arisen as pure and apostolic a ministry as any in the world. He would not for the world do those good men an injustice. He believed a more pure, a more devoted, and more virtuous ministry the world had not, than the Protestant ministers of Ireland. And here he rested his hopes upon the relief of the Catholic from the bond of persecution, for the increased spirituality of the Church of England, for the growth of mind, the spread of knowledge, the establishment of schools, as the results of this night's debate. Above all, he looked to the circulation of the Bible, and he could not but think that great and lasting advantages would follow. He believed that the Protestant Church in Ireland would increase. At all events there would be room for a fair trial of the merits of the doctrines of the Protestant and Catholic Churches on the ground of reason, and upon that issue he was prepared to rest with confidence the success of the faith he held. He believed that the whole House was agreed, with the exception indeed of one hon. Friend of his, who objected to the proposition, because he thought the present clergy ought not to be attended to—with that one exception, he believed the House was unanimously agreed that a moderate maintenance was to be given to the existing clergy, but he asked why should they pare down the dimensions of a growing Church? Because the Protestant Church was low now, was it to be concluded that it would be always low? He said, relieve the disasters and distresses of the people of Ireland, and he believed religion would grow up in that country. So strongly did he 707 feel this, that when the proper time came, he should feel it his duty to propose a Resolution, saying that should the Church of Ireland increase, a proper provision should be made for it. He understood from the authority of the Chair that this was not the proper time, and he should accordingly reserve his motion for another opportunity; but before that time arrived, he hoped the noble Lord would let him know whether he agreed with him, as he considered this a point of very considerable importance. He now came to the last point of his argument. Supposing that there was a surplus beyond a provision for the present and the future necessities of the Church—how was it to be applied. He was very much gratified that in the course of the debate not one Gentleman connected with the Irish landed interest had risen to propose that it should be appropriated to the Irish landlord. If such a proposition had been made, he should certainly have opposed it, because he considered that that would be a desecration of Church-property to a purely secular purpose, and that it would effect no peace in Ireland; but it had not been proposed, and the subject which had to be considered was confined to the two principles recently stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If he understood that right hon. Gentleman rightly, he did object to Church-property being applied to any but Ecclesiastical purposes; but he did not understand him to object to the surplus being devoted to the education of the people through the medium of the Church. Now he would frankly say, that nothing could give him greater satisfaction than that education should be communicated to the people through the medium of the Church, if it were possible, because he was sure that education was the only remedy for the evils of Ireland; but he knew the thing to be impossible, in consequence of the odious form in which the Church had been presented to the people again and again. Great injustice had been done to the Protestant Church by connecting it with Protestant ascendancy. The many insults which had been offered to the Irish people had created such a feeling of resentment and distrust that they would not even receive truth from our hands. He was convinced, therefore, that to say we would teach the people through the medium of the Church was the same as to say, that we would not teach 708 them at all. He now came to the particular Resolution of the noble Lord. He deeply regretted that the noble Lord had been induced to leave out the words "moral and religious," and to substitute "general education." The difference might be but little in appearance, but its effect would be great. The Legislature was bound to show to the people of England that if it alienated the revenues of the Church from purely Ecclesiastical purposes, they were devoted to the purposes for which they were originally instituted, namely, the moral and religious instruction of the people. He hoped the noble Lord would not object to introduce such words. If they were introduced, he should entirely approve of the motion. What was th history of Ireland which the House had heard last night from the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite? The right hon. Gentleman said, "Take your own time, select your own period; let it be the last thirty years, or three hundred years; go back, if you will, to the reign of Henry 8th; take your own time, and I will show that the system of Ireland was a system of war, and bloodshed, and riot." Then he (Mr. Buxton) asked, was there any cure for this but education? His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had told the House that there was an old statute, which, however, had not been acted upon with full effect, the object of which was to make the wild and savage inhabitants act more conformably to the usages of civilization, and to make them good citizens, good neighbours, and good subjects. How this was to be done he did not exactly know; but he believed that making them good Protestants was only to be done by the agency of moral and religious instruction. There was an error somewhere. He spoke without any intention of offence to the Catholic Gentlemen in the House, but it was evident there was error either on their side or on ours. It must be the interest and the object of all to banish error, let it lurk wherever it might; and he knew of nothing so likely to expose error and to establish truth as religious and moral education. In bestowing that upon the people of Ireland, he was not diverting the revenues of the Church from Ecclesiastical purposes. He was devoting them to the best possible object in making Protestants of the Catholics by giving a portion of those funds for the purposes of religious and moral 709 instruction. No man could deny that it was the only hope in the present state of Ireland of removing that religious animosity which was the bane of that country, and which was constantly producing great and innumerable evils, none of which was so deep or so desperate as that it stood as a barrier in the way of the propagation of the religion of the Bible.
§ Mr. Twissconcurred in viewing this as a most important question—important on account of the principle which it involved; but considering the very slender amount of surplus which could at any time be produced, he thought it most unimportant to the people of Ireland. A great deal of the time of the House had been occupied with details of the sufferings of the Catholic population in Ireland. But the question was not now, whether some alteration should take place in the mode of levying tithe so as to give relief to the people, and throw upon the landlord that which had hitherto been paid by the tenant; but whether, in the amount of tithes continuing the same, it should be applied to the purposes to which it was at present applied, or to some others, which were not very clearly, or, at least, very unanimously defined. Therefore, he said, the appeal to this measure as a means of diminishing the military force in Ireland wholly failed. He did not believe the peasant or the small fanner in Ireland would be reconciled to the payment of tithe merely by the belief that a small portion of the amount would be devoted to purposes different from the present. On the last occasion when this subject was discussed, the resolution of the hon. Member for St. Alban's was opposed mainly on the ground of its being an abstract resolution. But those who opposed it on the ground of its abstraction went further on the present occasion. They were not, it was true, prepared to vote an abstraction themselves, but they would have the House go into Committee, which Committee should vote an abstraction. If the Gentlemen opposite were prepared to act without the information which the Commissioners were about to supply, why, he asked, had not the late Administration proceeded on the same grounds? He knew there would be no fairness in pressing upon any hon. Gentleman any casual expression used in the heat of debate; but when he saw a series of Gentlemen, combined for party purposes, take one regular and uniform 710 line, and one after another repeat the same arguments, he had a fair right to refer to that series of propositions, and to ask how it happened that, under circumstances unchanged, their opinions were so totally opposite to what they had been? and although he would not trouble the House with a repetition of the passages which had been read from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Cambridge, or the noble Lord the late leader of the Whig Administration in that House, yet the House would perhaps allow him to refer to one extract from a speech of the noble Lord the mover of the present resolution; not merely as it tended to show that inconsistency, but also to illustrate another not immaterial point connected with this question. The noble Lord, in reference to the motion of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, said, "If, as some Gentlemen suppose, it should appear upon inquiry that the revenues of the Church of Ireland ought not to be reduced, that would strongly confirm my opinion" (against the resolution). Would it not, he asked, be absurd of the House to adopt a general resolution, and let the burden of it fall upon the Ministers? Would it not be an unworthy course for Parliament to take? But the noble Lord concluded by saying—the hon. Member for St. Alban's said, "Let the House affirm the principle,"—and this he said without telling the House exactly what the principle was which he wished it to affirm. Now he (Mr. Twiss) was desirous to know, after all the professions of clearness with which the noble Lord had set out, whether the House knew very well the principle which it was now called upon to affirm. It had not been defined by the noble Lord, by the hon. Gentleman who seconded his motion, by his hon. Friend who had suggested an amendment, or by any of the various speakers who had taken part in the discussion. Another distinguished Member of the late Government, a noble Friend of his, for whom he had a high respect, said that if the House was prepared to deal with a question of this importance, in which the religious feelings of the people of this country was so deeply interested, without previous investigation, he would support the hon. Member; but if Gentlemen conceived that a solemn inquiry was necessary before adopting such a proceeding, they were called upon to reject the motion. And the noble Lord asked—"If the motion were carried, would not the 711 Catholic population of Ireland expect that a resolution thus introduced should be followed by some immediate measure of relief." But from what fund was immediate relief now to be afforded. Gentlemen opposite would say, from a reduction of the abuses of the Irish Church. Lord Althorp, in introducing the Church Temporalities' Bill, had said, "I hope and trust this Act will give general satisfaction." There being a cheer, his Lordship said in answer to it—"and that cheer assures me that it will. The measure which I am about to propose provides for not continuing the standard of persons holding benefices and receiving revenues in livings where no duties are performed, and it provides to as great an extent as is practicable for the reduction of the body of the Irish Hierarchy." And yet there were still the same imputations of its being a sinecure Church, as if the Church Temporalities' Bill for the reduction of sinecures had never been passed. If the late Government had not done its duty, with what grace could the hon. Gentlemen opposite turn round upon their successors and impute the blame to them. But he was ready to admit, that if there was still an abuse it ought to be remedied. He was not prepared to say that the work of Reform ought to be spared, but they should look at the manner in which the work was to be done. It was urged that if there were any surplus it was desirable to bestow it upon the education of the poor of Ireland. Now, he said, he had a right to the benefit of the principle laid down by Lord Althorp, when he said if it was true that there were large livings in some parts of Ireland, there were small ones in other parts, and if we reduced the great livings we must augment the small. Now, in providing for the general safe and satisfactory means of Protestant worship, it was the first duty of the House to see that the ministers of that religion were sufficiently provided for before it proceeded to allocate the funds of the Church to any other purpose. When the distribution of the Church revenues should be properly made, he did not think there would be found a larger average amount for each clergyman than the decencies of life would require. Lord Althorp had said that there could be no greater error than that which prevailed upon the presumed magnitude of the Church revenues of Ireland. It seemed to be thought by hon. Members opposite that because the Established 712 Church of Ireland had been recently curtailed of ten of its Bishopricks, that therefore it could now spare more. The right hon. Member for Stafford had stated the revenues of the Irish Church at 800,000l. He was inclined rather to rely upon the statement of his right hon. Friend (Sir H. Hardinge) as being the more accurate; but even admitting the larger sum, the only effect would be to add a few pounds per annum to each benefice. The greatest surplus that was assumed to be possible was 100,000l., and surely it was a mockery to call the application of such a sum a relief to the people of Ireland. He appealed to the hon. Member for Halifax if such a sum could be considered as a relief? If Ireland could be tranquilised by such a sum it was monstrous to suppose that the nation would not have granted it long ago. He was told that a change had taken place in the circumstances of the existing Government. What, he would ask, was that change? Since the present Government had come into office, his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) had said that it would not be expedient to alienate the funds of the Church to other than Church purposes. That was the pledge he gave. In what did that differ from the sentiments entertained by the late Government? He would not quote to them the opinion of Lord Brougham, for many persons might think that that noble Lord was too hypothetical, but he would remind them that on the 6th of last June the Marquis of Lansdowne had said that nothing should induce him to consent to appropriate any surplus of Church-property to any other purposes than such as were analogous to those to which they were then by law applied. What was then the difference between the late Cabinet and the Government of his right hon. Friend upon this subject? It was asked if the Church revenues were to be for the rich and not for the poor, but this way of putting the question was as invidious as it was erroneous. The true line to be drawn was as between those who believed in the Protestant faith, and those who did not. He did not think it expedient to be discussing what exceptions might be made to great principles connected with property. The hon. Member for St. Alban's was endeavouring to force a surplus for the sake of establishing a principle. As he perceived the House to be impatient, he would not trespass further on their time.
§ Lord Clementssaid, that it might appear to be presumptuous in him, a plain country gentleman, to arrest the attention of the House, but he would only detain them for five minutes. His remarks would only apply to the effect this motion would produce in Ireland. He admitted that a great many causes of discontent were attributable to other sources than that of religious discord; but still, unless that one should be removed, all their efforts to pacify Ireland would fail. The proposed measure was a sine qua non for the removal of religious discord, and without it they could not expect to succeed in quieting Ireland. He was a friend to the Established Church, and he would not deny that the hon. Gentlemen opposite had shown that, by recent laws, a great portion of the surplus, that might have otherwise accrued, had been frittered away. At present the people of Ireland who paid for the Established Church, were prevented from feeling any interest in that for which they paid. There were two charges against the Established Church—one that its revenues were too large—the other that it was not a spiritual institution to supply the wants of the poorer classes in Ireland. It was said that the Irish people were so anxious to get rid of the Church Establishment altogether, that it was necessary for the friends of the Church to make a stand here, and resist all further reduction. He admitted that the Catholics of Ireland were anxious to get rid of the Established Church, and still he would justify his vote. Hon. Members opposite fancied they had discovered a secret in this, but it was no secret, and it was not honest to deny the fact. What the Catholics desired was equality, and unless that equality were conceded, they would not submit to an Established Church. There were two courses open—one, that of reducing the Established Church to what was only necessary—the other, to pay the Roman Catholic Clergy. The Roman Catholics possessed great power in Ireland, and they also possessed the sympathy of the people of England, and if they did not obtain the equality they sought, they would destroy the Established Church of Ireland altogether; and if that were done, he admitted it would go far to injure the Church of England. He was in favour of an Established Church, but he had never heard an argument in favour of an Establishment that would not apply to the case 714 of the Roman Catholic Church, as that of Ireland. He was an advocate for Protestant ascendancy as far as doctrine was concerned, for it led to general toleration. The noble Lord concluded by saying that he would limit the Protestant revenues to their legitimate purposes, and he would pay the Roman Catholic clergy.
§ Mr. Borthwickrose amidst cries for Mr. O'Connell, and after silence was restored, the hon. Member observed that when he rose his intention was not to detain the House by any lengthened oration. This, however, hon. Gentlemen would not permit him to state—neither would they allow him to say that he would give way to the feeling on the Opposition side of the House. For that reason he now stood upon his right, and—[The general shout from the Opposition and partial cheering from the Ministerial benches which followed this announcement rendered the rest of the sentence inaudible. The uproar continued for several minutes, and there were cries of "Divide."
§ The Speaker read the resolution before the House.
§ When he had concluded,
§ Mr. Borthwickagain left his seat, and attempted to speak; but his words were lost in the shout, and was followed by cries of "spoke."
§ The Speakersaid it must be seen that the course hon. Members were pursuing was not calculated to advance the public business, or even to bring the debate to a speedy close.
§ Mr. Borthwickwas at last allowed to proceed. He said that in the present state of the feeling of the House, though he could not consent to waive his right of addressing it, yet he would pledge himself to express, only those sentiments which he felt it his bounden duty to give utterance to. This pledge he would make, reserving to himself the liberty of speaking at greater length should the house go into Committee. The Question before the House was, whether or not there was any surplus revenues in the possession of the Church, and whether or not they should be devoted to the general purposes of education. As to the abstract good or evil of a national Ecclesiastical Establishment, he believed that that had been satisfactorily decided. A National Establishment was admitted to be most advantageous, and as the Church of Ireland was legally an Established Chinch, he begged to ask what were the grand re- 715 ductions on which he was called upon to support the noble Lord? "Because," said the noble Lord, "you are bound by a solemn compact either to do this or else to repeal the Union." Such was the point to which he reduced the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who supported the Motion. "We are bound," said the noble Lord, "by former address, to remove the abuses and grievances of which Ireland had to complain." Now, if the Repeal of the Union was one of those grievances the present Ministry was not a party to that compact, and if the noble Lord merely intended to say that England was bound to redress proved abuses, then he would contend that the House was bound to wait for the measures which the present Government had in contemplation. The collection of tithes was a grievance, and on that subject the Ministry had given notice of a measure. The Ministers had given ample proof of their intention to redress grievances—and it behoved the House to wait for those measures which would give relief to Ireland. But then it was said, here is a great principle, which must either be negatived or affirmed. This was a mere pretence, and he should dismiss the point by asking whether this principle was not as true and as important before the Irish Church Commission was issued as it was afterwards? And, if so, how came a large proportion of hon. Gentlemen on the other side to vote against the affirmation of that principle which they now declared it their intention to support? It had been said that the surplus funds should be devoted to religious and moral education. Now a Catholic would not send his son to a Protestant teacher or a Protestant school, and in time it would be necessary to devote the funds to the support of strictly Catholic schools, so that the diversion of the Protestant Church revenues would tend only to the maintenance and support of Catholicism. Some hon. Members pretended that the alienation of the Church funds would benefit and consolidate the Protestant Church in Ireland. But how could he credit this, when other hon. Members assured him that the Protestant Church was so great a grievance to the Catholics that its ruin only would give them satisfaction? Hon. Members in portraying this alleged abuse had retired into the recesses of their imagination. It had been suggested to him to propose the adjournment of the House, but no, he would ad- 716 here to his word of honour, and refrain from entering fully into the arguments of the Question at issue. He begged to tell hon. Gentlemen that neither the whisper of a faction—nor the thunders of a popular party should deter him from keeping his place. What it was that hon. Gentlemen laughed at he could not say. He could assure the House that he had for it the deepest respect—and he had spoken simply from a conviction that it was his duty. Had he used one expression which was offensive to hon. Gentlemen? Had he addressed the House contrary to the feelings of the great majority of hon. Members? He knew he was speaking the opinions of his constituents, and they were as independent and respectable a body as any constituency which hon. Gentlemen on the other side represented. [The last three or four sentences of the hon. Member were lost from the noise of the House.] The hon. Member said that if he had not been interrupted, he should have resumed his seat ten minutes ago. He trusted hon. Members would not think he had wantonly intruded on the House—and he regretted that he should have given so much trouble to the hon. Members who had heard him with such impatience.
Mr. O'Connell—It is not my intention to trespass on the House at any length, and the moment that I perceive any symptoms of that impatience, which it is so natural to expect should be exhibited upon the fourth day of a somewhat tedious debate, I care not from what side of the House it proceeds, I shall submit to it, and shall resume my seat. Nor should I have addressed the House at all did I not feel that, humble individual as I am, I have a duty to perform, which does not fall to the lot of every Member of this House—You have been for four nights, for four conspicuous nights, debating upon a subject of the deepest interest to Ireland. To-morrow's post will carry to that country the result of your deliberations. What shall it be? Shall the message carry consolation to the people of Ireland, or shall it be the cause of still further exasperating their feelings?—I hope—I believe that it will have a soothing, not an irritating effect.—Oh, surely, you ought to be weary of misgoverning Ireland. For 700 years have you misgoverned her, and in a way in which one country never misgoverned another—["Hear," and cries of "Ques- 717 tion"]. Is it denied? Who dares to deny it? I have never heard any man hardy enough to deny it, for the only reply ever given to its frequent assertion was shouting down those who made it—and treating them with the utmost contempt. The gallant Officer opposite has accounted for this mis-government—not by decrying it, for it is universally admitted—not by qualifying it, but by saying that it did not take place upon the score of religion. While all England was Catholic, and Ireland was Catholic you misgoverned her, so that religion was not the cause of it. This was the argument of the gallant Officer, and I agree in its justice. The affectation of supporting religion was too often the guise which concealed peculating plunder upon the one hand, and interested bigotry upon the other. But that you have always misgoverned Ireland is admitted. What we want to know is, whether there is now any prospect of a better system? whether a new period has arrived, and whether we may entertain a hope that a better form of Government will be adopted? I think the nature of this Motion is that it is an earnest and a pledge of better days—Its value is that it is a declaration on the part of the House that they are determined not to continue a bad system, but that the period has arrived when they will try another remedy. This is the value of the declaration.—It is not a Question of who shall be Minister—of what party shall prevail, or of what may be the result of the debate, or how it may affect that House or the Government. It ought to go to Ireland, either as the denial of justice, for the hundred-thousandth time refused, or as the first pledge of a better system, and of another mode of Government. I should be disposed to trespass upon the attention of the House, but that many of the topics upon which I should feel it my duty to have addressed them, are admitted by all parties. Who is it that denies the capabilities of Ireland, her fertility, or her abundance? And yet with all the advantages which nature and nature's God have given her, what country so well situated for the enjoyment of prosperity—what country I ask you, is so miserable? Where is there so much poverty, so much distress, and so much discontent as in Ireland?—Who is it, or what is it that has produced it? You, you it is who have produced it, the British Government. I arraign you—not the Government of to-day, or of yes- 718 terday—not the Administration of this, or of that particular period; but it has been the entire conduct and system of the Government hitherto pursued towards that country which has produced this effect. This you should acknowledge. I ask you, do you now treat Ireland with fair play or with justice? The people of England are (the great majority of them at least) Members of the Established Church. They have justice done them—for the religion of the people is the religion of the State, and there is a community between the Church, the State, and the people.—The religion of the majority of the people of Scotland is the Presbyterian—and their religion is the religion of the State. What is the consequence? The people of Scotland are happy, comfortable, and contented—And this, as I have said, is because the religion of the people is the religion of the State. Well—do I ask you to go the same length in Ireland? No, I do not. I don't want the religion of the majority of the people, to be made the religion of the State—I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, that there was never any thing so destructive of religion as to make its clergy too rich to mind their duties—too attentive to the affairs of State to bestow any care upon affairs of religion. Ireland would repudiate such a connexion. I would reject it.—If the Catholic religion cannot subsist under a system of fair play, as it has subsisted under a system of injustice, why then let it not subsist at all. Give the Protestant Religion fair play, and if it be the better religion it will succeed. I will say more, that if it be the better religion it ought, to succeed, and there is no man more ready to give up his opinion than I am, when it is shown to be erroneous. I feel it is impossible to convince the people of Ireland that that religion is the religion of Christ, which comes amongst them in the garb of an oppressor. I do assure the House that I am passing as rapidly as possible over those topics which suggest themselves to my mind upon the present Question.—I have laid down the position that Ireland has been hitherto misgoverned—that she has been reduced to poverty and distress. I have showed you the different modes adopted towards the three countries, and I ask, will you cure these evils? Will you now commence to cure them by a Proclamation, announcing your intention of giving up, 719 not all the wealth and emoluments wrung from the people of Ireland for the support of a Church in which they do not believe, but the surplus, after providing for the spiritual wants of the Protestants, for the general purposes of education? But let justice—the fullest justice be done. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth, that if the Protestants increase under that system, they will have a perfect right to come clown to this House and call for an increase of funds for supplying their spiritual wants. So that there is not a particle of anything that savours of bigotry or exclusiveness—there is not anything which calls upon you to act in opposition to the Protestant religion in Ireland—in the system proposed in the Motion of the noble Lord, of which I am the advocate. Why then should you oppose this Motion? You should oppose it as Protestants, or as Statesmen, on the ground of religion, or of State policy. Have you any ground of religion upon which to build your opposition to the Motion of the noble Lord. For 300 years you have used every instrument within your reach for the purpose of converting the Catholics to the Protestant religion. No such scenes were ever witnessed in any country as were enacted in Ireland. You wielded the power of the State, and the power of the sword; you employed the aid of the emaciating, cruel, and barbarous penal-laws. You did this in open and wanton violation of the most solemn Treaties, kept so long as it was your interest to keep them, but broken when any object was to be attained by their violation. This is an epitome of the history of Protestantism in Ireland. You called to your aid, wealth, strength, and worldly power—you established your Bishopricks, your Chapters, and your Deaneries—you reared up your gorgeous hierarchy—you took the Churches from the people—you despoiled their altars, and prostrated their temples; every exertion did you make to obliterate the religion of the people, or to alter it into that which you wished to substitute in its place. Do you think that this could have been effected in Ireland, if the Church were not under the protection of the Government?—Do you imagine it? No—no man can for a moment dream of it. Do you think that such a system would be tolerated in England? If any man were to move, a Resolution in this House, to the effect, 720 that 2,000,000 of Catholics should tax the remainder of the people for the supply of their spiritual wants—that their Church should become the Church of the State—and that the Protestant population of this country should contribute tithes, oblations, and all manner of offerings, for its support—do you imagine that it is in Parliament the Question would be decided? Do you not believe that the Question would be decided by the people of England themselves?—and if necessary, in the field of battle? Did they not decide it before? When an English Monarch attempted to violate their consciences, they drove him into a foreign land to linger out the remainder of his existence, upset his dynasty, and established another in its place. But how has the experiment which you have tried succeeded? Has it not failed—signally failed? Is it not an admitted fact, that the number of Protestants have not increased under its influence? I shall not weary the attention of the House by going into particular instances, to show that the experiment has failed; but I shall take the county of Kerry as an example:—In that county, I find, by the Parliamentary Returns, that in 1731, the number of Catholics, compared to the Protestants, was as twelve to one. What is the proportion now? It is as fifty-two to one. Have you succeeded there? No. Your success consists in having, in the year 1835, a proportion of fifty-two Catholics to one Protestant, in a county in which, in 1731, the proportion was twelve Catholics to one Protestant. But is this all? No; take any parish of Ireland, and you will find a similar result—you will find the success of your system to have been equally remarkable. I should not have been tempted to have trespassed upon the House at all, if it had not been urged, that as Protestants, you were bound to continue this system, because if you only had for active curates, men of popular manners, and, above all things, "men of nerve,"—you would soon have your Protestants ready made to your hands, and your curates fit for your gorgeous hierarchy. A curious compliment, by the way, is this to the by-gone clergy. You want active curates, it seems; and you have been for 300 years, before you fished up these men of nerve, recommended to you by the noble Lord (Stanley). You now forget the services of those who have passed away; but who, during their 721 times, were constantly eulogized as men of the most exemplary piety. They were never spoken of in Parliament but in terms of the most outrageous eulogy, as men of the greatest benevolence and charity, who, possessed of only about 10,000l. or 14,000l. a-year, spent perhaps 70l. or 80l. in the decoration of a Church. They were immediately lauded as the very models of piety, charity, and clerical perfection. ["Oh, oh," and "Question."] Well, then, they were not. [Loud laughter.] But the Member for the University of Oxford or Cambridge, I know not which, took up the story of the noble Lord, and dwelt on what you might be able to effect with the aid of those active men of nerve. I happen to know something connected with their success, which I shall take leave to mention to the House, and more particularly as it corrects a misapprehension created by some observations of the noble Lord opposite. I must first remind the noble Lord, that Cahircineen is a town, and not a village, as he was pleased last evening to denominate it. The noble Lord stated, that Divine service had ceased to be performed in Cahircineen before the present curate had arrived there. Now, I beg to correct the noble Lord, and to assure him, that Divine service had at no time ceased to be performed in Cahircineen. But the noble Lord's "clergyman of nerve," has a congregation of seventy; and this I wish the House to recollect out of a population of 7,000. This is, according to the Population Returns of 1821, in which it appears that the number of Protestants was seventy-four. In 1818, when I first got possession of the property, there were in the town—or it was then "a village,"—but five houses. Three of them belonged to Catholics, and two to Protestants. In 1821, the number of houses had increased to eighty-seven, and the number of inhabitants to 205, and in 1831, the number of houses had increased to 189, and the number of inhabitants to 1,195. So that in thirteen years the population of that town had increased from 205 to 1,195, so even if your "clergyman of nerve" has a congregation of seventy-four, it is very far from being in a ratio with the increase of the population. But did the noble Lord's informant tell how many converts the "clergyman of nerve" had made? No, he did not, for he could not. But I can tell the noble Lord, that a farmer—a very respectable proprietor 722 there, who was a Protestant, is now a Catholic; more than that, I can tell the noble Lord, that the clerk of this "young, active clergyman of nerve" died a Roman Catholic. So much for the success of the exertions of the "clergyman of nerve" in Cahercineen, on which the noble Lord forwarded his hopes of the establishment of Protestantism in Ireland. That there are now more Protestants in the town than there were some time since is perfectly true; but what is the reason? Why, because a near relation of my own, a cousin german, with his wife and nine children—all of whom are Protestants—came from Cork to reside in Cahircineen, and thus it is to the accession of eleven of my own dearest relatives that "the clergyman of nerve" owes the increase of his congregation. But, to be sure, he has other, and not inconsiderable, recommendations. He has a living near Dingle, to which he goes when the shearing season arrives; and, except at that period, his flock in that part of the country never see him. He collects the rents too, for the Knight of Kerry, and is, in addition, one of the busiest Magistrates in the "Kingdom of Kerry." Yet this is quoted as a specimen of the way in which Protestantism increases under the present system in Ireland. Nor was it quoted as a ludicrous case by the noble Lord, but as a case that was to produce an effect upon the House. We, Sir, may, for the moment, make sport of this; but, in sober sadness, I ask, how will it tell upon the people of Ireland? I will quote one other case of many that I know! it is the Union of Killakeele in the county Cork, in which there are 4,011 Catholics and three Protestants, and the income of the clergyman is 1,500l. a-year. This I have upon the authority of Mr. Young, the parish priest, who has enumerated every one of them, and who has written to me to say, that there is not a better gentleman than the rector. He had not sent in the army or the police to collect his tithes, though his composition had not been paid for the last two years. He had not only not availed himself of the aid of the military to collect the composition, but he had sent a subscription of 6l. in aid of the priest's school. This I have felt it my duty to state. You see that he does not get a shilling of his composition. How are you to remedy this? I believe it will be admitted that there is no sincerer Protestant than my hon. Friend, the Member 723 for Weymouth. As far as I am able to judge I believe there is not upon either side of the House any hon. Member who is more sincere in his religious opinions; yet he tells you that under the present system you can never Protestantise Ireland. I agree with him. I know the Irish are too shrewd, and that they have too strong a perception of the ludicrous, not to smile at the idea of Christian piety in the guise in which it is introduced to them, in the form of an ascendancy carrying injury and insult in its track. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, has given this to you as his opinion also, and surely no one will suspect him of misrepresenting his intentions. I fullya dmit the candour of his statement, and am convinced of the sincerity of his intention. But of what avail is the one or the other? He is surrounded on every side by the Protestant ascendancy party, with religion on their lips, but treachery in their actions, and cruelty in the heart—"Oh, oh!".—I repeat it, and I say it is time for the present or any other Administration to decide whether or not they will continue to countenance that party in Ireland. Give some tangible benefit to that country instead of a paltry expression of your sympathy. Religion then has nothing, or should have nothing to do with your opposition to this Motion. What then are you to do as Statesmen? The gallant Officer opposite has admitted that Tithe cannot be collected. And in the deficiency of this collection, what do you do? You call upon the people, the people of England, to pay one million that can never be recovered. Then you compel the people of England to pay one million of money for the pleasure of misgoverning Ireland. This million of money I told you when you were giving it you would not get back. You cannot recover it, for certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give it up if there were a possibility of recovering it. It is due according to law, and we have heard a great deal of late about the propriety of vindicating and enforcing the law. The gallant officer has himself admitted that it cannot be recovered—and why? Because the Irish, though they have not, like the Scotch, turned out upon the mountain's side with their broad swords in their hands, yet entertain a determined and fixed opposition to the collection of tithe. This feeling is deep-rooted and universal, and 724 therefore you cannot collect this million. But it appears you are to make the landlords the tithe proctors, and I heard a shout from many of them at the proposition. I hope the hon. Member for Londonderry is within hearing. Is that hon. Member aware—has he heard of the determination formed in the county of Londonderry not to pay tithes? I have heard it from an authority which I am not at liberty to name in public, but which I have no objection to communicate in private, and if informed of it, I am sure there is not a Member upon those benches (the Ministerial) who would not readily admit that my authority was not likely either to deceive or be deceived. Upon that authority I can inform the hon. Member and those who act with him that a system has been commenced in that country of opposition to the collection of tithes—and I have not the slightest doubt upon my mind that you will very soon see in the north the same organised opposition to this impost which prevails so extensively and so efficiently in the south of Ireland. I call upon you to hesitate before you give a vote which may increase the existing evils, rendering it more complicated by embodying an opposition to rents with that that is now only offered to tithes. Is the past system then, I ask you, to continue? Are we to have no hope of an amelioration? The noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, has held out a hope, and right well has that hope been followed up by the declaration of the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland. Oh! I wish that the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire would only join them. And, after all, why should he not? Did he not bring in the 147th clause, though he subsequently changed his mind? May he not change his mind again, or are men to be allowed to relapse into old opinions only when those opinions happen to be erroneous? Well, this hope has been held out to the people. But we are told that the surplus is small—ay, but the principle is great. And that principle must be worked out—yes—it must be worked out—and how? Why, as every principle should be worked out. I do not shrink from this part of the subject. As the Protestants diminish, so shall the fund for the supply of their spiritual wants diminish—and as they increase, so shall the fund increase. I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, that 725 as the Protestants increase, this fund should increase; but that the moment they decrease, that moment shall the fund be diminished to the extent of their wants. Oh; but you are afraid of a Catholic ascendancy in Ireland. What a period of the world is this, to think of establishing a new ascendancy! All the world has given it up but England. Tell me of any State upon the earth where there is not an establishment for the spiritual wants of one class of Christians to the same extent as for another. Show me another example of the same species of ascendancy as exists in Ireland. To one part of my query you may reply by crossing the seas, and pointing to America; but go through Europe and show me. But no—you are the laughing stock and the contempt of Europe. And yet hon. Gentlemen talk of their being rigid Protestants! In what does their strictness consist? Is it by giving the odious colour of ascendancy to their Government of Ireland, thus becoming the contempt of the congregated nations of the world? Catholic ascendancy in Ireland! Why the Catholic Church was three times in power since the Reformation. In the reign of Mary, when persecution reigned through the entire country—when the dungeons were crowded with prisoners—the scaffolds reeking with blood, and fires raged in London and in Bristol, what was the conduct of the Catholic Corporation of Dublin? Did they aid in the persecution? No. Take up Harris's History of the period—a writer most unfavourable to my view of the case, and in his reluctant pages you will find that the Catholics of Ireland never persecuted a single Protestant. And what was the conduct of the Catholic Corporation of Dublin? How unlike their successors. They took seventy houses for English Protestants flying from Bristol from the persecution of the Catholic Mary, and they entertained them for a year-and-a-half until death relieved the country from the persecution of that unhappy Princess. And you taunt hon. Members on this side of the House, with introducing Belgium as an illustration of the view I am taking of this subject. Are you aware that that is a Catholic Parliament? and that as the State does not interfere to limit the qualification of Members of the Legislature, priests are eligible to be elected? Are you aware, too, that four priests are members of the House of Commons of Belgium? 726 When, upon a recent occasion, the Minister brought forward his budget, and though no Minister could be a more rigid or conscientious Catholic, even in the practice of his religion, there was an item in it for the payment of a Protestant clergyman for the services of the English Church at Brussels. How did the four priests vote upon that occasion? Three of them voted for the item, and only one had the bigotry to vote against it. Thus, all over the world, is charity and benevolence making its way, but in Ireland alone you foster an unholy ascendancy. And provided this ascendancy give you their support, you throw them the spoil of the land—you place their henchmen at the head of the State—you cram the Privy Council with them—and they respond to your cry with blood and burnings. [Cries of "No, no!"] I say, yes, yes; and they heap calumnies even upon the highest characters—even of the ancient Protestant nobility if they only dare to execute their duty faithfully and impartially. Will the Parliament of England not assist—will they not rally round her to relieve her distress—will they not throw their shield over her? The state of Ireland had been well described long ago by Johnson, as given in his Life, by Boswell, who describes Johnson as bursting with indignation at the wrongs of Ireland. It is a very few lines, and I will read it to the House:—"Boswell: Pray, Mr. Dilly, (Mr. O'Connell, looking to Lord Stanley, oh how I wish our modern Dilly would see that Ireland is in an unnatural state, and that the minority are exercising such severity against the majority who are Catholics!), pray, Mr. Dilly, how does Dr. Leland's History of Ireland sell?—Johnson (bursting forth with generous indignation): The Irish are in a most unnatural state, for we see there the minority prevailing over the majority. There is no instance, even in the ten persecutions, of such severity as that which the Protestants of Ireland have exercised against the Catholics. Did we sell them, as we have conquered them, it would be above-board; to punish them by confiscation, and other penalties, as rebels, is monstrous injustice." You cannot sell us continued Mr. O'Connell, you cannot conquer us; you ought then to do us justice. The present Motion is an opening for you to do that justice. You will be told I exaggerate opinions, and that I am disposed to Repeal the Union. How then are you 727 to reconcile the Irish people to the Union. Is it by refusing to do them justice? Are you to take that as an argument from those who are favourable to Repeal by showing that this Parliament will not, at the commencement of its first Session, do them justice? Are you to fortify the Repealers, by telling the people of Ireland that they appeal to the Parliament in vain? I have heard the cant cry of Poor-Laws and things of that kind, and I have seen the rats who passed from this side to the opposite; but neither by cant nor sophistry can the Irish people be deluded or deceived. My opinion is favourable to Repeal; but I am ready to give the Union a fair trial. You never have done us justice. The Union never has had fair play—I admit that it never has. I am told that this House can govern Ireland as well as an Irish Parliament could—don't tell it to me, but prove it to me. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, quoted opinions of mine, delivered at a moment when I was rather too much occupied elsewhere. A little generosity might have been exhibited, considering the way in which I was occupied just then; but I dismiss that speech. I do not disavow the opinions he has referred to—they are strong—they are, if you will, extreme; but do you not know that nothing valuable has ever yet been obtained from a Government except by compulsion. He who wants anything must frighten it, and then he gets something less than he demands. No man has ever yet succeeded to the full extent of an extreme opinion. Robespierre and Marat, who governed by the guillotine, and were supported by a million of soldiers, so far from succeeding in their theories, contributed in the end to establish a more iron despotism than they had overthrown. I am ready, without any violation of my own opinions, to accept a compromise, which will commence by doing justice. You have now Ireland in the throes of agony at beholding the Orange flag hoisted, horrified at the spectacle of a Government and that faction combined. You have her in the disposition to be pacified, will you avail yourselves of it? Ireland is in that state that there never yet was a more propitious period for conciliating her. We do not wish you to put down a factious party; we ask you to reduce them to the level of members with us, and to the same state. We ask not that they should be 728 our slaves; but they shall not be our masters. All we require from you is justice between them and us. You met the application for the Repeal of the Union, not by a direct negative—not by the previous question—but by a solemn Resolution, pledging the Lords, the Commons, and the King, that they would do justice to Ireland. The last House of Commons, I will do them the justice to say, took the first step to redeem that promise with respect to tithes. The Melbourne Administration were determined upon doing that justice. I now appeal to this House, to tell the people of Ireland, who are anxious, who are ready to be conciliated, that you desire to place them in a state of political equality, in every respect excepting this, the giving of one shilling of money to our Church. Our Church is unpolluted by the Mammon of unrighteousness, and it is no less efficacious for the purposes of the people, and its hierarchy has remained unbroken. The voluntary principle has answered every purpose. We desire no adulterous connexion with the State. We repudiate it. We call upon you to adopt this resolution, and that if there be a surplus it should be employed for the purposes of education. What has been our cry?—that we have continued Papists because we are ignorant. Why, then, if you believe that ignorance is favourable to Popery, why not give money to instruct the people, in order that they may be disposed to Protestantism. We cannot do you the injustice of leading you to believe that education will have any such result. We say that if you enlighten Protestants they will come back to their fold from which they have strayed. Educate every body, and truth and religion will have fair play. Refuse this Motion, after four days' debate, and then send to Ireland paltry excuses, pitiful pretences, and rhetorical flourishes, and mark the result. Will those who have called out for "measures and not men" do anything which can be so totally inconsistent with the settled principles of justice and of political economy?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was because he took very much the same view of the intention and effect of the question now before the House with the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed it,—because he believed that the carrying of it would be considered 729 in Ireland as a proclamation of a future system of Government—because he believed that false hopes would be excited in Roman Catholics, and tenor inspired in Protestants, unless the House acted with peculiar circumspection,—it was because he felt these things, that he was induced to overcome the disinclination which every man must have, whatever might be his experience in addressing a public assembly, in obtruding himself upon the House when its attention was exhausted, and when every argument bearing upon the case had been already urged with the greatest ability. Nothing but an imperative sense of public duty, imposed by the public situation which he held, could, under such circumstances, overcome his disinclination to appeal to the patience and indulgence of the House.
The right hon. Baronet then continued as follows:—At this critical period, at a time when Ireland is convulsed by agitation respecting tithe, we are called upon to decide this great question: What steps shall we take for the purpose of reasserting an almost abdicated right of property? Four years have passed away without the practical assertion of that right in many parts of Ireland—the time has arrived when Parliament must interfere with the moral weight of its own inherent authority—and with the coercive obligations of positive law, for the purpose of enforcing rights which, if they remain longer in desuetude, will be lost for ever. I am so impressed with the extreme importance of this subject, that a great part of what has occurred in the course of the debate, I will pass over without notice. All that consisted of personal sarcasm on Members of the Government, of allusion to my course on the Catholic Question, of crimination and recrimination, I will entirely pass by. I have no extracts of speeches to read, by way of retaliation for the scraps extracted from my own. I have very little confidence in my own infallibility, and as little in the infallibility of others. It would therefore be no gratification to me to divert the attention of the House from this, the most important practical subject it has yet had to decide; it would be no gratification to me to snatch from some of my opponents the petty triumph which they think they have gained over me, and by proving in return, by quotations from Hansard's 730 Debates or the Mirror of Parliament, that, in the course of last year, they entertained opinions different from those which they now hold.
We are now called upon to decide a great question of public policy. There are four courses which are open to us to pursue; at least, there are four only that suggest themselves to my mind. You may adhere to the general principle of the existing law, and determine to maintain the Established Church in Ireland in the possession of its property. That is one course. You may assert that the property of the Church of Ireland is excessive, and attempt a final settlement of the question by determining the amount of the excess, discouraging all false expectations, by defining expressly the amount which you have determined to take from the Church and declaring that the rest shall remain secure in its undisturbed possession. That is the second course. The third course you may take is, to proclaim to the world,—"We have no preference for one religion over another—we will mete out that full measure of justice which the hon. and learned Member did not in direct terms call for, but to which the whole of his argument was directed—we will destroy the predominance of any one favoured religion, and either withhold endowments from all, or grant them to all indiscriminately and without a preference." That is the third course. What is the fourth? The course which the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, proposes, the fatal course of superadding to religious dissensions, the dissensions of conflicting pecuniary interests,—of leaving nothing settled—of establishing nothing with respect to the amount of an assumed surplus—of laying down no principle, by which either the amount of application of that surplus can be determined,—of contenting yourselves (and this you call a permanent settlement of the question!) with asserting an unprofitable right to apply an imaginary surplus to an unexplained purpose. I should have thought the wit of man could have devised nothing more effectual than this for adding to the confusion which prevails in Ireland. But I was mistaken. You have not only adopted the mischievous course, but you have yourselves proved the folly of it. You have proposed one plan, and argued for another. You have attempted to prove that you ought to 731 destroy the predominance of the Church, and you leave it, with curtailed revenue indeed, but with predominance untouched. You shrink from acting on your own principles, you forget your own arguments, you invite us to take up a position which those arguments proved to be untenable. You tell the people of Ireland, not only that you will not determine the amount of the excess of the revenues of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, but that you cannot indicate by what test it shall be decided. You leave it dependent on the will of any Government—you leave it dependent on the discretion of any man; all you say is, that if there be a surplus, about which you are not certain, you will apply it to an object which you will not explain. Your attempts to modify your own resolution, and diminish its danger, only throw in new elements of confusion. If Protestantism increases, you reserve the right to make additional provision for the Protestant Establishment—that is to say, you tell the Roman Catholics that they shall have a direct pecuniary interest in preventing the increase of that party which has (in the words of hon. Members opposite) exercised tyranny over them, that they shall have now an opportunity of revenging themselves for their past wrongs, by preventing the spread of that religion, through the extension of which their share in the public spoil will be diminished. Surely, Ireland is convulsed enough already—
There hot and cold, and moist and dry, Contend alike for mastery."But (turning towards Lord John Russell) you throw chaos in." You, who professed yourself unable to determine this Question until you got further information—you, who appointed Commissioners not to inquire into statistical details merely, but expressly into the bearings of the Church Establishment in Ireland upon the religious and moral welfare of the country, you would not wait till you received the report of your own Commissioners—until you could arrange your own plan—until you could conduct the people of Ireland to the peaceable settlement of the Question, by producing, not an indefinite principle, to be applied on a remote and uncertain contingency, but a matured plan, affixing limits to the application of your principle, and enforcing its just execution. And for what is this done? For the mere purpose 732 of embarrassing a Government, of throwing an impediment in the way, not of the final adoption,—for that might be justifiable,—but of the calm discussion of a measure proposed with the sanction of the Crown. What risk would you incur, what advantage would you lose, by placing your practical plan in competition with that of the Government, and moving that plan in Committee as an amendment upon ours?I am prepared to assert the rights of the Church to the remnant of the revenue which is left to her. All that I now ask is, permission to state calmly the grounds upon which I come to that conclusion. In the first place, I entreat you to bear in mind that there are other parties who are looking to our decision with equal anxiety to that which the Roman Catholics take in the result of the Question—I mean the Protestants of Ireland. I am not disposed to deny, that if you are clearly and decidedly of opinion that an imperative public interest requires the abandonment of a national compact, the violation of long prescription, the abrogation of laws affecting property,—I am not disposed to deny the abstract absolute right of the Legislature to do all these things; but I do assert, that before you do them, before you violate a solemn compact, and falsify the expectations to which you have yourselves given rise, you ought to be convinced, by arguments approaching to demonstration, of that overpowering necessity, which can alone be your vindication.
Within the last forty years, three great measures have been adopted affecting the relation of the Protestants of Ireland to their Roman Catholic fellow subjects. The first of these measures was the Act of Union, which differs in this respect from an ordinary law,—that it was a national compact, involving the conditions on which the Protestant Parliament of Ireland resigned its independent existence. In that compact express provision is made, which, if anything can have, has an obligation more binding than that of ordinary law. The hon. Member for St. Alban's may endeavour to show, by reading resolutions and extracts from Mr. Pitt's speeches, that some right was reserved in the Act of Union of interfering with respect to the Church. A right was reserved in that Act with respect to the removal of the civil disabilities 733 of the Catholics, but no right was reserved to the United Parliament to deal with the property of the Church in Ireland. Let any man read the Act of Union, and if its meaning is to be decided by a reference to the plain ordinary sense of the terms, he cannot doubt what that meaning is. The Act stipulates for the continuance and preservation of the Established Church as the Established Church of England and Ireland. There is, first, a stipulation that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and Government of the united Church shall remain in full force and for ever. Here you will say there is nothing specific as to Ireland; no mention of Church revenues. There is not; but superadded to this stipulation is another, as binding, as solemn, and which, being superadded, implies some new guarantee; the guarantee, I contend, of temporal rights and possessions. It is as follows:—the continuation and preservation of the said united Church as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union." This is the first of the three measures to which I referred, as the outworks and defences of the Church in Ireland.
I come to the second. In 1829, the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics were removed by the Legislature, and the measure by which that object was effected partook also of the nature of a compact, as distinguished from an ordinary law. If that Act is, as we feel it to be, irrevocable with respect to the privileges which it conferred upon Roman Catholics, it is also (unless some great and urgent necessity should arise to render a change necessary) irrevocable with respect to the assurances which it gave to Protestants. By that Act, the Protestants of Ireland were led to believe that all intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within these realms was most solemnly disclaimed and utterly abandoned. They were assured, on the obligation of an oath, that no privilege which the Act confers would be exercised to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or the Protestant Government within these realms. They were told that the removal of the civil disabilities of the Catholics would give new security to the Church in Ireland. They were told that the removal of those disabilities would fully redress the injustice of which the hon. 734 and learned Member for Dublin has just been complaining. They little thought that within five years from the passing of that Act, the power which it conferred would be exercised to subvert the Church Establishment, so far as regards the property of the Church.
The third and last measure to which I have alluded as affecting the relation between Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland, and the immediate interests of the Established Church, was the Act passed within the short period of two years, for the reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland, and the regulation of the Temporalities of the Church. You determined, and in my opinion, wisely, to review the state of the Irish Church, and to remove every imperfection and abuse. You provided, and in my opinion wisely, that Ecclesiastical sinecures in Ireland should follow the fate of civil sinecures—that measures should be adopted to reduce the revenues of livings too amply provided for, and to apply the excess to the increase of livings, for which there was no adequate maintenance, and to the building of glebe houses. Those who introduced that Act contended, at first, that the improved fund obtained by the conversion of Bishops' leases into perpetuities might be applied to secular purposes, but the subsequent abandonment of that clause, and the whole remaining tenour of the Act, clearly show that the principle of reserving Ecclesiastical property for strictly Ecclesiastical purposes was rigidly adhered to. Two years only have elapsed since the date of that Act and now, notwithstanding the Act of Union—notwithstanding the removal of the civil disabilities of the Catholics—notwithstanding the Reform of the Irish Church—notwithstanding the extinction of ten Bishopricks, the learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) tells you that it is absolutely necessary that a proclamation should go forth to Ireland as the indication of a new system, and of the commencement of a new era.
The Member for St. Alban's contends, that because we concurred in the propriety of removing abuses in the Church Establishment of Ireland, and consented to the curtailment of livings too largely endowed, for the express purpose of supplying the deficiencies of others, we ourselves sanctioned the interference with the property of the Church, and are thereby 735 now precluded from objecting to the application of that property to secular purposes. He sees no distinction between the correction of an abuse for the express benefit of the Church, and the diversion of its revenues to other objects. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion declined entering upon the question of the inviolability of Church-property, thinking it involved long disputes, and that it was a Serbonian bog, in which whole armies of unfortunate logicians had sunk. I think the noble Lord acted wisely in determining to skirt the bog. The Member for St. Alban's, however, said boldly that, notwithstanding the warning of the noble Lord, he would plunge into the bog, and endeavour to reach the other side; and it is the ill-success of the hon. Member which has determined me not to follow his example. I watched the course of the hon. Member, and saw him, with great pain to himself, oppressed, no doubt, with the weight of his own arguments, floundering with Bacon in one hand, and four or five equal authorities in the other, in the middle of that bog, from which he never emerged whilst I remained in the House. I have no doubt, as I said before, that the cause of the hon. Member's mishap was his being encumbered by the armour of his own ponderous arguments. If gentlemen will come down to discuss questions in this House, loaded (as the Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) professed himself to be) with all the hoarded wisdom that has been accumulating from the time of Noah to the very moment by the clock when he himself rose to speak, they must expect to meet the fate which has befallen the hon. Member for St. Alban's, and to be engulfed in the same bog. What can be more absurd than to assert, that because we consent to make some specific improvement in the distribution of Ecclesiastical property, for the admitted benefit of the Church, we are thereby compelled to assent to a proposal for applying that property to secular purposes? The Church, it is said, is not a corporation, but an aggregate of separate corporations, and if you touch one of them, you sanction the principle of control over Church-property, and the right to divert it to ether purposes. This may sound logically correct, but appears to me practically absurd. What has been the course of the law with respect to this subject? On what prin- 736 ciple do the first-fruits proceed? On what principle does the Curates' Act rest? In each case, there is interference with the separate corporations, with the revenues of the individual preferment; but it is absurd from thence to attempt to establish the general right to apply Ecclesiastical property to secular purposes.
I contend, then, that nothing but the strongest conviction of absolute necessity can justify us, in defiance of the Act of Union, in defiance of the Catholic Relief Bill, and in defiance of the Church Temporalities' Act (and the understanding which prevailed in Parliament at the time it was passed), in appropriating Ecclesiastical property to other than Ecclesiastical objects. It is wholly unnecessary for me to discuss the question, what, on the supposition of there being an immense surplus, injurious to the Church itself, I would do with it. I will not discuss a hypothetical case. Why should I be called upon to discuss a contingent and hypothetical case, when in my opinion there is no surplus at all? Do not, however, infer that I entertain an opinion in concurrence with yours, because I decline to discuss a contingent and hypothetical case. The practical question is quite sufficient to occupy our attention at this stage of the debate, and therefore I will avoid all superfluous discussion. The noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, says, that the whole annual revenue of the Irish Church is 791,000l. I assert, as positively, on the other side, that so far from the Church in Ireland having a clear revenue of 791,000l., it has not 450,000l. There is, you see, a great difference between us. Now, I ask the House of Commons whether it is just or wise to pronounce a decision with respect to the disposition of an assumed surplus, when so great a difference of opinion prevails as to the amount of revenue? Is it fair, I ask, to create a prejudice against the Church by the assumption of unfounded data? We are told that the Perpetuity Purchase Fund will realize a capital of 3,000,000l.: I say, that it has not realized 60,000l., that it is now in debt to the amount of 100,000l. and from the information which I have received, I believe it never can realize much more than the third of 3,000,000l. We are told that the annual revenue of the Church is 791,000l.: I assert that it is not more than 450,000l., and then I ask you whe- 737 ther you will this night adopt a Resolution pledging you to an appropriation of a surplus which has no existence, except in the imagination of the noble Lord? I will ask the noble Lord a question:—Has he made an estimate of the sum required for the purposes of national education? I beg the House to observe that this is a very important point. Ought we to be called upon to lay down a rule with respect to the application of a surplus—ought we to bind ourselves to its application to one specific object in preference to, nay, in exclusion of, every other—without having some estimate of the sum which will be wanted for the purpose to which the appropriation is to be made? I wish the noble Lord would endeavour to answer the following argument. The noble Lord assumes that the revenue of the Church is 791,000l., and proposes to appropriate a certain proportion of that sum to the purposes of education. I ask him what estimate he demands for those purposes? Does any man believe that 100,000l. will be required annually for education? However, to prevent any cavilling, I will give the noble Lord double that sum, namely, 200,000l. I would, indeed, advise the House, before they encumber education in Ireland with an annual grant to such an amount, to acquire some information upon the subject; and well to consider what effect may result from such an application of money by discouraging local exertions, and drying up the sources of local contributions. But supposing the noble Lord should require 200,000l. annually for purposes of education, he would still leave the Church of Ireland, according to his own showing, in possession of a yearly revenue of 591,000l. Now, observe, he claims no part of the Church revenue for any other object than education. His settlement, he says, is to be a final one. He excludes, therefore, every other object, and admits that the amount of revenue which he leaves to the Church is not too large. That amount is 591,000l. But I will show that the Church has only a revenue of 450,000l.; that it has actually less by 140,000l. than what the noble Lord himself is willing to leave to it, after his deductions for other objects. How can you then resist the conclusion, that, if my estimate of the future revenue of the Church be correct, you have a deficiency to supply, rather than a surplus to appropriate, and that you are wasting your time in an unprofitable and 738 mischievous discussion? Still I do not ask you to decide against the Question of Appropriation now; I only ask you to inquire before you decide, into a simple, surely an important fact, whether the revenue with which you are about to deal, amounts to 791,000l. or to 450,000l. This matter is too important to be thus trifled with. You have a right to insist upon the noble Lord's producing the grounds of his calculation and the details of his practical plan. That is the only course to prevent the exciting of extravagant hopes and subsequent disappointment. The noble Lord's proposition will not give satisfaction to any party—neither to the people of this country, nor to the Protestants of Ireland, nor to the Roman Catholics. Why, then, should we, at this stage of the business, without waiting for the report of the Commissioners appointed a few months since—a report to which I attach no importance, but which the noble Lord must consider the foundation of his measure—why should we pledge the House of Commons to a resolution which is utterly unnecesary, and give a pledge which we may not be able to redeem?
You say, and you say with truth, that the Irish Church has not hitherto succeeded in effecting the great objects for which it was established. I wish to meet that question. I am prepared, I am anxious, to discuss it. I know there can be no advantage in concealing what constitutes the real stress and substance of the argument on which you mainly rely. I may fail in meeting that argument, but I have no wish to shrink from or to misrepresent it. You say, then, that the Irish Protestant Establishment has failed in effecting the ends for which it was instituted; that there are not more than 1,000,000 of Protestants, while there are 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics; that the Protestants have not been on the increase; that the Roman Catholics still maintain the great ascendancy of numbers; and the Protestant Establishment having thus failed in accomplishing its objects, you are now, therefore, at liberty to curtail its supposed excessive revenues. My answer is simply this:—if there have been causes in operation, up to a very recent period, which have prevented the growth and expansion of Protestantism, and if those causes have now ceased to exist, if they are no longer operative, you are not justified in arguing from the experience of 739 the past; you are not justified in appropriating a surplus which might not be necessary for the wants of the Establishment, if the past were to continue, but which, because that past is not to endure, may be now, or may become, necessary for the spiritual wants of the Irish people. We have, in the first place, removed all civil disabilities, and put Protestant and Catholic in circumstances of perfect equality as to the possession of civil rights. It was one of the most forcible arguments against the existence of those civil disabilities, that, while they continued, a prejudice was unavoidably fostered against the reformed religion, and that an impediment of pride was necessarily opposed to conversion and conformity. There appeared to be a worldly interest in conforming to Protestantism, of which it shocked the feelings of the Roman Catholic to incur the odium. But that impediment has now been removed. Conformity brings with it no temporal or civil advantage; there is no obstacle, therefore, of pride to be overcome. Again, there were abuses in the Church, and an irregularity in the distribution of its revenues, which had also impeded the progress of its doctrines. I say, again, those abuses have ceased to exist, or, if they still continue, they shall cease to exist. The time has come when all abuses must be corrected—the time has come when Parliament must insist on their correction. No one will vindicate the exact distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland according to the mode heretofore adopted, provided you can show that another distribution for the same objects will be more serviceable and advantageous; there is no other limit to the principle of correction than that of applying Church revenues to ecclesiastical purposes. It is said, again, that the superfluous wealth of the Establishment had been another cause which has obstructed the progress of reformation. Superfluous wealth indeed! The superfluous wealth of the starving clergy in the south of Ireland! You have already taken effectual measures to remove the obstacle of superfluous wealth to the progress of reformation. What a mockery! To talk of the trappings of luxury and indolent enjoyment among those who have been robbed of their property for the last four years! It is possible that, in the inscrutable dispensation 740 of Providence, the miseries which the clergy have endured, the extreme suffering they have undergone, but, above all, the patience and meek forbearance with which many of them had borne their wrongs, manifesting a determination for themselves and—what is a harder trial—for their families to submit to privations from which your own meanest servants would shrink with indignation, it is possible that this training in the school of affliction—this public exhibition of undeserved wrong, may conciliate towards the sufferers, and towards the faith which they profess, a feeling of respect which may predispose the public mind to receive the salutary influence of a pure and tolerant religion. If, then, such be the case if some of the causes which have prevented the spread of Protestantism have been removed, what right have you to legislate on the assumption of a surplus?
You are not now about to determine whether it be expedient to found a new establishment in Ireland—you are not about to determine how you will appropriate an unapplied revenue to religious purposes. The Establishment is in existence. The revenues belong to it. How will you deal, let me ask, with the churches that now exist? You have already 1,100 churches for Protestant worship. Is it part of the noble Lord's plan to abandon them? You have 800 or 900 glebe houses. Under the Temporalities' Bill you have made provision for the increase of small livings and the building of new churches. How do you mean to deal with the existing state of things? You say it is your intention to encourage the Protestant landlord to reside on his estate. Shall the first spectacle you place before his eyes be the dilapidation and ruin of that Church which should afford a sanctuary for himself and family? I do call upon the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. Buxton) to lend me his attention for a moment to this part of the case—and, to the last report made by the Commissioners acting under the Church Temporalities' Bill, who were appointed by the late Government, and some of whom now preside over the Board of Education. To that Report I entreat the attention of the hon. Member, and of every hon. Gentleman who professes not to consider this a party question—whose mind is not yet made up—who is willing to pause—[interruption]—Oh, yes! you, who make that exclamation, 741 well know that there are many who are dissatisfied with the progress of this debate. [Cheers.] I understand you—there are many who are uneasy, who are unconvinced, who are not yet quite prepared to give the irrevocable pledge. ["No, no!" and cheers.] I call, then, on those whose minds are not yet made up—not to decide to night on the principle, but to wait for the practical plan by which that principle shall be carried into execution. [Loud cheers, and some interruption from the hon. Member for St. Alban's.] Oh! I am not addressing myself to you; I have no hope of your conformity. I am addressing myself to those who have not taken quite so prominent and conspicuous a part, and from whose position I infer that their minds may be less determined than yours. I call their attention to this last Report, which was made to the Government specifically on the subject of the demand for Protestant worship. The first name appended to it is that of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Report stated, "In connexion with the subject of Churches, the Commissioners cannot but express the satisfaction they feel in having to report to your Excellency, that many applications have been made to them for aid towards the erection of additional Churches, it appearing that the accommodation at present subsisting in those districts or parishes from which applications have been received is quite insufficient for the congregations of the established Church. And while the Commissioners have to mention that in many cases parishes have expressed their willingness to contribute or cause to be contributed certain proportions of the expenses required for building Churches, in some, cases amounting to one-fifth, in some to one-half, and in others to three fourths of the sum required for the purpose—we cannot but regret to say, that our superfluous funds, which are only applicable to the objects under consideration, could hold out no prospect of the applications in question being favourably entertained." Now, it surely argues no indifference, no lukewarm-ness, on the part of the Protestant population, when parties are willing, after you have abolished the vestry cess, to contribute one half and even three fourths of the expense required for the erection of additional places of Protestant worship.
Now let me for a moment again address myself to the argument of the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. Buxton), who 742 discussed the Question in the fair spirit in which it ought to be treated. Determined to maintain the Protestant Establishment, he thought that there was still an available surplus, and was prepared to appropriate it to some purpose of education, reserving a fund for the necessities of the Protestant religion, in case such necessities should hereafter arise. Now I differ from him in opinion with respect to this: I think that the necessity he contemplates now exists—that it is now necessary to appropriate the whole of the existing revenues of the Church to Ecclesiastical purposes. The hon. Gentleman says he would send through Ireland a number of Protestant Clergymen, whose zeal should supply the place of wealth, and who, by the exercise of disinterestedness and exhibition of poverty, should conciliate towards themselves those feelings of kindness and respect which have been nearly extinguished by the noxious exhibitions of worldly wealth. It is because I totally differ from the hon. Gentleman as to the policy of the course he recommends, and the probable effects of that policy, that I come to a different conclusion from him, as to our control over an available surplus, and that I hope, if I succeed in converting him to my views, I may even yet have the benefit of his vote. The plan suggested by the hon. Member is that which has been unequivocally condemned in this debate by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who maintained, that nothing could be more fatal, in attempts to convert the Roman Catholic population than the exhibition of intemperate zeal. I entreat the hon. Gentleman to remember also, that the policy of our Establishment is essentially different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. It may be possible for a man on whom celibacy is enjoined, to pass his hours in retirement, and, free from domestic cares, to devote his life to the unremitting discharge of the spiritual functions of his office: but we impose no restrictions of celibacy, we do not hold that the local influence of a religious and pious clergyman will be diminished, if he is also enabled to set the example of a strict performance of every domestic duty. I deny, then, the justice of the hon. Gentleman's argument; I think it is infinitely better to place a man of education in a fixed and permanent charge—to remove him from the temptation of poverty, to allot to him what may be sufficient for the decorous and independent maintenance of himself 743 and family, and trust to the mild, beneficent, and assiduous discharge of his pastoral duties, and the exhibition of virtuous example in domestic life, as more likely to make an impression on hostile minds, than if we required, as part of our system, the possession of extraordinary virtues and extraordinary zeal,—expecting, not in the case of a single individual, but, systematically, from all whom we may employ, that they should be able to resist all the temptations, and endure all the privations of poverty. The principle of our Establishment is, in my opinion, a safer and a wiser one. When I look at the expensive course of education which must be pursued by a clergyman—when I look at the situation which he ought to sustain,—the means he ought to possess of influencing those who stand in at least as much need of his ministrations as the humbler members of his flock, those I mean, in a corresponding station in life to his own,—I should deprecate, above all things, the encouragement of an extravagant zeal, and the exhibition of poverty, as the instruments of conversion, and the guarantee of moral habits in Ireland. If you admit this principle—if, looking to the education that must be had, and the acquirements that must be attained—looking to the life which a clergyman must lead—the dangers to which he and his family may, perhaps, be exposed—the absence in many parts of Ireland of all society which can be gratifying to the feelings and habits of an educated and intellectual man—the demands upon his charity—what, I ask you, is the sum which you think it would be fair and sufficient to provide for the maintenance in such circumstances of a Protestant clergyman and his family? You have now 1400 benefices in Ireland, 1100 churches, 1400 clergymen, and, in addition, 600 curates, to whom hitherto no reference has been made—how many of these do you propose to reduce? Do you think you can propose, without shocking the feelings of the Protestant population in Ireland, to remove 200 or 300 clergymen from the benefices which they now hold in that country? After making any reductions which you may propose, what sum, I again ask, will you provide as sufficient for the maintenance, in decent independence, of a Protestant clergyman and his family? I should object to any principle of division for the purpose of effecting an equalization of incomes; but if the sum you were to 744 allot does not exceed 300l. a year for each clergyman, suppose it were equally distributed, does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) think that we are claiming too much, if, in the present state of things, we demand the application of the Church revenues to strictly Ecclesiastical purposes.
I will now examine the argument adduced by the right hon. Member for the town of Cambridge (Mr. Spring Rice), which seemed to make considerable impression on the House. The argument was this—that by the original endowment of the Irish Church there was a pecuniary charge on account of religious education, and that therefore there could be no injustice to that Church in the appropriation of some part of its revenues to the purposes of national education. Now, I deny the validity and application of that argument. After two days' debate—after a marked difference of opinion on principle between those who had taken a part in it, some contending that the surplus endowments of the Church might be applied to secular purposes, others denying that they could, the right hon. Gentleman came down, at the close of the third night's debate, and declared, "There is not the slightest necessity for any difference of opinion between us on the point; I will prove that education is an Ecclesiastical purpose, and put an end at once to the whole question in dispute, on the authority of King Henry 8th." But I hold in my hand a Report made on education by an authority to which the hon. Members opposite will, I have no doubt, be inclined to pay the utmost deference; that authority being no less than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) himself. The Report was made so lately as the year 1828. It reviewed the whole of the previous Reports on Education—it embraced some twenty-three Resolutions—it contained a specific reference to the Act of Henry 8th; but not one word is said in the whole of that Report, from beginning to end, with respect to education being a pecuniary charge on the Church of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman neither proposed the application of Church revenues to defray the charge of education, nor was he then an advocate for gratuitous education. Now, you are about to decide that question also by your vote; you are about to decide, that education shall be gratuitous in Ireland. I ask you seriously to consider the importance of this principle, 745 I ask you to pause before you sanction it. There are, in my mind, the gravest and most serious grounds of doubt with respect to its propriety and expediency. I utterly deny the possibility of applying any such sum as 200,000l. annually to education in Ireland without doing much more harm than good. Here is the right hon. Gentleman's own Report in 1828. I will not refer to it at any length, but the purport of it is to recommend the plan of the noble Lord (Stanley), which was adopted by the House of Commons; but not one word does it contain of the pecuniary charge which he now asserts rests on the Irish Church revenues for purposes of education. On the contrary, here is one of his own Resolutions:—"That it is the opinion of this Committee that Parliamentary aid for the establishment and support of schools in Ireland should be for the future restricted in granting aid to parishes to two-thirds of the sum required;" and then follow details of the manner in which the local assessment should be raised; the principal object being to invite individual contributions and assistance towards the erection and superintendence of the schools. This was a wise principle. It was not recommended by economy alone. It proclaimed the great truth, that those who hold property have duties attached to the possession of it, and are bound by local ties to attend to local interests. It established the best link between the rich and the poor. It gave to the rich an interest in the condition of the poor; it confirmed in the poor a feeling of respect and gratitude towards the rich. I do not hesitate to say, that even if you had the money to apply, you would do more harm than good, if you were to relieve the clergy and gentlemen of Ireland from the duty of paying that, attention to local matters which those in England are accustomed to pay, from the necessity of local contributions, and local exertions in the cause of local education.
The right hon. Gentleman asserts, that the Act of Henry 8th established the principle, that the charge of education, the pecuniary charge, ought to be defrayed by taxation of the Church. Now I assert, as boldly as the right hon. Gentleman asserted the contrary, that the object of the Act of Henry 8th was, with regard to education, to recognise and confirm the principle of an Established Church; and 746 that the inference he has drawn from it, that it confers a right to appropriate the surplus of Church revenue to general education, is directly at variance with the fact. The object of that Act was to confirm the progress of religious instruction, by subjecting parochial schools to the superintendence of a resident clergyman. The Act expressly recites, that a knowledge of Divine truths was essential to education; it was passed, after the declaration of the King's supremacy, after the annihilation, by law at least, of the power of the Pope in Ireland. It required an oath to be administered to every clergyman to teach, or to cause to be taught, a school in each parish; thereby recognising and ratifying, in the strongest manner, the principle of an Establishment, by stationing a minister in each parish, and placing the education of the parishioners under his charge. I assert, that the intention of the statute of Henry 8th was not pecuniary contribution, but superintendence; and that is the point on which I am at issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He maintained that the object of the Act was contribution, and therefore he justified the application of Ecclesiastical funds to the purposes of education. Now true it is, that, by subsequent practice, a yearly payment has been made by the clergymen of many parishes in which no school is kept. There is a pecuniary charge in lieu of the spiritual duty. But is there the slightest analogy between establishing, and now, if you please, enforcing that charge—between making each minister either keep a school within his benefice or contribute towards its maintenance, and transferring from the Church a large portion of its revenue, to be applied to a fund placed under other control than that of the Church, and applicable to some system of general education? My assertion, I repeat, is, that the object of the Act of Henry 8th was superintendence, while the right hon. Gentleman maintains that it was contribution. Now the right hon. Gentleman had a great many small slips of paper, which he read with great effect in the course of his speech. He alluded to the Report of a Commission which we had appointed many years since, to which he attached the greatest importance, and which consisted of Mr. Frankland Lewis, Mr. Leslie Foster, Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman, Mr. Glassford, and Mr. W. Grant, an English barrister; but, 747 amidst all the extracts which he adduced for the purpose of proving that the principle of contribution was established by the statute of Henry 8th, there was one, apparently a very material one, which somehow or other seems to have unluckily escaped his notice. Speaking of that very statute, and its bearing on this very subject, these Commissioners, so deserving of all confidence, declare, "It is obvious to us that the intention of the statute of Henry 8th was not pecuniary contribution, but superintendence; and that it did impose the latter duty. This Act, after reciting, among other things, 'the importance of a good instruction in the most blessed laws of Almighty God,' and further reciting his Majesty's disposition and zeal that 'a certain direction and order be had, that all we, his subjects, should the better know God, and do that thing that might in time be, and redound to, our wealth, quiet, and commodity,' proceeds, after a variety of enactments tending to the suppression of the Irish and the introduction of the English language and customs, to require an oath to be administered to every clergyman at ordination, and another at institution, that, amongst other things, 'he should keep, or cause to be kept, within the place, territory, or parish where he shall have pre-eminence, rule, benefice, or promotion, a school for to learn English, if any children of his parish come to him to learn the same, taking for the keeping of the same school such convenient stipend or salary as in the said land is accustomably used to be given.'" What, then, becomes of the argument that the Act of Henry 8th, and the whole tenour of subsequent Statutes, authorised the application of the Ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland to general instruction, unconnected with that Church? The argument is wholly without foundation; and the whole history and tenure of the Statutes show that, so far from being at variance with the principle of an Establishment, or authorising the application of the Ecclesiastical revenues to the purposes of mere general instruction, unconnected with the Established Church, their object was to connect education with the Church, and fortify the principle of an Establishment. I myself brought in an Act for the regulation of diocesan schools, which expressly provided for the support of a school in each diocese, to which 748 school the clergy were bound to contribute. If I had sought for a pretext for supporting the noble Lord's Resolution, on account of that Act, so introduced by me, if I had contended that I was at liberty to carry into execution the principle of the Resolution, because I had enforced by laws contributions towards a diocesan school, from the clergy of each diocese, with what a burst of laughter would such reasoning have been received? As to the application of the supposed surplus revenues, I entreat you, from the interest you take in education, not to decide that question at present. If you had the surplus you suppose, nothing could be so unwise as to pledge yourselves to-night on this point. It excludes all after consideration whether education shall be gratuitous or stipendiary. I bring you very great authorities against the principle of gratuitous education. This very Commission, to which I have already alluded, whose opinions the right hon. Gentleman so highly values, and whose authority he ought to appreciate, this very Commission states,—"We had in the course of our inspection, been much struck with the state of many schools in which the pupils paid for the instruction they received, and in which there appeared to be perfect harmony amongst children of all persuasions. These schools were carried on as objects of private speculation, and not supported either by public funds, or by the aid of societies. Each child was taught the religion which its parents wished it to learn." You are assuming that no education at all exists in Ireland, while there never was a country in which there existed more superabundant means of education. This Commission again states,—"As to the funds for the maintenance of the new parochial schools, we recommend that they shall be derived partly from the State, partly from parochial assessments, and partly from payment by the pupils. Looking to the results of our own personal examination into schools of all descriptions, to the practical effects of the system so long and so beneficially in operation in Scotland, we are satisfied that the schools should be founded on the principle of pay-schools, and that the payment should go to the master and the usher. At what sum the rate of payment should be fixed, must depend upon local circumstances. By appointing in certain situations a higher rate of con- 749 tribution, a most eligible class of schools may readily be provided, with instruction suitable to a better description of persons. Although in all cases, payment by each scholar should be the rule, we recommend that there should be lodged in certain individuals a power of dispensing with the payment, and of admitting, as an exception, certain free scholars. Payment, however, should be the rule, and gratuitous instruction, the exception." Observe, these recommendations in favour of pay-schools are given, not to save public money, but because the principle of pay-schools is preferred to that of gratuitous education. Now, is it not prudent to inquire, before you affirm the principle that a portion of Church revenue should be applied, should be limited also to a given object—What is the amount which that object will require? I complain that you can form no sort of estimate on that subject. You are in utter ignorance respecting it. You don't know the amount of the surplus; you don't know the extent of the demands on it. I charge you with the absurdity of coming to a resolution, without the shadow of a ground on which to form anything like a rational opinion. The noble Lord says, there is a revenue of 791,000l.; I say you have not above 450,000l., and if you apply the surplus on which the noble Lord calculates, to the object to which he expressly confines it, you run great risk of defeating that object. Do I ask that you should abandon any principle? No; but that you should take time carefully to mature your opinion, and thereby prevent unreasonable expectations from being entertained, and pledges from being prematurely and unwisely given. If you will sanction that principle, to which I will not consent—the application of Church revenues to other than Ecclesiastical purposes—let it be sanctioned with due deliberation. Do not defeat your own public object, for the mere purpose of pressing a Motion which you think may be inconvenient to Government. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) proposes, if this proposition is acceded to, to move a certain Resolution in the Committee. The noble Lord is not very clear as to the principle by which he is himself guided. On Friday he announced the Resolution to this effect:—"That the House should resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering the expediency of applying any sur- 750 plus revenue of the Church of Ireland, not required for the erection and repair of Churches, or for the maintenance of the clerical members of the Church, to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of Christians." Now, I hold that this involves the principle of providing for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy, ["Hear, hear," and "No, no, no".] Then why have you altered it? Between Friday and Monday, it was altered to this form:—"That this House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, in order to consider the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care of its members, to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." I cannot, of course, dive into the noble Lord's mind, and ascertain the motives by which he is influenced: I speak only of his acts. Those acts, and the whole course of the debate, show that my construction is the proper one. All your speeches and arguments contribute to that construction. You may attempt as you please to film over the gulf which separates the noble Lord and some of those by whom he is supported; but you are only deceiving yourselves. The people of Ireland will read your speeches and arguments, in which the Protestant Establishment is described as a nuisance and a badge of conquest, and they will laugh at your resolution, and your frivolous attempts to limit your new principle of appropriation, by reference to the acts of Henry 8th., and declarations that education, unconnected with the Church, is an Ecclesiastical purpose. Talk of this as the settlement of the question! What have been the arguments by which the resolution was supported? Let us shortly review them:—the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire, said, on introducing the Resolution,—"I am one of those fully concurring in the defence set up last year by one of our Prelates, that an establishment tends to promote religion, to maintain good order; and I further agree with him as to the fact that it is agreeable to the sentiments of the majority of the people of this part of the empire. But, as a friend of the United Kingdom, I call upon you to consider whether, with respect to the Church of Ireland, you can set up the same defence? Does it tend to promote 751 religion, or to maintain good order?" But that Church is still to be maintained in all its efficiency.—["No, no"]—What, is the efficiency of the Church to be impaired? I thought you affected the most pious care for its efficiency, and that you were anxious to curtail its superfluous wealth in order to promote the efficiency of the Church. The seconder of the noble Lord's Resolution (the hon. Member for St. Alban's) asks this question:—"How, then, could a Church which was not submitted to, or joined through the force of reason and argument, be considered by the people as anything but a badge of conquest, forced on them by a superior power, which it was but natural they should determine to throw off at the first favourable opportunity?" and he adds,—take the Protestant states, take Catholic ones, take America, or France, or Scotland, or even the north of Ireland itself, and it would be found, in every instance, that the remuneration which the clergy received was always proportioned to the religious services which they performed for the people. In Ireland, alone, this relation was departed from; and never, until they established that relation upon its proper footing, until they reverted in fact, to the principles of common sense, could they, succeed in governing that country with credit or satisfaction." Yes; but if you appeal to this as a principle of common sense; if common sense requires that the remuneration of the clergy should be in proportion to religious service, without reference to the doctrines inculcated, or the faith held; and if you then move a Resolution in which a different practice is adhered to—in which you state that the Church of the minority shall be maintained—in which you recognise it as a favoured Establishment, how can you insult our common sense by saying that you regard this as a permanent settlement? The noble Lord opposite, of whose abilities I have a high opinion, and whose eminence in debate I long since prophesied, has made some observations to which I will next advert. The Lord Howick said—but I am really so unfeignedly anxious to avoid exciting any animosities connected with religion in the course of my address, that I shall not read the extract now in my hand. It is not, indeed, material to my present argument: I will pass on to another defender of the Resolution, Mr. Charles Wood. He 752 asks,—"Where could they find any country, under any system of Church Establishments, be they Catholic or Protestant, where a rich Church with a small congregation was maintained at the expense of an overwhelming majority belonging to a different persuasion? But their feelings were no less outraged than their property was taxed, in the maintenance of one Church established by law, and in the support of another to which ministry they contributed through inclination. What, he would ask, would be their feelings if two such establishments were supported at the expense of the people of England? Would they not be filled with a just indignation at such an unwarrantable infliction upon their consciences and resources? and could they expect that when they, with all their superior notions of what was just and lawful, were unwilling to submit to the hardship, that the ignorant peasantry of Ireland should not give way to violence and outrage when such a system was attempted to be forced upon them?" The Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) says,—"No length of time, no lapse of ages, should prevent his hearty concurrence in an effort to redress a great national iniquity. No appeal to the rights of property, beyond existing laws, can ever be maintained where such rights were never united with the real and religious interests of a nation. In such a case no prescription can be urged against the cries of a people, and the voice of a people becomes the voice of God. It may be admitted that any change in long-established things is an evil, and that nothing can justify it but the most powerful necessity. If the peace and prosperity of Ireland be essential to the welfare of the empire, such a necessity has now arisen." Now, then, I ask you whether, if this Resolution, supported by those arguments, can possibly lay the foundation of a final settlement? But it is most important that such a settlement should be made. You impose this charge upon the landlord. Ay, but the amount is to be recovered from a Catholic peasantry! Do not suppose that you are blinding the eyes of the people. They are more clear-sighted than you imagine. They see, and feel, and know that your arguments do not correspond with your resolution. A stronger, a truer, an honester declaration, would be better. This Resolution may have the 753 advantage of enabling you to act together for this night; but you act on different principles, and with different views, to the furtherance of which you severally look, though you are agreeing in common tonight on a vague and general resolution. You are well aware that this can be no final settlement; that this first deduction from Church Revenues will only be accepted as an instalment of that whole amount which is held in contemplation. You have laid to my charge, in the course of debate, that I have lagged behind public opinion, and kept in the rear of improvement. But your course is still more absurd; you lag behind your own arguments, and keep far in the rear of your own conclusions. You shoot an arrow, and do not seek for it in the place where you know it is to be found. A word on the charge of being in the rear of public opinion. It is the common accusation against those who value and adhere to ancient institutions. It presumes that it is the duty of a public man to be eternally unsettling the laws and usages under which his country is governed, to be speculating what change will next be required by public opinion; not to wait till the direction and intensity of that opinion be ascertained, but to anticipate it by voluntary and uncalled-for innovation. This may sound very plausible and very philosophical; but the result will be, the entire unsettlement not only of the institutions, but of the mind of the country; the introduction of a vague, prurient love of change for the sake of change, precluding all rational and sober inquiry into the effects of such change. Surely, if an ancient principle must be abandoned, the new principle ought to be a secure one. If a new position must be taken, it ought to be capable of defence. But you take one, which not only is indefensible, but which you prove to be so,—against which your own batteries are directed with a resistless fire. I see the applauding smile of the hon. Member for Middlesex; he is too shrewd to be deluded by this Resolution; he is not to be deceived or misled by the soft tale of the hon. Gentlemen near him, who declare that, loving in their hearts the Protestant establishment, they yet support this measure. He votes for this Resolution knowing perfectly well the conclusion to which it must lead. He will soon find out, with me, that education would only 754 be encumbered and impeded by this contemplated grant. A good pretext will not be wanting. Then will the hon. Member once more triumphantly bring forward his Resolutions of 1824. Why should the hon. Member not force his propositions on you? I have no doubt that he will. I am now looking into the womb of futurity, and as am certain of what it will produce as I am of any thing in the history of the past. I feel as certain as that I am now standing here, that the hon. Member is too manly not to declare that he is not satisfied with this principle. He does not, in this measure, meditate a final settlement. You cannot meditate it either. I therefore will not consent to appropriate this property, which is Ecclesiastical, and connected with the Protestant establishment, to other purposes than those of that establishment. I will not assent to your Resolution, because I know how worthless and delusive it is; because I know that it is a measure which sends into Ireland, not peace, but a sword. It will excite in that unhappy country false hopes—hopes which you cannot realise, and yet hopes that you will shrink from disappointing. It will unsettle those foundations of property which are built upon prescription, and which are more secure than those on which you are erecting your new system of spoliation. I give the noble Lord fair notice that I shall oppose his Motion for going into Committee, and that, in Committee, I shall oppose his Resolution; and, lastly, that I shall oppose with all my strength the communication of that Resolution to his Majesty. I say I will oppose the communication of that Resolution to the King, and I will oppose it on these grounds:—the course is novel and unprecedented, it is unnecessary for the purposes it professes. It wears all the appearance of an intention to pass by the House of Lords. If you think that course the most advisable take it openly—take it honestly. Let us fight the battle manfully, on distinct and avowed grounds. But let us not first have a shallow, delusive Resolution, and then as shallow and delusive an appearance of passing by the House of Lords. Every one who heard the noble Lord's declaration, those, especially, who cheered it, thought the threatened Address to the King was meant as a slight upon the House of Lords—as an intimation that the assent of the Lords to the Resolution was 755 not worth asking for. But the noble Lord means no such thing in reality; he means, as a mere matter of preliminary form, to ask the King's consent, not to a legislative measure, but to the discussion and consideration of a subject in which certain rights of the Crown are concerned. But why is it that the noble Lord and his friends have not brought in a bill? Are they uncertain of their plan? Are they ashamed of presenting, in the ordinary course, the result of their calm, and solemn, and mature deliberation? Do they shrink from producing that detailed plan which they have so deeply and anxiously considered? Is this a course worthy of the noble Lord? The King will resign certain rights by this Bill; and it is necessary for him to signify formally, some time in the course of the proceeding, his assent, which at all times was wont to be done by the minister in a modest manner, without any parade, and without the excitement of the least interest. But now the noble Lord, without assigning any reason for a line of conduct so unprecedented and so inconvenient, insists on the immediate communication to his Majesty, and this, not for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of further measures of superseding a bill; but, simply, that a formal intimation of the King's pleasure respecting certain of his rights, affected by this Motion, may be received with all possible publicity, and that some of the supporters of the noble Lord may cherish the delusion that this course implies a slight to the House of Lords. I do not think the House will join the noble Lord in this unbecoming enterprise. I, at least, for one, will never be a party to it. But, suppose the Resolution agreed to, by whom is it to be communicated to his Majesty? I hope there will be a nice and cautious selection. Instead of encumbering the Throne by the attendance of the whole House, or of any large part of it, why should you not send a deputation? It is the prevailing fashion? Why not send a deputation of three? I will name it for you. I beg to suggest that the noble Lord, the hon. Member for Middlesex, and the hon. and learned Member for the city of Dublin, should be the three Members to approach the Throne with this resolution. Surely the noble Lord ought to thank me for the felicity, as they say, of this suggestion. Here we have the representatives of the three kingdoms—an Englishman, an Irishman, and a 756 Scotchman ["hear, hear," and laughter]; and, moreover, the representatives of the three parties which follow the noble Leader in this House. It is not for me to anticipate the answer of the Crown on the address so presented. A formal answer must necessarily be returned to any communication from this House to the Crown; but, if it were possible for his Majesty to speak the plain truth, I could suggest an answer which would be very appropriate, though, possibly, very unpalatable. His Majesty might say to the noble Lord,—"You, last year, were one of my confidential advisers: on your advice, I issued a Commission of Inquiry, which was to collect information in Ireland. You told us that inquiry was an essential preliminary to any actual proceeding—that matters were not ripe for legislation—that you could not appropriate a surplus, without having first ascertained its existence—that pledges as to contingent appropriation were most unwise. How can you, who were a party to this advice, now ask me, in the absence of all information, the inquiry being yet incomplete, to give that pledge which, last year, you deprecated as precipitate and unwise?" So much for the answer to the noble Lord. The Member for Dublin, Mr. O'Connell, would then present himself; and to him it might be said by his Majesty,—"I have not forgotten the speech which I delivered from the throne, on the advice of Lord John Russell, in the year 1834. On that solemn occasion I observed, that 'I had seen with feelings of deep regret and just indignation the continuance of attempts to excite the people of Ireland to demand a repeal of the Legislative Union. This bond of our national strength and safety I have already declared my fixed and unalterable resolution, under the blessing of Divine Providence, to maintain inviolate by all the means in my power. In support of this determination, I cannot doubt the zealous and effectual co-operation of my Parliament and my people." His Majesty might then remark to the learned Gentleman, that this passage, which so strenuously declares the determination to support the Union between the countries, guarantees the security of the Church, and the Protestant Church being guaranteed by the Act of Union, his Majesty would not be maintaining the Union inviolate, if he consented to violate that Protestant Established Church, which was an essen- 757 tial and fundamental part of it." I believe the prospect of such answers—not formal, perhaps, and according to precedent, but warranted by facts, and consistent with truth—would disincline the noble Lord to form part of the deputation which should be charged with the duty of presenting the resolution to the King.
This House has yet the power, consistently with the full adherence to its principles, to refuse to enter into this resolution. I tell you beforehand, I will not be the party to give it effect. I will not be a party to any appropriation of the revenue of the Church to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. You differ with me—I address myself to the hon. Gentlemen on the other side;—but I say that, consistently with the exercise of that different opinion, you may refuse to enter into this discussion at this time, and under these peculiar circumstances. The noble Lord has given us the opportunity of uniting in our vole, though we may differ as to the principle. If you agree with me in a desire to defer this important Question, you sacrifice nothing—you only decline asserting a general principle, without having laid before you the particular plan by which it is proposed to calculate it. For myself, I vote against the Committee on principle; but if you, differing with me on principle, vote against this motion, you may do it with a distinct reserve, that, at the proper time, you will enforce your own principle, and reject mine. You have confidence in that principle. If it be worthy of that confidence, it must be capable of execution. It can only be executed by detailed enactments, embodied into a bill. I will give every facility for this; I will, without opposition, let you bring in a bill, let it be read a first time, and postpone the discussion until after Easter. I was showing a mode by which, without any unworthy concession, you might have got rid of the difficulty under which I am convinced the majority of you must be labouring. I am suggesting that which is the natural and the ordinary course. It saves you from the risk of great eventual embarrassment. It enables you to dispense with the immediate decision on questions the most important, which you have very imperfectly considered. You will thus have an opportunity of deliberating and deciding whether your system of education in Ireland shall be gratuitous or Stipendiary, or in what degree the two 758 principles shall be combined. You will also have the opportunity of acquiring accurate information respecting the revenues of the Irish Church; which, allow me to observe, respectfully but firmly, it is your duty to obtain before you attempt to legislate on the subject. There is a difference to the amount of 340,000l. annually between the noble Lord and myself. He positively asserts that the amount of Church revenue is 791,000l., and I as positively declare that I believe it to be under 450,000l. I say, then, that it would be but justice to the Church to ascertain, beyond all possibility of dispute, which of us is correct in his calculation, or what is the extent of our respective errors. By postponing your resolutions until the Committee on the Bill, you will have the advantage of the report of the Commissioners, to which great importance is attributed by the hon. Members opposite. I ask you, then, to concur with me in relieving the noble Lord himself from the great practical difficulty in which he is placed. No man will more rejoice than the noble Lord if you will but be good enough to obey my voice and come to the rescue. He has been brought into his present unfortunate situation by the advice of indiscreet friends. He did not give notice of this motion. The hon. Member for St. Alban's stood originally the sponsor to it. The noble Lord was obliged to take it out of his hands, and yet was conscious of his own want of information. He asked, first, for the whole report of his own commission; then for a partial report; but could obtain neither, for neither was forthcoming. He courted delay; but time pressed: he was obliged to go on. He saw the expediency and the good policy of waiting for information; but he was compelled to yield to the pressure not "from without," but from behind. I am convinced that you will be conferring a favour upon the noble Lord by entreating him to withdraw his motion. I have no objection that he should withdraw it—to withdraw it until he can produce some practical plan for our consideration, some plan in which you can concur. Let us, then, unite in endeavouring to rescue the noble Lord from the situation in which he is placed, and refrain from interrupting that approaching happiness which his opponents wish him as cordially as his friends. The hon. Member for Weymouth, in the course of his speech, told you that where there 759 were differences of opinion there should be inquiry. Are you, then, prepared, in defiance of his authority, to proceed without inquiry? Will you not wait until you receive that information which you are led to believe will enable you to act consistently with your present views, and to act without the shadow of an imputation on your conduct? Let us not, then, enter into any hasty decision, which may preclude us from the possibility of a satisfactory final settlement.
You may insist on your present resolution—you may succeed in forcing it upon us: I shall not have to wish you joy of your triumph. It may, probably, enable you to embarrass the future progress of the administration; it may be the token of approaching victory: but still do not be too confident. Let me, in the moment of your pride, in the buoyancy of your exultations, usurp the functions of that unpalatable but not unfriendly office which, in former times, was assigned to a slave, but which may be assumed by a freeman without derogation from his character. You boast that you exercise complete control over the Executive Government of the country: but let me whisper in your ear, that, though triumphant here, the power that you exercise does not act without these walls with that intensity with which it operates within. The duty I have voluntarily assumed compels me to place before a triumphant conqueror the vanity of human wishes, and the instability of mortal triumphs, but yet I must not shrink from it; and I tell you, that, notwithstanding your vaunted majorities, you do not control public opinion. Yes, there is a public opinion, which exists independently of elective franchises, which votes cannot inspire, which majorities cannot control, but which is an essential instrument of Executive Government. It will yield obedience to law; but, if there be not confidence in the decisions of this House, law itself will lose half its authority. That public opinion will impose on you the necessity of taking a direct and open course. The people of England will not sanction attempts to throw unfair obstacles in the way of the Executive Government. They would sanction a direct vote of want of confidence, so far, at least, as to consider it a legitimate and constitutional act of hostility. Why have you not the manliness to propose it? Why do you implore me to undertake the settlement of 760 this Question on your principles? You are confident in your strength: let me ask you, are you competent to undertake the Government? If you are, undertake it. If you are not, why do you embarrass us? I will not enforce your resolution. I will give you notice of the course that I mean to pursue. I shall oppose your Motion for a Committee. I shall oppose your Resolution in Committee, and, above all things, and most strenuously, I shall oppose your communication of that Resolution to his Majesty. I shall adhere to the principles of my own measure. Such is the necessity for the settlement of the Tithe Question, that it will admit of no further delay. I shall press it forward; and if you signify an intention of continuous opposition,—if your determination to throw unusual impediments in the way of the Government be plainly indicated,—if I find I shall not be able to proceed with the immediate settlement of this Question,—I shall then acknowledge that the time has arrived when it will not be possible for me, consistently with my sense of the duty and the honour of a public man, to remain in the situation which I at present hold. [The right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat amidst the loudest cheering.]
Lord John RussellAlthough I occupied the attention of the House for a considerable time, at the commencement of this debate, I feel it incumbent upon me to take some notice of the objections which have been urged against this measure, and more especially of the attacks which have been made upon my motives, and the motives of those with whom I have acted. The right hon. Gentleman who commenced the opposition to the measure, began with an attack, which has been since repeated more than once; he charged me with acting inconsistently with my former professions and declarations, in opposing the bringing forward of his Bill upon a question upon which the peace of Ireland is deeply concerned—upon a question in which the principle of the Church Establishment is really involved—and this, too, upon a motive (which he was pleased to impute to me) no better than a wish to impede and embarrass the present Government. I think, Sir, this accusation having been made, it is necessary for me—unwilling as I am to do so—to trespass upon the time of the House, in order to explain some parts of my conduct with reference to that great Ques- 761 tion. Sir, my right hon, Friend, the Member for Cumberland, has stated that he consented to some parts of the Church Temporalities' Act, while we were in office together, with considerable pain and reluctance. Now, I must declare, that my sentiments upon that subject were so directly the contrary, that the morning after I had heard the plan of that Act developed by my noble Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I went to Lord Althorp, and stated to him, that such was my conviction of its insufficiency—such my persuasion that no other plan would suffice than one, by which some part of the Church property should be made conducive to the general benefit and improvement of the people of that country, that it was unfit that I should remain a Member of the Administration. That course would have been taken, but that I found Lord Althorp impressed with the same sentiments with myself, and ready to declare that if I took that course it was impossible, if he remained at all, that he could long remain in the Administration. It was upon that representation, and on a review of the peculiar difficulties which then existed in the position of the Government, in consequence of the Reform Act having just passed, and of the Reform Parliament being about to assemble,—circumstances which made it indispensable that there should be some settled Government in existence,—it was upon these grounds alone that I retracted my determination, and agreed at that time with my noble Friend not to go further than the Church Temporalities' Bill. In the course of last year, when the Tithe Bill was discussed, I declared to the House of Commons that I felt so strongly on the subject of appropriation, and that the complaint of the Members of Ireland was so just, that even at the sacrifice of a dissolution of my political connexion with those with whom I had so long acted, I was determined to sacrifice this consideration, and preferred acting according to what I thought to be my duty to my country. A little later I declared, that upon the principle of appropriation, I, for one, had made up my mind, and that I would much rather cease to be a Minister than continue a system which I thought was founded upon bigotry and prejudice. It is after these declarations, and after this conduct, which put me at variance with men for whom I had the greatest regard 762 and the greatest veneration, that the Paymaster of the Forces comes down and accuses me of making this a mere party question. But, Sir, it has been made an objection against me, that my bringing forward this motion is inconsistent with my opposition last year to the motion of the hon. Member for St. Alban's. Let me here repeat what I stated at the commencement of this debate—that I thought myself entitled, whatever grounds of want of confidence I may have in the Ministers, to propose to Parliament those respective measures of Reform which the Administration of Lord Melbourne would have proposed, had that noble Lord continued in office. I declare that, in my opinion, his Government, if it had remained in power, would ere this have come down with a message from the Crown, declaring that the Crown had placed at the disposal of Parliament the interest of his Majesty in the Church Temporalities in Ireland, for purposes connected with the moral and religious education of the people. But the right hon. Baronet has taken an opposite course. He states, that there are four ways open to us. He invites me to bring in a Bill at some future time, a Bill which, of course, would at some stage of its progress be committed. But to that Bill he himself has put a bar, as far as he is concerned, for he has declared that his principle is, not to consent to the alienation of Church property from strictly Ecclesiastical purposes, and that from that determination he will not swerve. But what can be fairer than the course I have adopted? The Question now before the House of Commons is, which of the two great principles—that which the right hon. Baronet advocates, or that which I support, it will adopt? Which of those two modes of governing Ireland you will judge to be the right one, whether it will be that you will preserve for ever the Ecclesiastical sinecures of Ireland; that you will maintain, as my noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, has stated boldly, but which the right hon. Baronet opposite has not stated with nearly so much boldness, that there shall be for ever a minister with a large stipend and all the appendages of a large Church Establishment in a parish populous, indeed, but containing no Protestants—and that you will never consent that any part of the revenue of the Church in that parish shall be applied to the general education of the people? 763 That is, the proposition before the House, on the one hand—while the proposition on the other is that which I have ventured to submit to the House. The end and object of a religious Establishment is instruction. If you can instruct the people of Ireland in the principles of the Protestant religion, do it by all means; but if you find that you are keeping up a Church Establishment without that object being answered, and that the clergyman cannot give the people religious instruction, then let him give them moral instruction, in such a way as that the whole mass of the population, without violence to their religious feelings, may accept the benefit of it. Such are the two principles before us. But the right hon. Baronet so little thought that it was a matter for inquiry, so little did he think that it was to depend upon the report of any commission, that he had no sooner set his foot in England than he declared, that no information should induce him to consent to any diversion of the Church-property to those purposes to which I propose to apply it. Then let Parliament decide. The House of Commons is fit to decide this question. We have had four nights' debate. I say it is far better to come to a decision now, than that we should look forward to a time after Easter, when the right hon. Baronet says (though I cannot comprehend upon what principle he does it), he will be prepared to give the consent of the Crown to the introduction of a Bill by which the property of the Church is to be diverted.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: The noble Lord can introduce such a Bill himself.] I do not believe myself that it would be according to the practice of the House to bring in such a Bill without the assent of the Crown. I am quite sure it would be wrong in principle for me to introduce a Bill in which the temporalities of the Church are concerned, when a Minister of the Crown is not only not prepared to consent to it, but when he says he will finally resist it to the utmost of his power. I remember when an hon. Member wished to discuss the question of Church patronage in Scotland, it was thought necessary that there should be an Address to the Crown in the first instance. If in this case it be not necessary in point of form, it is absolutely necessary in point of sense, that this great question cannot be fairly decided unless we have the consent of the Ministers of 764 the Crown to the introduction of a Bill for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has entered upon the subject of the amount of this property, and as to what may be expected to form the surplus. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) has said, that I had overstated the income, because there was a Bill now passing through Parliament, by which, in the first place, the tithes would be diminished from 550,000l. to little more than 400,000l., and that in the next place 10 per cent would be taken from that by its conversion into land. Here is from 150,000l. to 180,000l. taken from the Church, and to whom is it to be given? Into the secular hands of the landlords. And yet, these are the gentlemen who hold Church-property to be so sacred, that they will not permit any part of it whatever to be devoted to the religious and moral education of the people. But still they have, perhaps for the sake of securing the remainder of the property, no scruple to take 180,000l. from the Church, to put it finally into the hands of the landlords of Ireland. I will quote an example of this: my noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, for instance, said he had entered into an agreement with his tenant, whereby the tenant was to pay him 22s., of which 2s. were to go in payment of tithes. The Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced a Bill by which only 1s. 6d. of that sum will hereafter be payable for tithes; the noble Lord said, that he had no objection to the 6d. being given to the purposes of education, but that, as to the remaining 1s. 6d. that should be so sacred, that nothing on earth should ever touch it. What can be the difference between that and the present proposition? Originally the 2s. was one sum, and to be paid to one person—the clergyman—and now it is split into two; the 6d. is to be diverted to secular purposes, to education, or to a hundred other purposes, and the remaining 1s. 6d. is to be inviolable Church-property. The right hon. Baronet opposite appears disposed in certain cases to appropriate sums now payable in parishes where there is really no service performed, and which may therefore be considered a sinecure, to other religious purposes. This distribution, far from diminishing the evil, would tend to augment it.
The Chancellor of the ExchequerYou are speaking of sinecures in the popular 765 sense; I speak of sinecures in the sense in which the term is used in the Church Temporalities' Bill. Take, for instance, a prebendal stall.
Lord John RussellWhat I mean is, that with respect to all those parishes in which there is not a single Protestant, or in which there is not more than one or two, there should be the same parochial superintendence still, but that no salary should be paid to the minister who really has no duties to perform that can be of any essential benefit to the great mass of the population of that parish, Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman then asked me whether I meant to pull down the churches? Now, Sir, as it might be considered that there was something extremely odious in any answer I might return to this question, I really do not know under what circumstances they might be permitted to stand; but at present they may be kept up without any very great expense; and I should consider that where there is any chance of a Church being used for the performance of Divine Service, it would be extremely wrong to pull it down. My noble Friend the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) says that although he will not consent to anything of this sort being done in Ireland, yet he might be induced to consent to its being done in Canada, because you have entered into treaties with Canada, and it is quite right that there should be a different Establishment in Scotland, because the Scotch established their own Church. Now when my noble Friend talks in this way, surely he does a little forget that we in this House are bound to attend to the interests of Ireland as much as to those of the people of England. We sit here owing a solemn duty to the people of Ireland; and if it can be shown that any plan of this kind will be as useful to the people of Ireland as the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in Canada was to the people of Canada, or of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland was to the people of Scotland, I do not think we should be fairly entitled to say "We are not bound by the letters of treaties, and therefore, we will disregard your cries, and refuse to listen to your complaints." It may be said—it has been said, indeed—that the plan I propose will go to affect the Church of England. Why, certainly, if I could suppose the Church of England to be in the situation in which the Church 766 of Ireland now is, the plan I propose would go to affect the Established Church of this country. But what is the case in England? You have Ministers teaching a religion which the people believe; they have tithe, creating some discontent, perhaps, but collected as a debt, acknowledged by the law throughout the country. We have, in short, an Establishment in accordance with the feelings of the people, which is carried on with their consent, and for the general benefit of the whole community. Why, Sir, this argument was used many years ago, when the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department brought in a Bill with respect to tithes, and, so strongly was the argument urged that the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to protest against the inference, that because this measure with respect to Ireland was acquiesced in, a similar measure was necessary for England. The circumstances of these two parts of the United Kingdom were widely different. They stood in this respect only in contrast, not as parallel cases. The real question at issue is that which the right hon. Gentleman stated at the commencement of his speech, from which I think he was afterwards a little diverted. He stated at the commencement of his address, that this kind of property in tithe not having been in due and regular course of collection for nearly four years, the question before the House was, what system they would propose in order to insure the Church a right to that property—what disposition they would make of that property? I say that I think this is the real question: and I do think that while if you adopt the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, you will never arrive at the final settlement of that question, the plan I propose does put you in the way of attaining it. When I say, that I do not think the plan of the right hon. Gentleman will produce a lasting settlement of the Question, it is because I have always conceived, as an advocate of the Reform Bill, that gross and notorious abuses, which could not be reconciled with reason, which were adverse to the interests and repugnant to the feelings of any portion of the united empire, could not withstand the scrutiny and examination of a Reformed Parliament. And, Sir, I am so convinced of this, that I am morally certain that if by any chance or accident the right hon. Gentleman, instead 767 of having been left in continual minorities since the commencement of this Parliament, had been, on the contrary, in possession of a large majority, and could have counted a majority of more than 100 on this very night, the real strength of this Question is such, that it would be brought forward year after year, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Minister would finally be able to maintain resident ministers and appurtenances of the Church in those districts and places where every reason which justifies the establishment of a Church is wanting. I am also convinced, that if you do adopt the other system—that if you do apply a part of these revenues to the education of the people, you will then show the people of Ireland that this is not an income to be collected from them for an Establishment in which they can take no interest—that you do really wish to attend to their condition and relieve their distress—and that in making the law beneficent, you will do much to make it effectual. With these opinions then I can ask the House to pursue no other course than to go into a Committee—into a Committee to consider this Question. It may afterwards be matter of debate whether it would be proper to send the Resolution in an address to the Crown, or whether any other course would be more proper. It seems to me certainly, as I stated at the commencement of the debate, that looking to the natural course of a measure of this kind, an address to the Crown, would be the most expedient mode of proceeding. I am quite sure that it would not be right to introduce any Bill without the full consent of the Crown. I feel quite sure that a measure of this kind must proceed from the Government. I am quite convinced that if the right hon. Baronet opposite chose to undertake it—that if he chose to abandon that principle which he has assumed, and which he has this night maintained, great advantages would be derived from the Members he would be enabled to bring to his support. But while I do not bring forward this principle and this resolution to distress and embarrass the Government, I am quite convinced that the principle itself is of so much importance—that it contains so much within itself that concerns future peace and future good Government in Ireland—that I would not delay its assertion and its proposition for one instant? even 768 if I were told that the effect of my urging it forward might be to destroy or relax any Ministry which might exist, or retard any measures which they might contemplate for the public welfare. I have already said that it is a principle which I was prepared to maintain against my noble Friend, much as I regretted differing from him—and differing from him as I did on this Question alone of all the subjects of discussion that arose during a long period of official intercourse. Having once undergone the pain of this division and this separation, however, it is not for the sake of keeping in office a Ministry of so little strength, of so little comparative or so little inherent power as the present Ministry—that I would consent for one moment to forego this Resolution. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, who misrepresented me—I have no doubt most unintentionally—proposes to bring in aid of the present Ministry a sort of religious cry in favour of the Protestant religion in Ireland. I fear that the time is not yet come—though I do hope it will ere long arrive—when each party may profess its own creed free from the contest and animosities which have for some time most unhappily prevailed, and which I fear the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman is not calculated to remove. I remember, Sir, a Solicitor-General who, in this House opposed Catholic Emancipation—who became Attorney-General—who became Master of the Rolls—and who delivered an eloquent speech, in which he brought before our eyes all the horrors of the reign of Queen Mary, and all the atrocities which were committed under the name of Papist or Roman Catholic. I do remember, too, that after that opposition had continued a little while longer, that same learned person took a directly opposite course. I remember perfectly to have heard him quote an Act of King William with the view of observing that Catholics were admissible to office and Parliament. A noble Lord, I recollect, exclaimed in some astonishment, "Why you said the very reverse of this last year." "Yes," replied the hon. Gentleman, "yes; but since that time I have been prosecuting my studies." I really entertain considerable hope, Sir, that the present Solicitor-General, profiting by the admirable example of his predecessor, will prosecute his studies; and I do not despair to hear 769 him one day quoting the Act of Henry 8th, and the reports of the Commission in order to maintain the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, that Ecclesiastical purposes properly include the religious and moral education of the people. I go with confidence, therefore, to the decision of the House upon this question. I should, indeed, be weak, if—having been a member of a Ministry which would have proposed a Bill to Parliament upon this subject early in the Session, and which was prepared to hasten the labours of the Commission as much as possible—I were now to consent to wait until the end of May or the beginning of June, and then introduce some Bill or other upon the subject. And what would be the consequence? Why, when I had taken considerable pains in framing a Bill—when the right hon. Baronet had got his Supplies, and obtained all he wanted, he would have told me some day, on the third reading, or perhaps when it first went up to the House of Lords, that all my time and all my labour were lost, for it was the intention of his Majesty next day to prorogue the Parliament. Sir, I will not be so deceived; I say that before we come to a decision upon the Tithe Bill, it is absolutely and imperatively necessary that we should know whether the principle of appropriation will be sanctioned. I confess that for my own part I am not disposed to vote for any Tithe Bill in which the principle of appropriation is not recognised. I am not prepared to support any Government which, in default of a Tithe Bill of this nature, shall continue to use military force in the collection of tithe in Ireland. And I am persuaded notwithstanding the taunts of my noble Friend the Member for Lancashire, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the appropriating a part of the revenues of the Church to the establishment of a system of education under which Protestant and Catholic can receive instruction together—under which they may be taught many at least of the great lessons of Christianity in common, and be left to learn their own peculiar creed from their own peculiar Ministers, on other days and at other hours—is a plan which will contribute, and I think contribute in no small degree to blend in one bond of harmony and union the members of both religious persuasions, to the extinction of those differences and disunions which have 770 promoted nothing but ill-will—which have engendered nothing but discontent. I have only one word to add with reference to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton). With reference to the substitution of the words "general" education for the words "moral and religious," I beg to inform him and the House, that my only reason for making the alteration was, that I thought the Resolution, as it originally stood, might be misinterpreted to mean what I really did not intend it to mean—education in the principles of the Roman Catholic religion. For my own part, if the present wording of the Resolution be objected to, I shall be ready to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. With respect to the last point to which he called my attention,—I think, without saying how it is to be provided for—that it is quite right and proper, in case the number of Protestants of the Established Church should increase in any particular districts, that Churches should be restored, Clergymen provided, and every provision made for the performance of divine worship in those parishes.
§ The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 322—Noes 289—Majority 33.
§ The House went into a Committee. The Resolution was agreed to, and ordered to be reported.
§ The House resumed; Mr. Bernal brought up the Report.
§ On the Motion that it be taken into further consideration on the following day,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as we have already had four days' debate on this subject, I would suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of not proceeding with the Report until Monday. ["No, no!] I am aware that I have been in the minority on the first Motion, and I merely suggest what I now do for the convenience of the House, as it is possible that some Gentlemen who have not yet delivered their sentiments on the subject will be anxious to do so. I cannot but think that it would be better to postpone any further proceedings till Monday. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] I can assure the noble Lord that no obstacle will be thrown in the way of the Report by the Government proceeding with the Committee of Supply. ["No, no!"] I cannot help thinking, that after the debate has lasted four days, that it would be better to postpone the matter, as the attention of 771 the House would probably be wearied tomorrow.
Lord John RussellAfter our deliberations have formerly lasted so long on a subject, nearly similar in its nature to the present Question there is, I think good reason for proceeding without delay, tomorrow. I do not, after the length of the present debate, anticipate that it will be protracted to-morrow.
§ Mr. Finchbegged to disabuse the noble Lord as to there being little or no debate on the further proceedings on this subject, as he (Mr. Finch) could assure him that many Gentlemen were anxious, and even determined, to state their opinions on the subject, who had been prevented from doing so on this and former nights by the Friends of the noble Lord. They had already had four nights' debate on this subject; and he did not doubt that if it did not last so long, the debate would at least last three nights more.
§ Lord Ebringtonsaid, that what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman appeared to him to afford an additional reason for immediately proceeding with the subject; for he had thought that the Question, if not finally settled, was considered virtually so; at least he considered it so, and therefore he was surprised that hon. Gentlemen were anxious to express their opinions on the subject. At any rate he thought it highly important for the sake of all interests—for the advantage of all parties concerned—that the Question should be brought to a final settlement as soon as possible. He trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would persist in his Motion that the further discussion should take place this day.
§ Mr. Richardshad an Amendment to propose. ["Oh, oh!"] He had been taunted by the opposite party on this paltry Resol u ion. He should divide the House as to the postponement of the debate till Monday.
§ Mr. Humehad not understood the right hon. Baronet to request the postponement of the Question that he might give further consideration to it. He would put it to him, therefore, whether, after four nights' debate, it was not better to go on with it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid—I wish to observe that I did not propose delay as a Minister; but I suggested it to the noble Lord as a matter of convenience. In other respects it is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether we proceed to- 772 morrow or Monday. I am sure, however, that it would be more for the general convenience to commence the debate on Monday, and, if necessary to adjourn the subject, than to proceed after this late hour, and with our attention wearied with the subject to-morrow. The proposition does not appear to me to be unreasonable, and I do not see any possible reason why it should be opposed. I would appeal to any one whether there would not be more attention to the subject on Monday ["No, no," and cheers.]
§ The Motion that the Report be reconsidered on the following day was agreed to.
| The following is the list of the AYES on the above Division. | |
| Acheson, Viscount | Browne, Dominick |
| Adam, Admiral | Buckingham, J. S. |
| Aglionby H. A. | Buller, E. |
| Ainsworth, P. | Buller, Charles |
| Alston, Rowland | Bulwer, H. L. |
| Angerstein, J. | Bulwer, E. G. E. L. |
| Anson, Sir George | Burdon, W. W. |
| Astley, Sir J. | Burton, H. |
| Attwood, T. | Butler, Hon. Pierce |
| Bagshaw, John | Buxton, T. F. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Byng, G. |
| Baines, Edward | Byng, Sir J. |
| Bannerman, Alex. | Campbell, Sir J. |
| Barclay, D. | Campbell, W. F. |
| Barham, J. | Carter, B. |
| Baring, Francis T. | Cave, Otway |
| Barnard, E. G. | Cavendish, Hon. C. |
| Barron, Henry W. | Cavendish, Hon. G. H. |
| Barry, G. S. | Cayley, E. S. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Chalmers, P. |
| Beaumont, T. W. | Chapman, M. L. |
| Belfast, Lord | Chichester, J. P. B. |
| Bellew, R. M. | Clay, W. |
| Bellew, Sir P. | Clayton, Sir W. |
| Berkeley, Hon. C. | Clements, Lord |
| Berkeley, Hon. G. C. | Clive, E. B. |
| Berkeley, Captain | Cobbett, W. |
| Bernal, R. | Cockerell, Sir C. |
| Bewes, T. | Codrington, Sir E. |
| Biddulph, R. | Colborne, N. W. R. |
| Bish, T. | Collier, John |
| Blake, M. J. | Conyngham, Lord A. |
| Blamire, W. | Cookes, T. H. |
| Blunt, Sir Charles R. | Copeland, W. T. |
| Bodkin, John James | Cowper, Hon. W. F. |
| Bowes, J. | Crawford, W. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Crawford, W. S. |
| Brabazon, Sir W. J. | Crawley, S. |
| Brady, Dennis C. | Crompton, S. |
| Bridgeman, H. | Curteis, Herbert B. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Curteis, Edward B. |
| Brodie, W. | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Brotherton, J. | De Beauvoir, Sir J. E. |
| Denison, J. E. | Howard, R. |
| Denison, W. J. | Howard, P. H. |
| Dennistoun, A. | Howick, Lord |
| Divett, E. | Hume, J. |
| Dobbin, L. | Hurst, R. H. |
| Donkin, Sir R. S. | Hutt, W. |
| Duncombe, T. S. | Kemp, T. R. |
| Dundas, Hon. T. | Kennedy, J. |
| Dunlop, Colin | Kerry, Earl of |
| Dykes, F. L. B. | King, E. B. |
| Ebrington, Lord | Labouchere, H. |
| Ellice, E. | Lambton, H. |
| Elphinstone, Howard | Langton, W. G. |
| Etwall, R. | Leader, J. T. |
| Euston, Lord | Lee, J. L. |
| Evans, George | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Evans, Colonel | Lennard, T. B. |
| Ewart, W. | Lister, E. C. |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J. |
| Fellowes, Hon. N. | Loch, J. |
| Fergus, John | Long, W. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. | Lushington, Dr. |
| Ferguson, R. | Lushington, C. |
| Fergusson, C | Lynch, A. H. |
| French, F. | Mackenzie, J. A. S. |
| Fielden, J. | Macleod, R. |
| Finn, W. F. | Macnamara, Major |
| Fitzgibbon, R. H. | Maher, J. |
| Fitzroy, Lord C. | Mangles, J. |
| Fitzsimon, C. | Marjoribanks, S. |
| Fitzsimon, N. | Marshall, W. |
| Folkes, Sir W. J. H. B. | Marsland, H. |
| Fort, J. | Martin, T. B. |
| Fox, Lieut.-Colonel | Maule, Hon. Fox |
| Gaskell, D. | M'Cance, J. |
| Gisborne,T. | M'Taggart, J. |
| Gillon, W. D. | Methuen, P. |
| Gordon, R. | Milton, Viscount |
| Goring, H. D. | Molesworth, Sir W. |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. C. | Moreton, Hon. A. H. |
| Grattan, H. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Grattan, J. | Mostyn, Hon. E. L. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Mullins, F. W. |
| Grey, Hon. C. | Murray, J. A. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Musgrave, Sir R. |
| Grote, G. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Guest, J. J. | O'Brien, C. |
| Gully, J. | O'Brien, W. S. |
| Hall, Benjamin | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Hallyburton, D. G. | O'Connell, D. |
| Handley, H. | O'Connell, J. |
| Harland, W. C. | O'Connell, Morgan |
| Harvey, D. W. | O'Connell, Maurice |
| Hawes, B. | O'Connor, Feargus |
| Hawkins, J. H. | O'Conor, Don. |
| Hay, Colonel, L. | O'Dwyer, C. |
| Heathcoat, J. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Heathcote, R. G. | Oliphant, L. |
| Hector, C. | O'Loghlen, Serjeant |
| Heneage, E. | Ord, W. H. |
| Heron, Sir R. | Ord, W. |
| Hindley, C. | Oswald, R. A. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Oswald, J. |
| Hodges, T. | Paget, F. |
| Holland, Edward | Palmer, General |
| Hoskins, K. | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Howard, E. G. G. | Parrott, J. |
| Pattison, J. | Stanley, Hon. H. T. |
| Pease, J. | Steuart, R. |
| Pechell, Captain | Stewart, P. M. |
| Pelham, Hon. C. A. W. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Pendarves, E. W. | Strutt, E. |
| Perrin, Serjeant | Stuart, Lord D. |
| Philips, G. R. | Stuart, Lord J. |
| Philips, M. | Sullivan, R. |
| Phillipps, C. M. | Surrey, Earl of |
| Pinney, W. | Talbot, J. H. |
| Ponsonby, J. G. B. | Talfourd, T. N. |
| Potter, R. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Poulter, J. S. | Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C. |
| Power, J. | Thomson, Rt, Hon. P. |
| Power, P. | Thornely, T. |
| Price, Sir R. | Tooke, W. |
| Pryme, G. | Tracey, C. H. |
| Pryse, Pryse | Trelawney, Sir W. L. S. |
| Ramsbottom, J. | Troubride, Sir T. |
| Ramsden, J. C. | Tulk, C. A. |
| Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. | Tynte, C. J. K. |
| Rippon, C. | Tynte, C. K. K. |
| Robarts, A. W. | Villiers, C. P. |
| Robinson, G. R. | Vivian, C. C. |
| Roche, W. | Vivian, J. H. |
| Roche, D. | Wakley, T. |
| Roebuck, J. A. | Walker, C. A. |
| Rolfe, R. M. | Walker, R. |
| Ronayne, D. | Wallace, R. |
| Rooper, J. Bonfoy | Warburton, H. |
| Rundle, J. | Ward, H. G. |
| Russell, Lord John | Westenra, H. R. |
| Russell, Lord C. | Westenra, Colonel |
| Russell, Lord | Whalley, Sir S. |
| Ruthven, E. S. | White, G. |
| Ruthven, E. | Wigney, I. N. |
| Scholefield, J. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Scrope, G. P. | Wilde, Sergeant |
| Seale, Colonel | Wilks, J. |
| Seymour, Lord | Williams, W. A. |
| Sharpe, General | Williams, W. |
| Sheil, R. L. | Williams, Sir J. |
| Sheldon, E. R. C. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Simeon, Sir R. G. | Winnington, Sir T. |
| Smith, Hon. R. | Winnington, Captain |
| Smith, J. A. | Wood, Alderman |
| Smith, R. V. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Smith, B. | Wroltesley, Sir J. |
| Speirs, A. G. | Wyse, T. |
| Speirs, A. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Baring, T. |
| Alford, Viscount | Baring, H. B. |
| Alsager, Richard | Barneby, John |
| Arbuthnot, Hon. H. | Bateson, Sir R. |
| Archdall, M. | Beckett, Sir J. |
| Ashley, Lord | Bell, Matthew |
| Attwood, M. | Benett, J. |
| Bagot, Hon. W. | Bentinck, Lord G. |
| Bailey, J. | Beresford, Sir J. P. |
| Baillie, H. D. | Bethell, R. |
| Balfour, J. | Blackburne, J. J. |
| Barclay, C. | Boldero, H. G. |
| Baring, F. | Bolling, W. |
| Baring, W. B. | Bonham, F. R. |
| Baring, Rt. Hon. A, | Borthwick, Peter |
| Bradshaw, J. | Foley, E. T. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Follett, Sir W. W. |
| Brownrigg, J. S. | Forbes, Lord |
| Bruce, Lord E. A. | Forbes, W. |
| Bruce, C. L. C. | Forster, C. S. |
| Brudenell, Lord | Forester, Hon. G. C. W. |
| Bruen, Colonel | Freshfield, J. W. |
| Bruen, F. | Gaskell, J. Milnes |
| Buller, Sir J. B. Y. | Geary, Sir W. R. P. |
| Burrell, Sir C. M. | Gladstone, T. |
| Calcraft, J. H. | Gladstone, W. E. |
| Campbell, Sir H. P. | Glynne, Sir S.R. |
| Canning, Sir S. | Goodricke, H. |
| Carruthers, D. | Gordon, W. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Gore, W. O. |
| Chandos, Marquis of | Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Chaplin, T. | Graham, Sir J. R. G. |
| Chapman, A. | Grant, Colonel |
| Charlton, E. L. | Greene, T. |
| Chatterton, Colonel | Greisley, Sir R. |
| Chetwynd, W. F. | Greville, Sir C. J. |
| Chichester, A. | Grimston, Hon. E. H. |
| Churchill, Lord C. S. | Grimston, Viscount |
| Clive, Viscount | Halford, H. |
| Clive, Hon. R. H. | Halse, J. |
| Codrington, C. W. | Hamilton, Lord C. |
| Cole, Hon. A. H. | Hanmer, Sir J. |
| Cole, Viscount | Hanmer, H. |
| Compton, H. C. | Harcourt, G. G. |
| Conolly, E. M | Hardinge, Sir H. |
| Cooper, Hon. H. A. | Hardy, J. |
| Cooper, E. J. | Hawkes, T. |
| Coote, Sir C. C. | Hay, Sir J. |
| Corbett, T. G. | Hayes, Sir E. S. |
| Corry, Hon. H. L. | Henniker, Lord |
| Crewe, Sir G. | Herbert, Hon. S. |
| Cripps, J. | Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C. |
| Dalbiac, Sir C. | Hill, Sir R. |
| Damer, G. L. | Hill, Lord Arthur |
| Dare, R. W. H. | Hogg, J. W. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Hope, Hon. J. |
| Davenport, J. | Hope, H. T. |
| Dick, Quintin | Hotham, Lord |
| Dottin, A. R. | Houldsworth, T. |
| Dowdeswell, W. | Hoy, J. B. |
| Duffield, T. | Hughes, Hughes |
| Dugdale, D. S. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Duncombe, Hon. W. | Irton, S. |
| Duncombe, Hon. A. | Jackson, J. D. |
| Dundas, R. A. | Jermyn, Earl of |
| Durham, Sir P. C. H. | Johnstone, Sir J. |
| East, J. B. | Johnstone, J. J. H. |
| Eastnor, Viscount | Jones, T. |
| Eaton, R. J. | Jones, W. |
| Egerton, W. T. | Kelly, F. |
| Egerton, Sir P. de M. | Kerr, David |
| Egerton, Lord F. | Kerrison, Sir E. |
| Entwistle, J. | Kirk, Peter |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Knatchbull, Sir E. |
| Fancourt, C. St. John | Lawson, A. |
| Fector, J. M. | Lefroy, T. |
| Feilden, W. | Lefroy, A. |
| Ferguson, G. | Lemon, Sir C. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | Lennox, Lord A. |
| Finch, G. | Lennox, Lord J. G. |
| Fleet wood, P. H. | Lewis, David |
| Fleming, J. | Lewis, W. |
| Leycester, J. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Lincoln, Earl of | Ross, C. |
| Lopez, Sir R. | Rushbrook, R. |
| Lowther, Lord | Russell, C. |
| Lowther, Hon. H. C. | Ryle, J. |
| Lowther, J. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Lucas, E. | Sanderson, R. |
| Lygon, Colonel H. B. | Scarlett, Hon. R. C. |
| Law, Hon. C. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Lushington, C. | Scott, Lord J. |
| Mackinnon, W. A. | Scourfield, W. H. |
| Maclean, Donald | Shaw, Rt. Hon. F. |
| Mahon, Viscount | Sheppard, T. |
| Mandeville, Viscount | Sibthorp, Colonel |
| Manners, Lord R. | Sinclair, G. |
| Marsland, T. | Smith, T. A. |
| Martin, J. | Smith, A. |
| Mathew, Captain | Smyth, Sir G. H. |
| Maxwell, H. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Meynell, H. | Somerset, Lord E. |
| Miles, W. | Spry, S. |
| Miles, P. J. | Stanley, Lord |
| Miller, W. H. | Stanley, E. |
| Mordaunt, Sir J. | Stewart, Sir M. S. |
| Morgan, C. M. R. | Stewart, J. |
| Mosley, Sir O. | Stormont, Viscount |
| Neeld, Joseph | Sturt, H. C. |
| Neeld, J. | Tennant, J. E. |
| Nicholl, John | Thomas, Colonel |
| Norreys, Lord | Thompson, P. B. |
| North, F. | Thompson, W. |
| O'Neill, General | Townley, R. G. |
| Ossulston, Viscount | Townsend, Lord J. |
| Owen, Sir J. | Trench, Sir Fred. |
| Palmer, R. | Trevor, Hon. G. R. |
| Parry, Colonel | Trevor, Hon. Arthur |
| Patten, J. W. | Turner, T. F. |
| Peel, Colonel | Twiss, H. |
| Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Peel, Rt. Hon. W. Y. | Vere, Sir C. B. |
| Peel, Edmund | Verner, Colonel |
| Pelham, J. C. | Vernon, G. H. |
| Pemberton, T. | Vesey, Hon. Thomas |
| Penruddock, J. H. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Perceval, Colonel | Vyvyan, Sir R. R. |
| Pigot, R. | Wall, C. B. |
| Plumptre, J. P. | Walpole, Lord |
| Polhill, F. | Welby, G. E. |
| Pollen, Sir J. | Weyland, Richard |
| Pollington, Viscount | Whitmore, T. C. |
| Pollock, Sir F. | Wilbraham, Hon. R. |
| Powell, Colonel | Williams, T. P. |
| Poyntz, W. S. | Williams, Robert |
| Praed, J. B. | Wodehouse, Hon. E. |
| Praed, W. M. | Wood, Thomas |
| Price, S. G. | Worcester, Marquis of |
| Price, R. | Wyndham, Wadham |
| Pringle, A. | Wynn, Sir W. W. |
| Pusey, P. | Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.W. |
| Rae, Sir W. | Yorke, E. T. |
| Reid, Sir J. Rae | Young, Sir W. L. |
| Richards, J. | Young, John |
| Rickford, W. |
| TELLERS. | |
| For | Against |
| Wood, Charles | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Stanley, E. J. | Clerk, Sir George |
| PAIRED OFF. | |
| For | Against |
| Andover, Lord | Bulkeley, Sir R. |
| Burdett, Sir Francis | Goulburn, Sergeant |
| Dundas, Hon. J. | Kavanagh, T. |
| Edwards, J. | Locke, Wadham |
| Hobhouse, Sir John | Noel, Sir G. |
| Humphery, John | Owen, H. O. |
| Parker, J. | Talmash, Hon. A. |
| Talbot, C. R. M. | Vaughan, Sir R. |
| Wemyss, J. | Wortley, Hon. J. S. |