HC Deb 07 April 1835 vol 27 cc878-969
Mr. Bernal

brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Established Church of Ireland. On the question that it be read,

Mr. Sinclair

said, I wish to know from the noble Lord whether it is his intention to move that the resolutions now brought up be communicated to the House of Lords. That House still constitutes a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature of this country, and no measure can become law without its concurrence. From the proceedings of that House with respect to a similar question, we have reason to suppose that a proposition like that upon the Table, whether presented in the shape of a Bill or in any other form, would be rejected there by at least as large a majority as that by which it was carried here. Unless one hundred new Peers were created for the purpose, I apprehend it would be impossible to carry through the three branches of the Legislature any means for the diversion of a portion of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of the Church of Ireland to secular purposes. It is therefore right that the matter should be brought to an issue, that we may ascertain whether the House of Lords is prepared to assent to such a proceeding. I cannot conceive, whatever Government may be in office, that it would be prepared to recommend his Majesty to create a hundred Peers in order to carry into effect a resolution regarding an imaginary surplus—I call it imaginary, because I am convinced that on inquiry it will turn out, like the Croker Mountains, to have no existence. Instead of a surplus, there may be found a deficiency; for the number of clergymen in Ireland, I contend, is inadequate to the duties they have to discharge; at least none of them can be dispensed with. I beg, therefore, that the noble Lord will inform me whether he means to communicate his resolution to the House of Lords?

Lord John Russell

The hon. Member asks whether I mean to communicate the resolution to the House of Lords, and he tells me that it is his opinion that it will not be adopted there. My answer is, that I do not propose to communicate the resolution to the House of Lords; but, I do not participate in the opinion he entertains that there is anything in the resolution, when presented in the shape of a legislative measure, that will not pass the House of Lords. I found my opinion upon the precedent which I quoted the other day as to the course the other House of Parliament adopted upon a very great question—a question which certainly disturbed and excited the religious feeling of the people of this kingdom more than any other that I remember—I mean the question usually known by the name of Catholic Emancipation. In the year 1828, after a resolution on that subject had been carried in this House, by a majority of six, it was determined to communicate it to the House of Lords. It was there moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, and, without recollecting the precise numbers on each side, I believe it was rejected by a majority of forty votes. That result would have induced one to think that no Bill for Catholic Emancipation would be allowed to pass. History, however, informs us otherwise: it informs us that, in the following year, a Bill was proposed to the House of Lords, which had received the previous sanction of the Ministers of the Crown; and the measure being recommended by the Crown, it passed the House of Lords by a majority of ninety or one hundred votes. Therefore, with the leave of the hon. Member, I shall profit by that experience. I do not propose, in the first instance, to communicate the resolution; but I feel convinced that when we have obtained the sanction of the Crown to the proceeding of this House, the House of Lords will not refuse to pass a legislative measure which, in my opinion, will promote the security of the Church of Ireland and the peace of the whole empire.

The Report was read. On the question that it be read a second time,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said: This, I apprehend, is the main resolution which we shall be called upon to vote; it is, in fact, exactly the same that was adopted last night. As there is no rational ground to suppose that the change from a Committee where it was carried, to the whole House where it is to be confirmed, will make any difference in the view taken of the question, the noble Lord will not infer the slightest alteration of opinion in those who resisted the resolution last night, if we do not now think it necessary to press the question to a division. The reason why we do not is because the noble Lord has given notice of another motion, the purport of which, we have been informed, will be that this House will not consent to any Tithe Bill of which the principle of the resolution does not form a part. Upon that I shall certainly take the sense of the House, which will preclude the necessity of wasting time upon the resolution just read.

Report read a second time.

Lord John Russell

then rose, for the purpose of proposing his resolution, "That it is the opinion of this House, that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." He said that, after having occupied the attention of the House lately on various occasions, he hoped it would not be necessary for him to enter into the subject to which his motion referred, at any great length upon the present occasion. Yet there were some considerations connected with it, which he felt bound to notice. After the House had declared, first by a Resolution in Committee, and then by assenting to the Report of that Committee—that any surplus which might remain of the revenues of the Irish Church, after providing fully for the spiritual instruction of its members, ought to be applied to the general education of all classes, he should think that it would be only aggravating the disappointment, and exciting the feelings of the people of Ireland, if they did content themselves during the present session with passing a Bill on the subject of tithes, which did not contain some provision embodying that declaration. After having thus proceeded, and after having thus naturally excited the hopes of the people of that country, the House ought to pass, as a legislative Act, some measure to that effect, as well as any other provision on the subject of tithes which they might think fit to adopt. Any one, who considered fairly the Question at issue on the present occasion, must see that it was a great question of principle on which the two sides of the House were opposed. The principle on which the late Government were disposed to act was stated in a speech to be found recorded as having been delivered by his noble friend (Lord Spencer), who sat then on the other side of the House as the leader of his Majesty's Government. It was this: "Most undoubtedly the Government did think, and he was prepared as a member himself of the Protestant Church, to assert, that it would be most advantageous to the Protestant religion in both parts of the empire not to continue in Ireland that irritation which was consequent upon the present distribution of Church-property in that country. It was impossible for any man, who looked with reasonable feelings upon the present system of distribution, not to say that so large an appropriation of property for the ministers of so comparatively small a part of the population was calculated to diminish instead of increase the number of Protestants in that part of the realm, because it was manifest that much dissatisfaction among the other sects was inevitable. With respect to the right of interference, he could not conceive on what grounds hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were opposed to the Government on this occasion, but who had conceded the right of Parliament to deprive one corporation of a portion of its property to confer it upon another, should urge that the Legislature had no right to apply the Church revenues to other purposes—he meant moral and religious purposes."* That was the statement of principle made by his noble friend at the end of the last session, and that was the principle on which, if he had continued a member of that Government at the beginning of the present year, he, and those who acted with him, would have been prepared to proceed. Now the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and those who acted with him, had on the other hand, declared their adherence to a totally opposite principle—namely, that they did not consider moral and religious education to be a purpose strictly Ecclesiastical, and that to purposes strictly Ecclesiastical they were determined to confine the appropriation of the revenues of the Church. It was on that great question of principle, and not on any question of inferior consideration—not the question of the continuance of a Ministry, though that would be an important one also—that the House had decided the other night. He contended that having so decided, it behoved the House to continue the work which it had begun, and * Hansard, (third series) vol. xxiv., p, 754. see that the principle which they had asserted—the principle which they had held to be essential to the peace of Ireland, and the fulfilment of justice in that country, was carried into effect by means of some legislative measure. A right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Hardinge) had proposed the introduction of a measure on the subject of Irish tithes; and he (Lord J. Russell) would state that he was surprised, as that right hon. Gentleman had been allowed every facility for bringing in his Bill, that the Bill had not yet been introduced. As the measure itself was not before the House, his knowledge of it could only be founded on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman when he had obtained leave to bring it in; and from that statement he (Lord J. Russell) did not think that it afforded any hope of accomplishing what was promised in the King's Speech—a final and equitable adjustment of the question. He did not think that any adjustment could be final or equitable, which continued to leave 75 per cent, of the great sinecure livings which existed in the south of Ireland, or which kept alive those sources of irritation and discord which arose from the circumstance of such large revenues being applied to the exclusive benefit of the Church, while the moral and religious instruction of the greater part of the community was totally neglected. He thought, moreover, that the Bill had another very great fault in it—a fault not originating with the right hon. gentleman who brought the measure forward—but which seemed to have been inherent in our government of Ireland on so many occasions. It appeared to be almost an obvious principle of government—and more particularly in the case of the government of Ireland—first to make the law just, and afterwards to maintain it. The principle adopted in regard to Ireland, seemed to be of an exactly contrary nature. It was to take no pains, to use no care, in order to render the laws just, and to adapt them to the feelings and habits of the people of that country; but, after making bad laws, to connive at, and almost to approve of, the violation of them. At the end of last year, there had been, as was well known, an Irish Tithe Bill in the House of Lords, which was rejected by that House. It might have been thought, that those who were concerned in its rejection, would have done every thing possible to maintain and uphold those who continued to pay tithes, and to discountenance those who resisted the payment of them. But the fact was, that according to the Bill now brought forward, it was proposed to proceed just the other way, and excuse all those who had hitherto not paid a farthing of tithe from being bound to pay the full amount of it, and to supply the deficiency of revenue thereby occasioned from the portion of the Million Fund remaining unapplied. He must say that he thought it desirable if possible to give some encouragement, and attach some reward to those who had obeyed the law, and come forward to pay what was legally due from them, and at the same time to afford no advantage to those who have disobeyed it more than is possessed by those who had observed its provisions. He thought, therefore, that the Bills hitherto proposed on the subject of Irish tithes, although they contained many good provisions, were yet incomplete, as keeping up that main grievance, as he considered it, of which he had spoken the other night, and not providing for the removal of other evils which ought to be removed. In his opinion the Bill which was to be brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, could not be satisfactory without fome provision framed in accordance with the principle which the House had lately determined to assert. The right hon. Baronet opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had declared that he could not, consistently with his feelings of duty, agree to any such provision. But if the Ministry could only stand by succeeding against this principle, he did think that it was far better that the principle should succeed, and that the Ministry should fall. He should therefore move—That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution.—If it were to be successful, there could be, in his opinion, no difficulty, as soon as a sufficient number of reports should be received from Ireland, on the subject of the Commission appointed last year, in framing clauses sufficiently comprehensive of the principle which had been adopted, and to provide for such a distribution of the revenues of the Church of Ireland, as might enable them, after the spiritual wants of the Protestant population had been fully supplied, to devote a large sum to the purposes of education.

Sir Henry Hardinge

rose to make a few observations on what had fallen from the noble Lord, in reference to the provisions of the Bill which was about to be intro- duced on the subject of Irish tithes, and the nature of which the noble Lord had understood in a manner very different from the impression which he (Sir Henry Hardinge) had intended to convey when he first addressed the House on the subject. The noble Lord assumed that there was great injustice in the Bill in question, to the effect that those who had obeyed the law had no boon conferred on them, while those who had resisted the law were to escape from the payments. There was no such provision contained in it. Those who ought to have paid compositions for 1834 would be called on to pay them, as well as the landlords who had already paid them. He had stated, that the poorer class of tithe-payers would be exempted, because the collection of tithe from them could only be accomplished by the aid of military force. The reason he had given for taking such a course was, the danger that must attend the collection in such cases. As they had permitted the late Government, by the loan of a million to pay the clergy for the years 1832, 1833, and 1834, out of the public purse, and had relieved the tithe-payers from the necessity of paying tithe which they ought to have paid, it would be impossible, he had contended, in consequence of the establishment of such an example, to levy the tithes of 1834, without having recourse to military force. He had stated, in the most distinct terms which he could use, that the conviction on the minds of the lower classes of the people of Ireland had been such, in consequence of that loan, that it would be impossible to levy tithe on them by distraint, without having recourse to the means he had mentioned. The class of tithe-payers to be exempted was the poorer class, and not the richer class, who had entered into the composition; and when the noble Lord said, that the Bill to be introduced was marked by injustice in this respect, he certainly could not have been aware of its real provisions as they had been explained on a former occasion. The contrary was indeed the case; those who owed a tithe composition for the year 1834 would be sued and forced to pay it in the same manner as others had already paid it. The distinction was this: those who were to be sued would be sued by civil process, and as they were landlords immediately above the occupying tenant, there would be no necessity for distraining on them for the tithe. The sum remaining on hand of the Million Fund would be applied to make up the deficiency to the tithe owners. With respect to the Resolution before the House, he wished to ascertain from the noble Lord what he considered to be a surplus? Would he consider the surplus to be that which would exist after the clergy had been paid whatever the Legislature might deem it fit to afford them? or would he adhere to the line of conduct which had been laid down when the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) was a Member of the Government, and when the Church Temporalities' Bill was introduced? On that occasion Earl Grey, the head of the Government, stated, in distinct terms, that after the clergy had received that which was appointed for them under the proposed plan, there was to be a portion of the revenues set apart for the augmentation of small livings, the building of churches, and the building of glebe houses. A provision for these objects that noble Earl considered to be so important as to state that in his opinion no appropriation of the Church revenues should take place without it. In the speech with which he accompanied the introduction of the Church Temporalities' Bill in the House of Lords, he stated that the Church-cess would require 60,000l. the augmentation of small livings 46,000l., the building of churches 20,000l. and the building of glebe-houses 10,000l. making a total of 136,000l to be applied to these purposes, after the clergy had been sufficiently provided for. If there were a surplus—a fact which he denied—but in case there should be one, did the noble Lord intend to apply it in the first place to the augmentation of small livings to the extent of 46,000l.? Or, what was the course which it was intended to take? While upon the subject he would beg to call the attention of the House to a report which had been presented within the last three or four days from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in which they stated that there were a great number of individuals who had applied to them for loans, in order to construct churches, and who had offered in some instances to contribute one-half of the expense, and in others three-fourths of it; but such, they added, was the state of the funds of the Commission, that having 70,000l. to spend, and only 19,000l. or 20,000l. of receipts, they were obliged to refuse all applications of the kind. The fact was, that at present, the augmentation of small livings, the building of churches, the building of glebe-houses, and everything leading to the improvement of the Church of Ireland was at a stand-still, and so far from the Commissioners having a surplus, they were considerably in debt. They stated that had they been enabled to hold out any encouragement, the applications would have been, under such circumstances, far more numerous; very many applications, they added, had been made from incumbents for the building of glebe-houses, and for the augmentation of small livings, and those they regretted to say, had, from the want of surplus funds, met with no better success. It appeared, therefore, that there was everything but a probability of the existence of a surplus at present. With regard to the resolution of the noble Lord, he, for one, felt that if it were embodied in any Tithe Bill, it would place the Government of Ireland in such a position as must render it perfectly impossible to conduct it with justice and satisfaction. Under such circumstances, he felt that it was a practical difficulty—a practical obstruction which the noble Lord was interposing in preventing him (Sir Henry Hardinge) from bringing in the Tithe Bill which he had already explained to the House; and if the decision of the House were to be in favour of the noble Lord's proposal, no consideration on earth should induce him to be a party to the introduction of a measure in which was embodied such a Resolution—a Resolution by which he considered that the destruction of the Protestant Church must eventually be caused, and considerable difficulty must occur to the general Administration of the country, while many scenes of tumult and bloodshed would, he was afraid, be caused. It would be impossible for any Government, entertaining the principles and the feelings of honour which the present Government entertained, to carry into effect a measure which had engrafted on it such a Resolution as that proposed by the noble Lord. He would not detain the House further—he would simply repeat, that if the Resolution of the noble Lord were to pass, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) would not be the person to bring in a Tithe Bill embodying it.

Lord John Russell

said, he would endeavour to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to him. His view in considering the subject was this—in parts of Limerick or Kerry, where there existed a great number of parishes containing no Protestants or only a very few, there would arise a surplus, in consequence of there being too many benefice. Clergymen to perform the duties required on behalf of those Protestants. He should propose to take away the whole revenues of those benefices which were not needed, in order to apply them to the augmentation of small livings, and the building of Churches and of glebe-houses in Armagh and Down, where such application might be called for: the surplus then remaining he should propose to apply to moral and religious instruction in the district.

Mr. Baring

said, that the practicable point was, whether there was a surplus or not, and surely if there were not, it never could be the intention of the House to make this merely a party question. He really thought it worth while first to ascertain if there were a surplus, as the noble Lord could not be conjuror enough to apply an imaginary surplus. Such an intention would be senseless and absurd, and contrary to the common sense of the House, which would vote the destruction of benefices when a report then before the House might show their funds were ineffectual. What was to prevent the noble Lord, supposing he were really honest in his view, that his Motion was not urged on to serve party purposes, or to put his antagonists in a position from which it would be impossible for them to escape, that it was simply to tranquillize Ireland and support the true interests of the Church Establishment—what was to prevent the noble Lord, he would ask, from waiting for the necessary information respecting the surplus? If these were the noble Lord's real objects, the only reasonable course he could adopt was, first, to ascertain what surplus or sinecure benefices could be taken away, and, secondly, what was the proper mode for the application of their proceeds. With respect to the noble Lord's statements he should beg to ask the noble Lord was the Tithe Bill to be framed or supported by him to contain distinct provisions for the temporary extinction of the several benefices to which he had alluded, in addition to a recognition of the general principle of the Resolution? Would it specify the circumstances or the period at which it became necessary to deprive the incumbents of their respective benefices, and take away the Protestant pastors from each parish? Surely in such a case, where not alone the interests of the Church, but the feelings of a whole people were concerned, it behoved the House to proceed cautiously, and, above all, not to attempt to legislate in entire ignorance of the subject which they were called on to deal with There was as yet no report from the Commission of the last year. Perhaps the noble Lord knew when it would be made. There was scarcely any information whatever on the subject—certainly none sufficient to legislate on. But, perhaps, the noble Lord would favour the House with an idea of the nature of the clauses to be introduced into his Tithe Bill. He (Mr. Baring) would take for granted the facts adduced by the noble Lord and supplied by the right hon. Member for Cambridge. He would suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there were various parishes circumstanced as these facts purported to prove. In any measure which the noble Lord might introduce to remedy the evil complained of he should not only specify the circumstances under which the Protestant pastors should be deprived of their respective parishes—not only provide against all contingencies which might occur—but also specify how and under what circumstances they were to be restored to these parishes, and also to provide the requisite means of doing so in case, as the hon. Member for Weymouth put the question to the House, the number of Protestants in them should have increased to the necessary point. He (Mr. Baring) should wish the House and the country to be aware that every hon. Member who spoke on the opposite side differed in his view of the measure from the other—and that almost all the supporters of the Resolution entertained conflicting sentiments and opinions on the same subject. Some of the hon. Members thought that the whole Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland should be destroyed. Such, as far as he could collect, was the tenor of the observation of his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire. He believed his observation was to the effect that the Irish Church Establishment was a great nuisance, and that the country would not be satisfied until it was destroyed altogether. Other hon. Members on the same side—the hon. Member for Halifax among the foremost of them—on the contrary, expressed it as a condition of the measure that the Protestant pastor should not be withdrawn from the parish as long as a single Protestant remained in it, the object of the Resolution being to destroy the sinecure portion of the Establishment and not to touch that part which was useful. Other hon. Members differed from these in a greater or lesser degree, through various shades, but these were the grand divisions of opinion on the opposite side on the subject. With such different views, and such a wide variance in opinion on the same matter, he (Mr. Baring) would ask how was it possible to legislate so as to please both parties and meet the wishes of those of opposite sentiments. [Mr. Littleton? said, his right hon. Friend was mistaken in imputing to him a wish to destroy the Church Establishment in Ireland.] His right hon. Friend denied that he had any intention of destroying the Church, and the denial was to be taken as his right hon. Friend's sentiment; but he could not help saying, that his impression to the effect he had stated had been very strong indeed. The noble Lord talked of the measures a one of final pacification for Ireland; but he (Mr. Baring) thought the contrary would be found to be the case. He did not think it was possible for the mind of man to conceive anything more capable of creating and perpetuating feuds and bad feeling among the people of that country than the establishment of such a general and vague principle as the appropriation of an indefinite, perhaps a non-existent, surplus of Church-property. The collision and the feud would begin, not in parishes where the Catholic and Protestant were nearly equal—not in those parishes even where they were as 500 to 5,000—but in those where they were in the proportion of ten, twelve, fourteen, seventeen, or twenty to 1800,2,000, or 3,000. If the provision of the Protestant rector were left in proportion to the Catholic clergyman as ten to one, then nothing was done for the pacification of Ireland; and yet that was a portion of the principle in detail as advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In cities or towns where the Catholic and Protestant population were unequal, there would be a constant state of warfare, and the Catholics would take all opportunities of diminishing the numbers of the Protestants, in the hope of reducing them below the point at which the expense of contributing to the support of the Church was compulsory on them. When it would come to such a point that it only required the absence of ten Protestants, he would suppose, to relieve the Catholics from the payment of a Protestant clergyman, how much strife and how much bloodshed, how much feud, and how much dissension, would there not be until those ten unfortunate beings should be banished from the place. And then to talk of returning was idle. They would be kept away by some means or other—by death's head and cross bones, or by some method equally effectual. The Protestant and Catholic would thus be compelled to live in a state of continual animosity and warfare, while the noble Lord and those who by supporting his Resolution caused that state of things would of course call it final perfection. He (Mr. Baring) had the greatest respect for his hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth. He believed, that he was sincerely attached to the Church of England, and that he would do nothing wilfully to injure her interests; but he believed also that in the course he had taken on this Question he was much mistaken. He would put it to that hon. Member, and to the House, whether, in consideration of the whole subject, the principle of the noble Lord's Resolution was not alone calculated to injure vitally, but to destroy the Church of Ireland? He did not intend to trespass farther on the attention of the House; but he could not help asking whether there was any earthly necessity to press the Resolution of the noble Lord at present. If the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side chose to deal with the Church of Ireland they should, in common propriety, deal with it only when the reports of their own Commission should be laid on the Table of the House. He would implore them to consider the evils they were about to entail on Ireland by the course which they had begun, and before they proceeded further to bear in mind that the result would he the substitution of the Catholic for the Protestant Church in that country. If they wished to accomplish the end which they professed to have in view—the pacification of Ireland—he could assure them, that they could not take a more unsatisfactory or a more ineffectual mode to accomplish it.

Mr. Henry Grattan

said, the Secretary for Ireland is right—he tells us that if the principle of the noble Lord is carried, that it will not be possible to carry the Tithe Bill; and if the principle is annexed to that Bill, that it will not be possible for Government to conduct the affairs of Ireland on their own principles; that is, upon what they please to call Protestant principles, which means ascendancy principles—which means Orange principles. Here he states two impossibilities, but he forgot the third impossibility—that impossibility which he admitted on bringing in his Tithe Bill—and that was the impossibility of collecting tithe in Ireland. See, then, the situation in which Ireland is placed, and in which the Protestant clergy are left. Government do not mean to employ the military in the collection of tithes—they propose a Bill which retains this tithe, though under a different name—they declare their inability to collect Tithe—they declare the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Fund is running in debt, and from no other source do they provide any provision whatsoever for the Clergy; the result must clearly be, that the clergy will be left to starve. Now turn to the plan proposed by the noble Lord—to make the income practicable, he offers diminution in amount, which Government also does; but he adds a new appropriation, which Government does not. With this addition, you may, perhaps, levy a sum for the Clergy, but without it, you will certainly fail. Your present Tithe Bill cannot be agreed to by the House, and even if agreed to would be inefficient. The difference, therefore, between these two measures is the difference between the two parties. The people would object to that measure in your hands, which they might agree to if proposed by the noble Lord, because in you they place no confidence: they look to men no less than to measures, and they judge of you from the men you have promoted, as well as from the principles you have acted on. They see in you their old task-masters, the inveterate opponents of any new system of Reform, and the supporters of the old abuses—they expect nothing sincere or real, and they conceive that you put on a mask, in order the better to deceive. Your speeches, those protracted debates—seven nights and fifty-two orations—will have no effect to calm the minds of the people of Ireland, if you reject the Resolution. The Irish judge of you by the principles you act on, and by the men who are to carry those principles into effect—they will decide against the Government, and the result will be, that discord and dissension will be perpetuated in Ireland. Much abuse and many idle words have been lavished. This is called a revolutionary measure—the work of spoliation, of faction, and of party. I ask what party?—Ireland. What faction?—Seven millions of people!! But there is another party and another people equally concerned—the people of England. Petitions lie on our Table for the repeal of the Malt-tax—for the repeal of the Window-tax—for relief on account of agricultural distress. We cannot comply with these, so long as you indulge in so expensive an Establishment in Ireland. See what that country costs, and what the Established Church costs in advances of money, and in votes from this House, in the military establishment kept up in time of peace, and the naval establishment that you would be obliged to maintain in time of war—23,000 regulars, and near 8,000 police and other armed forces are kept up in Ireland—a force of 31,000 men—a force much larger than you keep up in India, or your Colonies, and far more expensive. The people of England, I say, are mainly interested in this Question, and in vain will you call on them to sign Protestant addresses—in vain will the right hon. Baronet see the walls, and the taverns, and the pastry cooks' shops placarded with his name, with addresses to him and addresses to the King, and cries that the Church is in danger. England will understand and will not respond—she sees that self-interest is at the bottom, and that if she persevere to uphold such an expensive Church system in Ireland, she cannot hope to reduce the expensive Establishments kept up in her own country. To alarm the public and to deceive them they have gone further; and at the meeting in Willis's rooms yesterday, some Members of this House attended; they state the plan of the noble Lord is "to augment the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland at the expense of the Protestant Established Church of the United Kingdom." That so unfounded a charge should be made is indeed surprising, and is only equalled by the extraordinary want of information and veracity that has marked the opposition to this Measure. The noble Lord purposes to educate the people from the funds formerly allotted to this very purpose, and this is called, by Gentlemen opposite, adding to the influence of the Catholic Church. What then becomes of their argument—when they state, that if the Catholics get knowledge they will quickly see the propriety of the Protestant mode of worship, or do they mean to make proselytes, and will they contend that the schools should be Protestant for the children of Catholics: and that if this is not the plan, that the influence of the Catholic Church is augmented; if so, why then have they objected to the new Board of Education? In fact, they answer their own arguments—and one statement completely refutes the other. With respect to the charge of faction brought against the noble Lord—a desire of place—a wish to expel from office the right hon. Baronet by pressing this Resolution, allow me to observe that the Motion is not new—it was in effect, and almost in words, agreed to by the majority of the Irish Members in 1831; and a Resolution, stating that "this species of property should contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion and charity," was submitted to the House by the hon. Member for Wicklow, seconded by the noble Lord (Carey); and another Resolution submitted was, that the application of the fund and the distribution should be left to the decision of Parliament. How then can it be said that it was faction in the noble Lord. Further, an Amendment was last year proposed to the Address in answer to the King's speech; I had the honour of moving it; in the Records of Parliament it appears, and though the words are altered, the spirit is preserved. This is a third proof of what I assert, and it is in the letters of Lord Wellesley in the last year, and of Lord Anglesey, which the Government have in their office, written in 1832; there they will see that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland gives it as his recorded opinion after two visits to Ireland, and a personal inspection in all parts and of all branches, first, "that the Protestant Establishment far exceeded the wants of the Protestant congregation;" next, "that instead of strengthening the connexion between the countries it weakened it," and that "the time had arrived for such just and salutary Reform in respect of this establishment, as would place at the disposal of the State a National Fund to be applied to national and necessary purposes." Here you see Lord Anglesey goes further even than the noble Lord. And what is their authority?—the Viceroy of Ireland—the man chosen and sent over first by the Duke of Wellington. He lastly adds, and let the right hon. Gentleman opposite advert to it, "the time has now passed when the will of the Minister can determine the Acts of the Legislature." Sir, this is not the only evidence I can adduce to show that any measure of tithes would be inoperative and worse than useless unless we added the principle of the noble Lord's Resolution; and this will further refute the charge of faction and party that has been so liberally lavished by gentlemen opposite upon the opposition. I refer to the evidence before the various Committees on the subject of tithes, and of Ireland to that of Dr. Doyle, General Carrol, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Blakely, Bermingham, Mahony, and others; they say that without a new adjustment of Church property satisfaction cannot be given to Ireland; that there must be a re-adjustment of Church property, a restoration to the purposes it was originally granted for, and a fulfilment of that trust; they add, that what was practicable some years ago was not practicable then; and out of twenty-six witnesses the majority are of opinion that alterations, limitations, and radical changes in the Church system in Ireland were absolutely necessary; therefore, with them, I say that what is practicable now may not be practicable hereafter; with them, I say that the public mind and the march of national feeling must be consulted or considered, and if we delay it this year, we may not be able to effect it the next. Sir, I think the charge of faction is disposed of; now for the question of the hon. Member for Caithness, who has just sat down. He asks whence is the surplus? Let me ask him his opinion of a parish where there is no Protestant parishioner, no duty to perform, and when the Protestant rector got 400l. or 5001. or 600l. a-year for doing nothing? What will he say to that state of things—is it just, is it honest, is it consistent with the principles of common sense and the duty, which, as Christians, we owe to one another? My opinion, therefore, is, in all such cases, provide for the vested rights of each party, and on their demise let the revenue form the Surplus Fund for the moral and religious purposes proposed, and for the education of the people, and construction of places and buildings for that object. I turn now to the amount of the property belonging to the Church. The tithes to which they are entitled amount to 600,000l.; the number of acres in possession of the Church, or returned to Parliament, amount to upwards of 600,000 of profitable, and 150,000 rough or waste, or of English acres about 1,200,000. The 600,000 acres are valued variously: in common at 1l. 15s., in others at 1l. 10s. per acre—let us say 1l. per acre, and the waste at 5s.. per acre, that would give 740,000l. Add to this the value of 800 glebe-houses, say 16,000l., that constitutes a property of 756,000l., and 600,000l. of tithes, altogether 1,356,000l. to support the spiritual wants of 1,000,000 of Protestants. As men of sense, as statesmen—as men claiming a love of justice, we are called on to change this monstrous system, and reduce this establishment, which is injurious not only to the people, but which, in itself contains the seeds of self-destruction. See on the other hand, what the Catholic establishment costs: for the spiritual wants of 7,000,000 of Catholics we find a sum little exceeding 300,000l. a-year. If hon. Members do not blush at this—if they do not feel a sense of shame—if they conceive that justice does not enter into this question, let me appeal to their other senses, and let us look to the example that other countries afford. In the French budget, two years ago, the Minister of the Interior stated the whole expense of the Church Establishment of France. It amounts to 25,000,000 of francs, or a little more than 1,000,000 of our money. This for the spiritual wants of 20,000,000 of people, and in that sum will be found about 1,000,000 of francs for the purposes of education, and 200,000 frances for repairing and building of Churches. I ask, then, boldly, what reply can be made to us when we call on you to learn something from those examples, and to adjust the Establishment to the wants of the people—look to the Catholic in Ireland and the Catholic in France; here are precedents to follow—in the humility not in the extravagance of true religion: here men will find a sacred spirit more akin to Christianity than that which others have preached or ever practised; and let not men think they get rid of an answer and exposure by abuse, and applying harsh names to the Catholics, and calling their religion vile and superstitious—in private they would not presume to say this, why then expose their understandings by making false assertions, derogatory to the dignity of statesmen, derogatory to the precepts of piety, no less unfounded in fact than unfair in argument; and injurious not to the people whom they attack, but to the religion which they profess, and which they thus detract from and degrade. They say this resolution is nothing, that it is a mere shadow. I reply this resolution is good for the principle it embraces. What would they say if, in past times, Mr. Hampden had been thus addressed—you form a resolution against paying twenty shillings of Ship-money to Charles the First, there is nothing in it—twenty shillings is a mere shadow—pay the paltry sum, and avoid the risks and fatal consequences from such a resolution'. In the past if such doctrine had been listened to, England might still be a slave. In this case the principle is every thing—that principle, which, under the term Church, comprises all people of every class, creed, and denomination, and whose necessities, spiritual and temporal, should be considered; that principle stated by Mr. Blackstone, repeated from the oldest practice and the best and most serious authorities, to make the Church contribute to that fourfold division which I shall always insist on providing for the poor as well as for the Priest, building the Church for the latter, and instructing and clothing the former: this is true religion, this is real piety—Catholic or Protestant—all are alike placed beneath this eternal, this unalterable, this sacred rule of justice, of charity, and of religion. Sir, allusion was made in the course of this debate to the speech of the late Mr. Grattan in 1819, as if he had advised the upholding of "Protestant ascendancy." The Recorder of Dublin, with his accustomed dexterity, wished to impress the House with that idea. The right hon. Member is mistaken. The speech in question does not bear out any such construction. Mr. Grattan was always an advocate for the Protestant Church Establishment, but not for the ascendancy of any sect—still less for the governing by any such ascendancy; and this is illustrated not only by his numerous speeches, but in a letter which he wrote to the Board of Education in 1811, and which so applies to the resolution of the noble Lord, that it is not possible to overlook it; he there recommends parochial schools on a far more comprehensive "foundation than those directed to be kept—not only for the study of the English tongue, reading writing, and arithmetic, but the study of books of horticulture and agriculture, and treatises on the knowledge and care of trees"—that the Christian "religion should be taught, and the four great duties of man, duty to God, duty to one another, duty to the Country, and duty to the Government—that one great object of national Education should be to unite the inhabitants of the Island; and that the schools formed on a plan of national Education, which teach the English language, should not attempt to teach the English religion, because the Catholics who whould resort to those schools to learn the one would keep aloof if we attempted to make them proselytes to the other, and we should, by that attempt reject one great means of uniting our people, and add a real division on the ground of politics, to the imaginary division on the ground of religion." Wisely, then, has the noble Lord adopted the line suggested tonight, and the authority here quoted supports the principle of the resolution as well us the words of it. In the name of the noble Lord, we have a security that the Protestant Church will not be endangered, while we have the guarantee that the people will be educated, assisted, and relieved. Let the members of the Protestant Church consider what by law they were bound to do; let them turn to the act of the 12th Eliz. c. 1, and there they will find schools were to be built and kept, the masters paid and supported out of the revenues of the Church. The act says, that there shall be a free school within every diocese of the realm of Ireland—that the schoolmaster shall be an Englishman, or of English birth of this realm—that the Bishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishops of Meath and of Kildare, and their successors for ever, shall have the nomination and appointment of schoolmasters of their several dioceses, and the Lord-lieutenant and his deputy the nomination and appointment in the other dioceses. The school-house for every diocese to he built in the principal shire town of the diocese at the cost of the diocese—that the Lord-deputy, with the advice of the Privy Council, shall appoint the salary and stipend of such schoolmaster as he and they shall think convenient, whereof the ordinary of any diocese shall bear yearly for ever the third part, and the parsons, vicars, and other Ecclesiastical persons of the same diocese shall pay yearly and for ever the other two parts, and that all Churches and Ecclesiastical livings come to the possession of the Queen's Majesty shall be charged to this payment and contribution. In this Act, then, we find the principle of the Resolution. Here is the very source from whence the noble Lord takes the precedent, which makes the Church contribute, and which compels them to pay for the building of the schools, and the master for instructing in such schools, and fixes the charge upon the Protestant Church and their successors for ever. What, then, becomes of the argument that this proportion is revolutionary—that it tends to pull down the Protestant Church, and that it is a plan of spoliation got up for the purposes of party and of faction. Here, I say, is the answer—the best answer—taken from the law of the land which has been disregarded, and proves the prescribed duties of the Protestant Church, which has been neglected or violated. Let me now appeal to hon. Members opposite: their wish, or will, or views, must be the prosperity of our country, her peace, and her happiness. I ask them whence comes it that we are at variance with each other, and that men of kind, gentle, and humane dispositions, should find it impossible to agree with those who profess a diversity of religious opinion. In England it is not so: among Englishmen at this and that side of the House there does not exist such a spirit of animosity, such deadly heartburnings, and domestic feuds as are found among Irishmen—feuds that destroy our domestic peace, poison every social intercourse, wound and vex us even at our own firesides, and fret the most sensitive parts of our existence till they destroy the noblest feelings of the human mind, and make the finer passions and our virtues our greatest tormentors. I ask how long shall we be left in this slate of deadly discord? How long shall our country be left the sport and prey of racking whirlwinds? I therefore implore them to meet half-way; let them abate somewhat of their accustomed supremacy; those at this side, and the extremest Catholic, will be ready to soften down his offended feelings, and to join heart and hand in the common effort, to restore tranquilily to our common country. For 300 years this ascendancy principle has been tried. Change the system and attempt another. What should we say if any of those Gentlemen opposite, sensible men in many matters, were afflicted with sickness, and brought by their physician and his medicines almost to the brink of the grave, if they obstinately refused to call in another attendant or to try other medicines, but still persevered in the old course and the former prescriptions? In all probability we should, in this case, have followed the hearse of the gallant Colonel instead of listening to his speeches. One part of the gallant Officer's speech (the Member for Donegal) I heard with much satisfaction. With strong feelings on this subject, and opposed to this Resolution, he stated that in the relations of social and domestic life, he observed no distinctions, and to him it was the same whether a man was a Catholic or a Protestant—whether his tenant or his servant they received equal consideration. This does him credit, and I applaud such a line of conduct, but I know it is not the case in general. I know that great and undue preferences are given to Protestant servants and to Protestant tenants. I know that a relation of mine lately lost a farm that had been in his family for a century, because he was not considered sufficiently Protestant, and he was obliged to make way for a Protestant colony from the county of Monaghan. Again, in the county of Meath, a friend of mine was turned out of his farm though he offered five shillings an acre more than the person who got it, after having been long in possession, yet he was turned out because he was a Catholic, and the farm given away, without warning or civility, to an individual who was a Protestant imbued with very strong party principles. This was not the result of local or electioneering feelings, but of a determination to get tenants of the ascendancy party. Now in my humble opinion we must condemn such proceedings—they disgust individuals, they injure the country, and they divide instead of uniting it. The imagination of some hon. Members is perverted by the idea that we are bent on pulling down the Church to which we belong. This, as far as I am concerned, is unjust in the extreme. I would go forth with any of the gallant officers opposite to defend that Church and to contend, for my religion with as much zeal, and sincerity, and principle as they would; but I will not go forth and appeal to the people with a nonsensical placard in my hand and false charges on my tongue, I do not think the Church is in danger—I would neither be a hypocrite in politics or a bigot in religion. I know of no intention on the part of the Catholics to subvert my religion. I well know that two parties of different creeds can go on together fulfilling all the duties enjoined to us by our Creator, equally attached to the principles of virtue, of charity, and of piety; both sincerely attached to their king, and truly loyal to their common country. And this, Sir, is all that the State can require of us; and this, I conceive, whether Protestant or Catholic, is true religion. I again repeat—I again call on hon. Members opposite to adopt this alteration in the system—let them abate somewhat of that religious intolerance or supremacy which has caused so much misery to Ireland—this has been the chief source of our calamities. Hâc fonte derivala clades in patriam populumque defluxit—let us dry up one source of difference, and let us beware how we open another; for if we close the door of peace, we may open another, and from it may proceed fresh differences, and future discord. Allusion has been made to the Repeal of the Union; I think not on it, but I warn men how they cut off every hope, and give rise to other expectations. You must try to govern the people by their affections. Long ago Mr. Fox declared, that he would rather that Ireland were separated from England, than that she should be kept by compulsion: gain the heart of that people, and you secure them for ever—lose it, and you destroy our happiness, and your security.

Mr. Sinclair

said, Sir, I am anxious to record my solemn protest against the Resolutions adopted by this House, which involves a flagrant encroachment on the temporalities of the Anglo-Irish Church—Resolutions which, in my opinion, are not only mischievous in their principle, but the sure harbingers of other measures more revolutionary and more destructive. The proceedings of this House, since the commencement of the Session, have, like many scenes in Shakspeare's plays, been ushered in by flourishes of drums and trumpets; in other words, belligerent notices of portentous import have, on almost every successive evening, been recorded in our books. Night after night has the gauntlet been thrown down by the noble Commander-in-chief of the Uultra-Whig Radical army, or by some of his subordinate coadjutors; but discretion has often constituted the better part of valour, and challenge has been followed by postponement. Even this proposition, although carried, ought not, I humby conceive, to be decisive of the fate of the Government, more especially as its adoption will be received with alarm and anxiety by an overwhelming majority of those who are truly attached to the Established Church, and who would contemplate the resignation of my right hon. Friend with dismay. The press, with a promptitude scarcely credible, and with an accuracy never surpassed, has by this time enabled the people in every district of the empire to sit in judgment on the tenor of these measures, and on the arguments by which they have been supported or opposed. The hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to be attached to the Church; but if the old adage of noscitur a sociis be applied in this instance, must it not be the prayer of every one interested in its welfare, on seeing the confederates by whom they are cheered in this House, and applauded out of doors, that the great Head of the Church, who in all things has the pre-eminence, may protect and guard her against their friendship. By whom have the tidings of their success been hailed with exulting acclamation? Are the Clergy of the Established Church numbered amongst those who rejoice? [Laughter from the Opposition benches.] Sir, I am not surprised at that cheer of derision. I have not now to learn that the slightest allusion to the feelings of the Protestant Clergy is sure to form a theme of contemptuous laughter to many gentlemen on the opposite benches, and that their opinions, as to the interests of the very Church in which they are invested with the pastoral office, are deemed unworthy of notice. Sir, the persons who exclaim, "so would we have it," in reference to these Resolutions, are the Unitarian, who abjures the Church's God, ["No, no."] who abjures, I say, the Triune Jehovah, the Father, Son, and Spirit, whom the Church acknowledges as their living and only God; the infidel, who rails at the Church's wealth; the Dissenter, who envies the pre-eminence of our Church; the Papist, who pants for the supremacy of his own. The triumphal car of the noble Lord will be followed by all the voluntary Churchmen, all the Republicans, all the Radicals, all the scoffers at Christianity, all the disciples of Carlile, all the votaries of Owen—all who long for the subversion of our ancient and inestimable institutions. How then can the Church place the slightest confidence in public men, who are urged on and encouraged in their course of spoliation by its avowed and inveterate enemies? Have they even any right or reason to complain if the heads of the Church would receive with distrust, or even repudiate with alarm, when emanating from such a quarter, any measures of reform, which they would be disposed to accept at the hands of other statesmen, in whom they recognised the cordial friends of the Establishment, and who would be prepared to make common cause with them in resisting ulterior innovations? Sir, my hon. Friend, the Member for Meath, has, on this, as on many a former occasion, in no very measured terms, animadverted upon the conduct and principles of the Orangemen of Ireland. These men, Sir, have been often held up within the walls of this House to public scorn and execration; and I must say, and say it with regret, that, whilst fiercely attacked, they have been coldly defended by those who do not stand in immediate connexion with them. For my own part, Sir, I consider the Orangemen to be the most uncompromising friends of British connexion, the most intrepid opponents to the Repeal of the Union, the most devoted defenders of the national Church, the most single- hearted champions of the Protestant faith. If there be any thing illegal in the rules of their institution, let that evil be at once removed; if any of its members engage in criminal acts of wanton aggression, let them be punished with the utmost rigour, for giving the adversaries of a holy cause just reason to speak reproachfully. But I exhort the Orangemen, whether in good or evil report, to cleave to the hallowed principles for which their fathers fought and. died; to keep up a confederacy which is rendered indispensable by the encroachments and menaces of their enemies—enemies, through whose machinations their lives, their property, and their religion are in jeopardy every hour—enemies, not only comprising the avowed Roman Catholics, but those semi-Popish, pseudo-Protestants, who are more culpable, and, perhaps, more dangerous. The Orangemen may speak strongly because they feel strongly; they know how much they have at stake, and they are aware of the strength and determination of those whom they are called upon to resist. They know that where-ever there are Popish priests, there is a phalanx of organized conspirators to overthrow the Protestant Establishment, and to eradicate the Protestant faith—bound to aim at the accomplishment of this object, by a sacred principle of duty—exemplifying in their attacks a skill, a zeal, and a concert, which we should do well to imitate in our resistance to their encroachments. ["Oh, oh."] Sir, I repeat, that they are impelled to adopt such a line of conduct by the allegiance which they owe to the Bishop of Rome. Sir, how can the noble Lord's Resolution prove a source of peace or tranquillity? It will, on the contrary, like Pandora's box, sow the seeds of discord and confusion in half the parishes in Ireland. A line must be drawn somewhere between that numerical amount of population, which shall, and that which shall not, entitle a district to retain its Protestant pastor. Now is it not obvious, as has already been well observed, that a temptation is here held out to Protestant landlords, to eject a proportion of their Roman Catholic tenantry, in order to substitute such a number of individuals belonging to their own persuasion, as may prevent the Gospel candlestick from being removed? And is there not an inducement to the Roman Catholic landlord or his priest to drive Protestant tenants from their homes, that the protestant pastor may be dispensed with? The noble Lord's surplus will be reduced to nil, when the demands of the Protestant population shall come to be adjusted—when we shall ascertain where there is deficiency as well as where there is excess, either in the number of Protestant clergymen or the amount of income awarded to them on account of their spiritual ministrations. The surplus may be compared to a mathematical point, which has position, but not magnitude—or to a mathematical line, which has neither length nor breadth, nor thickness. The noble lord might as well hope, by pouring imaginary oil from an empty barrel, to calm the surges of the tempestuous ocean, as to pacify the troubles of Ireland by so nugatory a Measure as this. Sir, a great deal has been said, during this debate, on the subject of religious scruples—scruples which I respect and admire, when they prompt an individual to relinquish any privilege or sacrifice any revenue which by law belongs to himself, but which I hold in abhorrence and contempt, when resorted to as a pretext for invading the rights, or despoiling the property of others. I consider the rights of the Clergyman to one-tenth to be as sacred and indefeasible as that of the landlord to the other nine; and I see no moral difference between the conduct of the man who forcibly resists the payment of tithes to the rector, and that of the highwayman who puts a pistol to the breast of the proprietor, and claims from him a renunciation of his rent. Sir, if I acquired by purchase or inheritance an estate in the dominions of his Holiness the Pope, I should be quite aware that the priest had as good a claim to his tithes as I possessed to the lands. I should, therefore, give him every facility for obtaining his legal dues, though I would not contribute any portion of that which was my own, to build a Roman Catholic Chapel, or acquire for it a thigh bone of St. Ursula. Sir, allusion is often made to the case of Scotland, My hon. Friend, the Member for Dublin delights in advocating the days of our clans and claymores. But, Sir, for what were the Scottish Protestants contending? In the Roman Catholic times they were exposed to the fire and faggot arguments, by which Romish Cardinals and Archbishops evinced their respect for liberty of conscience and their Christian affection, for their Protestant brethren; and, in the days of Episcopal persecution, they were fighting for the free exercise of their religion, for the power of worshiping God after the fashion dearest to their hearts, men of whom the world was not worthy, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, were compelled to wander in deserts and mountains, or in dens and caves of the earth—their property was liable to confiscation—their meetings were dispersed at the point of the bayonet, they were subject to persecution, even to the death. But for what are the Roman Catholics now clamouring? They enjoy all the rights for which the Scotch were then contending; they have perfect toleration—the freest exercise of their own religion. Is there any parish in Ireland in which a Romish chapel may not be erected? any district, in which Dr. M'Hale may not with perfect impunity pronounce the Established Church as a nuisance, and its pastors as grievous wolves? Where, then, is there any analogy between the two cases, which have so frequently but with so little foundation, been brought into juxta position? Sir, if I am asked, why, at the close of the last Session, as well as on this occasion, I have ventured to take so prominent a part in behalf of the Anglo-Irish Church, I reply, it is because of my affectionate veneration for the sister Establishment, between which, and the Church of England, there is as close an identity of interests as there is a near similarity in doctrines; their principles, their dangers, their enemies are the same, and their supporters should be united also. I am firmly convinced that, if the one Establishment were taken, the other would not long be left. Sir, I call upon my right hon. Friend not to abandon his post until the last moment: he owes this sacrifice to the King, whose confidence he enjoys—to the Peers, whose independence he guarantees—to the Church, whose rights he is defending—to the people, whose confidence he is earning by temperate and salutary reforms—to the friends, by whom he is gallantly supported; and even to those who, though not politically connected with him, have incurred every species of scurrilous and malignant misrepresentations by giving a fair trial to his Government. He should inscribe on his banners the motto, "No surrender." He should compel the noble Lord to take up another parallel; his grape-shot do not yet reach the Pay-office—his shells fall short of the Admiralty. The siege of Downing-street may not last so long as that of Troy; but the noble Lord should not obtain possession of the citadel until he mounts the breach, with the Members for Dublin and Middlesex behind him, and wielding in his hand, instead of the field-marshal's truncheon, an address from this House, calling on his Majesty to dismiss his present Government from his Councils and from his presence. It seems to me, Sir, that we are now commencing a career of universal spoliation, We shall first take a part of the Church property, and after one or two intermediate sacrilegious invasions, at last monopolise the whole. Then will come the turn of the lay impropriators; they will not long be permitted to "dwell in their ceiled houses," when many temples of the living God have been shut up or laid waste. A Bill will be introduced to relieve them from the burden of paying small pittances to laborious ministers of the everlasting Gospel, and at the same time to exonerate them from preserving the national estates, which they have long usurped under that very questionable tenure. Methinks I see a print of Woburn Abbey, as it will appear in l845, converted into one of Mr. Owen's national parallelograms, under the superintendence of citizen John Russell, the elder, for by that time there will be no Dukes, and no Lord Johns, no hereditary titles, no, not even peerages for life. Sir, although no man is more friendly than I am to the redress of every grievance and the removal of every abuse, I protest against making any impolitic or pusillanimous sacrifice to satisfy the inordinate cravings of the spirit of the age, an idol at whose shrine every public man in this country is invited and expected to bow. This, Sir, is a specious but destructive principle, which might be urged to sanction the most revolting absurdities, or to extenuate the most atrocious crimes. There was a time, Sir, when a Liberal triumvirate ruled the destinies of a neighbouring land; when Robespierre, St. Just, and Couthon deluged every city with blood, and devoted every province to spoliation. Supposing that some intrepid patriot, animated by a spirit of righteous indignation, had exclaimed in the presence of that sanguinary tribunal, "Why have you murdered your King, why have you driven your nobles into exile? Why have you confiscated the property of your Church? Why have you demolished the altars of your God? Why are you immolating every day whole hecatombs of victims, whose defencelessness is their chief misfortune, and whose innocence is their only crime, at the altar of popular frenzy, infatuation and caprice?" The monsters would have replied, had they condescended to answer at all, "We are obeying the voice of the people, we are acting in conformity with the spirit of the age." Sir, I have lived long enough to view with abhorrence and disgust the ultra-despotism of ultra-Liberalism. None are so intolerant of orthodoxy in religious doctrine, or of strictness in religious observance, as those who declaim the loudest in behalf of religious liberty. None are so inclined to tyrannize over others, and blacken the character of all who refuse to yield implicit obedience to their imperious mandates, as those who claim the utmost; latitude in behalf of themselves. Sir, I thank the House for the patient attention with which they have been pleased to hear me, and shall now conclude by offering to the present Resolution my most decided and strenuous opposition.

Lord Francis Egerton

would venture to differ from the proposition before the House, and yet if he could persuade himself that its results would be such as its proposers had promised, he might support it even at the expense of sacrificing any consistency with the opinions he had formerly given on the subject. The noble Lord who had brought forward the Resolution had made allusions to Hampden, the great champion of a principle, and had told the House that in the present Resolution the principle was everything, and that the Resolution itself was nothing. He thanked the noble Lord for the candour of his explanation. The noble Lord had told the House that the Resolution was nothing, and he concurred with him in that opinion; and it was because the Resolution was nothing, and the principle everything, that he (Lord Frances Egerton) could not bring himself to forfeit his character for consistency by voting for the Motion. The noble Lord bore the character—and he bore it gracefully in many respects—the character of a leader of a formidable party: but when the noble Lord quitted that House other Gentlemen succeeded him in that office, and carried his doctrines much further than the noble Lord himself did. On the first night of the debate the noble Lord had been succeeded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Alban's, who had pushed the principles of the noble Lord much further than they had been put in the opening speech. He had said that he valued the principle of the Motion because it would bring under the control of the State, and by which he meant the control of that House—that species of control which he specially valued, all corporate property and all abuses connected with public property in general. He would claim to himself the right of opposing the Bill on that very principle. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Grattan) had declared that the carrying of this Motion would be the renovation of the Catholic system in Ireland. He would ask hon. Members to reflect whether the question had been argued in a manner to indicate that it would effect a renovation of the Catholic religion in Ireland. One of the great leaders, in advocating the Catholic claims (Lord Plunkett) had argued that the carrying of the Emancipation Bill would have the effect of maintaining inviolate the property, the privileges, and the emoluments of the Protestant Established Church of Ireland. It had been on this ground that he had added his humble endeavours to aid the noble Lord's exertions; and it was on the same grounds that he now thought himself bound in honour and consistency to maintain inviolable the Protestant Church in Ireland, which he sincerely believed would be endangered were the present Motion to be carried. If the Resolution of the noble Lord did not go far towards the subversion of the Protestant Church he was persuaded that it would go but a little way towards restoring tranquillity to Ireland. Whatever opinions might be formed by hon. Members on the other side of the House, he, for one, did not see how the principle of the present measure could be carried into effect except by appropriating the property of the Protestant Church to purposes not Protestant; and, in fact, such appropriation was synonymous with proscription. The principle would make it a matter of positive gain to the Catholics to reduce to a certain amount the number of the Protestants, and it was a principle which, he feared, would run the risk of being written in characters of blood and fire—characters in which so many lamentable incidents of Irish history were already written—to be handed down to an incredulous posterity. It had been held out to the House that if this measure were carried England might be spared the expenses of keeping up so large a military force in Ireland. He might be incorrect as to the present state of the military force in Ireland, but he believed it did not exceed 23,000 troops, with the addition of 5,000 police; and it was new to him if the whole of these were devoted exclusively to the service of protecting the property of the Church. He threw no imputation upon Irish landlords, and he wished much to reduce the number of troops in Ireland, but still he must maintain that adopting the Resolution of the noble Lord would pro- duce no consequences that could procure the power of effecting the desirable object of reducing the military establishment. The Committee of 1825, which had sat upon the Catholic claims had not traced any connexion between tithes and the religious disturbances of Ireland. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell), and another individual (Dr. Doyle) had stated in their evidence before the Committee that the people of Ireland considered tithes in the light of an agricultural burthen most desirable to be removed; and yet the present Motion proceeded upon the principle that tithes were the great religious grievance of the people. It had not been his intention to address the House at all upon the subject, nor should he now trespass longer on the attention of hon. Members; but when he and those with whom he had the honour to act were taunted with resorting to a proceeding most objectionable unless justified by necessity—when they were reproached with resorting to the old proceeding of ringing the alarm bell of "Church in danger"—he would say that he was as unwilling as any man to resort to such an expedient, but still he would now declare his conviction that the Church was in danger, and even to the extent of justifying a resort to such expedient. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and those who acted with him, knew that those who supported his Majesty's Ministers were not actuated by any factious motives, but by a desire to uphold the institutions of the country. With that view alone it was that they raised their voice against this measure, and he doubted not that voice would be echoed by the voice of thousands of the people of England until it rolled like thunder over the land. He did not wish to excite any clamour, but he did not hesitate to declare that he conscientiously believed the Church to be in danger—and firmly attached as he was to that Church and the other institutions of this country he should never shrink, while he had a seat in that House, from raising his voice for the protection of those institutions.

Mr. Cayley

said, that he believed it would be found in the end that those who rung the alarm bell of the "Church in danger" rung with a very loud tongue, but with a very empty head. He did not think that a Bill sent up from that House, containing the appropriation clause, would be rejected by the House of Lords, for this reason, that the passing of such a Bill would be the only means of keeping their Lordships' friends, the present Ministers, in office a little longer. It might be asked, why were not the people and their representatives content with the present Ministers? As well might it be asked why were not the Poles content with the Russian Government, or the Italians with the Austrian Government of Prince Meternich? The answer was, because it was not a Government of their own choice. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, had said the other night that had he been of the same religion as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would have treated this Question as that hon. and learned Member did, but that, being a Protestant, he could not look upon it in the same light. Had the right hon. Baronet recollected the precepts of that book which all Christians so justly revered, he would have considered the treatment that was due from him to his neighbour who differed from in religion as well as to him with whom he agreed. The hon. Member amidst many cries of "Question," quoted Mr. Moore's Hindoo tale or allegory, the object of which is to set forth the injustice of making those who did not eat meat pay for those who did. He believed that if the Irish Church Establishment were cut down to the real wants of the Protestant population of that country it would be the best means of preserving it from final destruction. He looked upon the Church Establishment in Ireland to be widely different to the Church Establishment in this country; but he much feared that if the gangrene was not speedily cut out of the one, it would at no very distant period reach the other. He sincerely wished this Question settled, for the sake of the peace of Ireland and the attachment he bore to the Established Church itself; for the effect of the present system was to keep alive a spirit of discord and discontent in the minds of the great majority of the people of that country. When the Reformation took place in that country the English Government tried to force an adverse religion on the people of Ireland; who showed too manly a spirit to suffer themselves to be despoiled of their religion as they were of their property. Ireland had in fact been governed on the principle of the sword rather than on the principle of Christianity.

The Attorney General

said, that he had not before addressed the House upon this Question out of the respect and deference he entertained for the opinions of the many other Members, whose more en- larged views upon the subject must come before the House with a more pressing weight than anything which he could offer to their consideration. Indeed he could well have abstained from obtruding himself upon the House so long as the Question was presented to them only in an abstract form; but so soon as it assumed the semblance of something approaching to practical operation, without any rules or guide before them on which this operation was to be based, he felt himself called upon, by his sense of public duty, to make a few observations upon it. In addressing the House at any time he said unfeignedly that no Member belonging to it stood more in need of indulgence than he did, and never more than on the present occasion. He should first observe that the Resolution now before the House went much farther than the former Resolution which the noble Lord had proposed, and on which the House had already come to a decision. It contained principles, measures, and results widely different from the other; indeed so much so that those Members who supported the former Resolution might, with the most perfect consistency, vote against the present. He begged particularly to call the attention of the House to this view of the Question. A large minority of that House, some impressed with a high moral sense of duty, others with a strong religious feeling, all with a clear view of the great importance of the Question before them, were called upon to legislate on a mere abstract proposition without any details to guide them to a proper decision. He could conceive no course more dangerous than this. He did not himself pretend to the character of a statesman, but he would address the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in that character, and would ask him, was it fitting that so large and intelligent a minority should be called on to act upon the abstract Resolution now before the House until they could see their way as to the best and safest means of carrying it into effect? What was the proposition before the House? It was this: that the surplus property of the Irish Church Establishment be taken away from that Church and applied to purposes of general education. In this proposition there were two principles contained which had no sort of connexion with each other, and he should, therefore, take leave to consider them separately. As far as the question of education was involved, he was pledged in that high principle, and would go to the fullest extent, along with any Member of that House, or any individual in the country, to carry into effect any measure calculated to promote the course of education. He owed too much to the great institutions of this country, established for the purposes of education, not to desire that the blessings they bestowed should be amply diffused throughout society. But was it necessary that the property of the Church should be voted away for that purpose, and that, too, before it was even ascertained that the Church had anything to give away? Then again he would ask, was it absolutely necessary, supposing a surplus, that it should be disposed of exactly in this fashion? Would the boon be of no value if given in any other shape than that precisely cut out by the noble Lord's Resolution? Was knowledge only acceptable as forbidden fruit? To act upon such limited and partial views would be unworthy of the House. If funds were necessary for the purposes of education let them by all means be supplied by Parliament, but let them not be taken from the property of the Church, or, at all events, let them not be so taken until it should first have been clearly ascertained, that there was a surplus which the Church could spare. Another branch of the Question was, that the principle of education contained in this Resolution was intended to extend to Roman Catholics; and not only that, but the property of the Established Church was to be applied to that purpose. He had not as yet heard it distinctly laid down what was meant by surplus Church-property. Did it mean nothing, or a part, or the whole, for he had heard each of these definitions given to it during the course of the debate that had taken place? According to the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) the Irish Church was a bloated Establishment that required to be greatly reduced, and according to another hon. Member, it was one wide-spreading nuisance. He would ask the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, whose similes were none of the most savoury, and whose knowledge of surgery he believed did not exactly come up to his knowledge of law, if he had not heard that the disease called dropsy was reduced by tapping, and that that operation usually proved fatal? Could the House be at any loss to see what was meant by calling the Established Church of Ireland a wide-spreading nuisance? Did they not read in that denunciation the same destroying spirit that in former ages was directed against the existence of a rival city? 'Delenda est Carthago.' The proposition before the House he looked upon as of so vague a character that no result could follow from it. It had been asked on a former night by the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) could he not see a schedule A in the Church as well as he saw it in the Reform Bill? Now this was the very thing which he (the Attorney General) wanted to see. He wished to see the places that deserved disfranchisement before he proceeded with an abstract proposition to disfranchise. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary said, that he would go the full length of the present proposition, but he said also that he would not stop there, for that he was disposed to go much further. He (the Attorney General) did not hesitate to say, that if some of the speeches which had been delivered in that House in the course of this discussion were acted upon, so far from there being any surplus Church-property there would nothing remain—there would be nothing to rest upon, for the whole Church would be gone. These few observations he had offered to the House upon the subject of providing for education out of surplus Church-property, without first inquiring whether or no there was in reality any surplus? He had been told, however, that it was everything to establish a principle; and the case of Hampden had been referred to, who resisted a tax of only 20s., because it was oppressive and unjust. But those who were so ready to quote Hampden should follow his example, and practise a little of his discretion. Hampden resisted an unjust principle, whereas here the principle was carried before they were prepared to act upon it. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) now proposed to carry his first Resolution further by another declaratory Resolution, that no measure respecting tithes in Ireland could be final or satisfactory if it did not contain and embody the principle of appropriation. Now, he would ask the noble Lord how he intended to embody this principle in the Tithe Bill? Did he mean to do so by one single clause, or did he mean to wait for the Report of the Commissioners before that important measure should be passed? It was well known that the Report of the Commissioners was only expected to come in bit by bit, or drop by drop. Before the House proceeded to legislate upon this Resolution of the noble Lord, they should be prepared with all the particulars relating to every Church living in Ireland, and still more should they avoid any act of legislation that might be calculated to bring them into collision with the House of Lords, a circumstance which the noble Lord himself had, on a former occasion, said he should much deplore ever happening. Now he did not charge the noble Lord with inconsistency, but he would ask the noble Lord why he was now so disposed to hazard a collision with the House of Lords, when no practical purpose was to be attained? He did not believe that there was any precedent for that House giving to any Resolution which they might pass all the force of law without the concurrence of the House of Lords. He knew, indeed, that the Irish House of Commons passed a Resolution to abolish Agistment tithes without the concurrence of the House of Lords of that day in Ireland, but this was a precedent that had never since been followed in either country. This Question existed altogether in detail, and could not be safely or satisfactorily disposed of without embracing it in all its bearings. The revenues and the state of every living must be exactly ascertained, and every particular must be introduced in any Bill upon the subject. Was the noble Lord, urging on these propositions to benefit the people of Ireland, or was he doing it to gratify those who were adverse to the Established Church? After all that had been said, done, and sworn, by those persons—he, for one, felt no disposition to gratify their feelings, nor did he think that the majority of that House ought to have such a disposition. Did the noble Lord think it ingenious not to wait for the Bill to be brought in after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer until he had rendered it impossible for his right hon. Friend to carry on the Government of the country upon the principles which he professed? Perhaps this was a part of the subject which he ought not to enter upon; but he felt that he had as good a right to adopt a tone of independence as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh. I sought not (continued the hon. and learned Gentleman)—I sought not a seat in this House—I sought not office under the Government—I derive no benefit from either. I am placed here in a situation of indepen- dence quite as great as that of any other hon. Member, and I can assure the noble Lord that as far as I am concerned, if he can form an Administration that will perfect, that will purify, and not destroy the institutions of this great country, I, for one, will cheerfully resign my place to some Member of that Administration which may possess the confidence of the people, and will not,abuse that confidence. But let me warn the noble Lord, that if he goes on, he must be prepared to see the principle of this Resolution carried into effect by others, with whom I cannot think he wishes to coincide. Let me caution him, as an eminent writer has said of an illustrious statesman (Lord Chatham), that whilst he only intended to hamper a Minister, he lost us America;—let me caution the noble Lord, I say, that history, to which he has alluded, do not say of him, that while he only intended to hamper a Minister, he destroyed a Church and dismembered an empire.

Mr. Sergeant Perrin

spoke nearly as follows:—Sir—I am loth to obtrude upon the House at this stage of the debate; I am but too sensible of my own inefficiency to desire to do so at any time; yet, so strong is my conviction of the value of this resolution, and the importance to Ireland of the principle embodied in it, that at the hazard of exposing that inefficiency I must offer a few remarks upon the Question. I think we ought to adopt the resolution proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire—it is an important step towards the improvement of Ireland, the moral and religious education of the whole people—it is essential to the tranquillity of that country, and it is eminently calculated to give increased and just efficiency to the Established Church there. [Cheers from the Ministerial side.] The circle within which I am known is small; but those cheers will excuse me for appealing to my honourable Friends. I believe none opposite will say that I am in the habit of professing principles which I do not conscientiously hold. I will say, then, that the adoption of this principle by the House will go far to produce peace in Ireland, by giving moral and religious education to all classes, by attaching them to an establishment from which they will then derive benefit, and this I contend will give stability to the Established Church. I have ever been attached to the principle of Church Establishments—I am convinced of their great advantage—I value them on many accounts, but for none more than that they provide for the instruction of those who most stand in need of it, and who are least able to acquire or supply it for themselves. I have ever considered the opinion, "that no man of one Church should be bound to contribute towards the religious education or establishment of another," to be narrow and bigoted. I consider it narrow as a moral sentiment and unsound as a political maxim. How can any man, or any Christian, hold the question of the moral and religious education of any class or sect of his fellow-subjects to be indifferent to him? or profess that their highest; their eternal interest are alien to his feelings or concerns? How can any sensible or reflecting member of society say, that orderly conduct, respect for law, the spirit of subordination, the fruits of religious education, are not universal objects of solicitude and anxiety to him? I own that I have been more than surprised at the vehement opposition that has been made to the proposition before the House, coming from such quarters as it has; and those who are sensible of the benefits of religious establishments, so loud and so eloquent in praise of such institutions, should resist this proposition to give effect to their principle, to extend that efficacy beyond the reach of human laws, for the prevention of crime, and correction of evils over the whole people—that they should desire to confine the advantages to one class, to one small majority, and leave the mass of the people ignorant and uneducated, does surprise me. It is equally irreconcileable, in my mind, with the affections of a Christian, and the wisdom of a statesman. Those who maintain that there will be no surplus, take a fairer ground of objection, though it can be clearly shown that they are wrong in fact. Some who objected to the proposition of the noble Lord, have asserted that the income of the Church of Ireland three years ago did not exceed 740,000l. a-year; and it was stated by the right hon. and gallant officer (the Secretary for Ireland), that owing to the reductions which had since been made from it, it did not now exceed 450,000l.; and the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has asked, "is that too large an income for such an Establishment?" It is not necessary for me to determine that question one way or the other; but I think those who are aware of the comparative numbers of the Protestant Dissenters in Ireland, their habits and state of education, the numbers, conduct, and character of their exemplary, useful, and pious ministers, and who know that the entire income derived by that clergy from the state does not exceed 24,000l. a-year, will hesitate before they declare that even the reduced sum of 450,000l. a-year is not too much for the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. But let me ask what has become of the difference between the admitted income of 740,000l. three years ago, and the alleged present income of 450,000l.? How has this difference been accounted for? First, there is the proposed reduction of 25l. per cent, on the amount of tithes, and then the vestry cess now placed upon the Church Temporalities' Fund—grant this: these two sums make together 167,000l. which, deducted from 740,000l. leave over the 450,000l. the sum of 114,000l. and is not that, I will ask, a sum worth inquiring about? To be sure, we are told that this will not give more than four-pence a-year for each individual in the population of Ireland; and we are taunted by the question, will that sum afford or provide education for that population? This, Sir, is an argument worthy of the cause it is adduced to support. I ask those who ask this question, are they serious? do they expect an answer? do they mean to say that 114,000l. a year judiciously applied, supposing that to be the full amount of surplus (which I don't admit), will not conduce effectively and substantially to the Education and improvement of the people of Ireland? but one right hon. Member took different ground; he says that the funds in the hands of the Board of Education are more than sufficient for the demands upon them, and that it was obliged to devote a portion of it to the extravagant increase of the salaries of schoolmasters: now, it has so happened, that I have had several communications with a member of that board, and have sought for an application of part of its funds to a country school, and I have ascertained that so far from being abundant, their funds are at present most inadequately short of the objects for which they were intended. But it is necessary to account for this alleged deficiency beyond the amount of the Church rates, and the 25l. per cent., in the remainder of the Church income: on this subject we have been told by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Lefroy), that the sum of 59,000l. should be allowed for the suppressed Bishoprics, and 22,000l. for the tax on livings; and another hon. Member has said, that an allowance of 10l. per cent, should be made for carrying out the principle of the proposed Tithe Bill: now, I will not allow of any one of these deductions; the amount may be as has been stated, but will any one contend that these sums have been absolutely lost to the Church or to the State? have they melted away? or is the House to be told, that because they have been transferred they are not still in existence, and are not applicable to Ecclesiastical purposes? To be sure the 59,000l. and 22,000l. a-year have been transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but will it be said that they have vanished, disappeared, do not exist, and are not available, and ought not to be accounted as Ecclesiastical property? As to the waste of 10l. per cent., mentioned by the hon. Member for Newark, and taken credit for as a reduction, I will not consent to allow it; and I think the House will hesitate before it adopts the proposed measure of redemption and vesting the amount inland, a measure objectionable in itself, at once clumsey and injurious, and which is thus recommended to our adoption by a frank avowal that it will produce an absolute loss and waste of one-tenth of the whole property. I am aware, that difference of opinion exists on some points connected with this question of surplus and the precise amount of Church-property in Ireland, on which we have not precise information; leaving these for the present, I will call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to some matters which are plain and palpable, and do not admit of denial; I allude to the existing state of many parishes in Ireland. I will not select extreme cases, or give the House such instances merely, as those adduced with such effect and force of observation by the right hon. Member for Cambridge, or parishes where there are no Protestant inhabitants, though in various parts of Ireland such instances are by no means rare; I will not take parishes merely from the west nor from the south, nor dwell on flagrant cases in the diocese of Ossory; but I will go to that county which was last night described by an hon. Member as one of the most Protestant counties in the north of Ireland, the county of Monaghan; I will state the circumstances of five parishes in that county. I will take a district of 51,000 acres there; the barony of Farney, bounded on one side by the county of Armagh, on another by the county of Cavan, contains five parishes, the condition of which I will now state to the House. The first is the parish of Magheracloon, in which there are forty-one Protestant families and 1,400 Catholic families; the value of the living is 430l. in tithes, besides which there is a glebe-house with forty-two acres of land, making the total value 556l. a-year; the incumbent resides generally at Bath, and visits his parish once a-year: the duty is done, and I believe satisfactorily done, by a stipendiary curate. The second parish is Carrickmacross, in which there are eighty Protestant families, ten Dissenting families, and 1,400 Catholic families; the value of the living is 700l. in tithes, with a glebe-house and 140 acres of land, total value 1,120l.; the incumbent resides at Armagh, and the duty is performed by a stipendiary curate. The third is the parish of Donaghmoine, in which are fifty Protestant families, and 2,000 Catholic families; the value of the living is 1,050l. in tithes, a glebe-house, and sixty acres of land, total value 1,233l.; the incumbent is the son of a former Bishop of Clogher, is a non-resident, living in a distant parish of considerable value, which he also enjoys; the duty is performed by the stipendiary curate. The fourth is the parish of Killanery, in which are four Protestant families, and 1,000 Catholic families; the value of the living is 500l. in tithes, a glebe-house, and eighty acres of land, total value 750l.; the incumbent resides near Dublin; the duty is performed by the stipendiary curate. The fifth is the parish of Enniskeen, in which are ten Protestant families, and 1,000 Catholic families; the value of the living is 500l. in tithes, a glebe-house, and eighty acres of land, total value 750l the incumbent is non-resident; the duty devolves upon the stipendiary curate. Here is a district of five parishes in Protestant Ulster; in all, the incumbents are non-resident, the duty is performed by curates, and I believe well, and assiduously and satisfactorily performed by stipendiary curates, satisfactorily to the Protestant inhabitants, by stipendiary curates with small incomes. These, let it be observed, are not isolated cases; many such, and still stronger cases, can be pointed out in the Catholic counties of the south and west of Ireland, but I have not gone into any of those; I have preferred taking instances from a county which has been described as one of the most Protestant of the north of Ireland, by the hon. Member for the county itself, in the course of this debate. I ask, is this state of things to continue?—I will ask hon. Members opposite, whether this system is one which they wish to see continued? I will ask, is he a friend to the Church, is he a friend to religion, who would support such a system in Ireland? I ask hon. Members to consider this matter gravely and temperately, and tell me whether it is not one that calls for Reform? I will put it to the noble Lord (Francis Egerton), whether he will, or whether he thinks he can, answer these facts by an appeal to popular clamour; or stifle their effect by a cry of "the Church in danger?" I may be asked, "will you suppress the Established Church? Will you transfer its property to the Catholic Church?" I will answer, no! no such thing! I will take the case of the last parish I have alluded to, where, as I have stated, there were 1,000 Catholic families, and only four Protestant families. I may be asked "what, though the number of Protestant families be small, will you not respect their feelings and their scruples? As a Protestant myself, I value the Protestant Establishment; I do respect their feelings, and regard their interests; but, for the support of that Establishment, is it necessary that, in a parish where there are but four Protestant families, 750l. a-year, or near 750l., should be taken out of the parochial means of its inhabitants for the maintenance of a Protestant clergyman of the Established Church? I care not whether those funds are paid or provided by the tenants or the landlords; it is immaterial to my argument; they are paid by one or the other—paid or supplied by parishioners; on whichever the charge devolves the system is bad—bad for the tenant and bad for the landlord: to the parish at large it is of no benefit, and I for one never will consent to this state of things, that while 750l. a-year is abstracted to meet the claims of the Church, the whole of the religious duties should be performed by a person receiving a small stipend only, and that the remainder, whether it be 400l. or 600l., or, as in other parishes, much more a-year, should go to be dissipated by an individual residing at Bath or at Kingstown. I say this is not religion; I say this is not good sense; I say this is not honesty. I beg pardon of the House for going into these details, and trespassing at so much length upon its time; but I wish to represent to Englishmen the real state of things in Ireland, knowing that if that state of things be fully known to the English Members of this House, they will be as anxious and as zealous in their desire to effect a remedy as the most warm, and passionate, and enthusiastic Irishman. I wish I could borrow the eloquence, and follow the example of the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord Howick), the other night, by calling on the English Members to reverse the picture, and to contemplate what their feelings would be, if they, and the Church to which they belonged, were similarly situated as the Roman Catholics of Ireland and their Church are. But I do not think it necessary; I know that I am addressing men of integrity—men of free and independent spirit—men of honour—men who are attached to justice, and who will do right, if I can show them that a case of injustice calls for their interposition. I beg then to recal the attention of the House to the particular parish to which I last referred: in that parish, for the accommodation of four Protestant families, there is a large, well-built, well-furnished, well-aired Church; a curate performs the service, attends fully to his duties, and to their spiritual wants: contrast this with the accommodation afforded to the Roman Catholics; there are 1,000 Catholic families in the parish; they may be as ignorant and as superstitious as hon. Members opposite may please to represent them, but that is no reason why their wants should not be regarded, and provision made for their religious education, in the only mode in which they will accept it, through the only channel by which they will receive it; for those families there is a chapel, perhaps ill-built, certainly unfurnished, with a clay damp floor, no pews, no seats, no benches, and of size insufficient to contain more than one-half of the congregation. So inadequate are the chapels generally, that I appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side, my countrymen, whether they have not continually seen, on Sundays in the chapel-yards in many districts, a large portion of the congregation kneeling outside on the bare earth for want of sufficient accommodation within the chapel, exposed to all the inconvenience and vicissitudes of the seasons. Is this a state of things to continue or permit? Can you reflect on this, and wonder at the dissensions, and exasperations, and the heart-burnings, that scorch and desolate our land? These are facts, indisputable facts; is it then possible that such a state of things should be longer permitted to continue? I am not one of those who would withdraw anything from the incomes of the Protestant working clergy; on the contrary, I would place those members of that body in a situation more becoming their sacred calling, and more independent, by giving every actual incumbent, that is, clergyman doing duty, not less than 200l. or 250l. per annum, instead of 75l. I would then apply the remaining 500l. in parishes producing 750l per annum, to the original purpose—namely, the religious education and moral improvement of the rest of the parishioners. But it is said this would be spoliation—this would be robbing the Church, and endangering property; who talks of robbing the Church, and yet sustains the present system? Is it or is it not, spoliation; is it not robbing the Church to get the business of that Church done for a small stipend, perhaps for 75l. per annum, and to receive the difference without labour, and expend it in a foreign clime or foreign county. Is not this spoliation, misapplication, and diversion of the funds to purposes not ecclesiastical? I deny that such an application of the funds as making provision for a suitable income for the working incumbent, and giving the residue to the moral and religious education of the parishioners is liable to the imputation of Church robbery, or Church spoliation ["hear, hear, hear,"] I say they who divert it from these purposes to individual emolument are the spoliators—they who prefer the man to the duty—who regard and provide for the Churchman, not the Church; they divert, they misapply, they spoliate, and rob the Church. I would not withdraw the income of the working Protestant clergyman in Ireland; so far from it, so far from diminishing his income, I would place him in a situation more becoming his avocation. I would make him more independent. I would give to the Protestant minister, who had to take care of the four, the ten, or the twenty, or the fifty Protestant families, in any parish, 200l. a-year at least, instead of 75l. In a parish such as that to which I have referred, where the tithes amounted to 750l. a-year, it was admitted, even by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that 250l. a-year would be a fit and sufficient sum to allow to the Protestant clergyman. Taking these hon. Gentlemen upon their own admission—agreeing with them that 250l. a-year would be a fit and proper sum to allow to that clergyman, then I ask what is to be done with the remaining 500l. I would devote it to the moral and religious instruction of the poor of the parish, but that would be robbing the Church, forsooth! ["Cheers."] The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin stated this gravely and said gravely that this was not the property of the state, and that the state had no right to interfere with it. I will not enter at length into the technical argument which he has urged in support of his proposition; but I will at once say that no rational, no reflecting man can deny that the state not only has the power, but that it is the duty of the State, its sacred obligation, to look after and deal with this property. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that Church-property should not be the property of the state, because the King, Lords and Commons are not a Corporation, and are not capable of property; but it belongs, he said, to the Church—not I should hope to the absentee incumbents. No, but to the Church, he says, as represented by its Bishops, Deans, and Rectors; a body who, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, are just as incapable (not being a Corporation) of holding property as the three branches of the Legislature. I am prepared to maintain, that Church-property is trust property, belonging to the parishioners, to whose use and benefit it was dedicated and delegated. This is not an idea of my own, nor a novel and fanciful notion adopted for the occasion, but one contained and expressed in the statute book of this country. So long ago as the reign of Richard 2nd, that proposition was established in distinct terms. In an Act passed in that reign, I find the following provisions:—"Because divers damages and hinderances oftentimes have happened, and daily do happen, to the poor parishioners of divers places, by the appropriation of benefices of the same places, it is agreed and assented, that in any license henceforth to be made of the appropriation of any parish Church, the diocesan of such place shall ordain according to the value of such Church, a convenient sum of money to be paid out of the fruits and profits of the same Church, and distributed yearly to the poor parishioners in aid of their living and sustenance for ever." It has been said, that these funds have, by a prescription of three hundred years in Ireland, been appropriated to the Established Church, and that any attempt to apply them as proposed, would be to divert them to purposes not Ecclesiastical, and that therefore the House cannot countenance such an application. How has the Legislature before dealt with them? Some years after the passing of the statute I have before referred to, a further Act of the reign of Henry 4th, had been passed, expressly providing, "that henceforth, in every Church so appropriated, a secular person be endowed, according to the discretion of the ordinary, for the performance of divine service, for the education of the people, and to keep hospitality there, and do works of alms and charity." Judging from these provisions, it appears to me that those who contend, that they are bound by their conscience, and their religion not to allow these funds to be applied to the promotion of the moral and religious education and instruction of the parishioners at large, after supplying the spiritual wants and necessities of the Members of the Established Church, err exceedingly, and have much mistaken the objects and purposes for which they had been originally designed: they appear to me to err exceedingly, and in nothing more than in assuming, that the application of any such funds to purposes of education is a novelty alien or foreign to their original institution; the notion is met and refuted by the ancient laws of the land and the statutes of England and Ireland. To recur to the actual state of things, and the condition of parishes as they exist in Ireland; will you persist to maintain this state of things? Would you so constitute any society anew? Would you, if you were effecting a new plantation in Ireland, pursue this system? Would those distinguished personages, who declare they will maintain the present Establishment in all its extent, and will not abate one jot, whatever be the revenue or the relative population, would they appoint a clergyman with 750l. a-year to attend to the spiritual wants of four, ten, or twenty families, and leave 1,000 families without instruction or provision for their moral or religious education? Would, they, à priori, levy that 750l. from the whole community and apply it thus partially? If they would not, why will they now persists if, à priori, they would not, do so? If reason and argument must then prevail, why do they now persist against reason, against argument, against the sad result of long experience? Will they disregard, or have they had no lessons from experience on this score? Have they not heard of, or will they not be taught by the sad and calamitous stories of Carrickshock and Rathcormac?—those scenes of blood, of suffering, and of crime! Will they still persevere in the same unjust and reckless course? And can they say they do so for conscience, for religion's sake?—I call upon those who do say so—I call on those distinguished men to pause, to reflect upon their own words, and upon the course they are taking; let them oppose the Resolution—let them do so; they may despise their political opponents; they may baffle, and possibly defeat those from whom they had severed; but let them not present conscience, and religion as their obligation—persist, and call it cunning, call it policy, call it wisdom, if you will, but do not desecrate conscience—do not profane the name of religion in such a course. But it is asked, will this measure tranqullize Ireland? And it is intimated triumphantly that it will not. No, Sir; no one measure will tranquillize Ireland; no one measure will redeem and correct centuries of bad Government; but the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member of Devonshire, and the spirit in which he has brought it forward, and on which the House has received it, will go far to soothe, and conciliate, and allay irritation; to remove and assuage the exasperation and spirit of revenge which so generally prevail, and engender so many evils, and so much crime. Again, the proposition has been decried by several hon. Members in the course of the debate as an insult to the Protestants of Ireland; nay, a firebrand to excite and inflame ill-feeling among them. This strange outcry was first bruited out of the House; we had it in pamphlets in newspapers, in speeches from hon. Members and reverend clergymen of high name. Sir Harcourt Lees and other equally venerable names have long been distinguished by their denunciations of Popery out of this House; and in the House we have heard this Resolution pronounced an insult to the Protestants of Ireland, and, more indignantly than wisely, spurned as such. I am sure the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Lucas), who spoke last night, will not join in that opinion, though he represents, as he himself has stated, a most Protestant county. That hon. Member stated, that it would be wise to extend education to the Presbyterians; in that sentiment I fully concur; but I would go still further, and add, education ought also to be extended to the Roman Catholic. Of those who shout that it will be an insult to the Protestants, I ask, does any reflecting man think it an insult to the Protestant gentry, or that they so esteem it that provision should be made for the instruction of their uneducated neighbours, and thus set them in the way of real truth? Are they so blind to the advantages of education, have they no feeling for the improvement of their tenants and fellow-countrymen? Are they quite insensible to their own interests, and of the difference between an ignorant and an uneducated, and an orderly, and well-instructed people? Are they Protestants merely in name; do they desire to withhold the light of truth and means of improvement? For myself I would say, that my confidence in the truth of the principles of the religion I profess is such, that I am convinced the surest way to increase the number of Protestants in Ireland, and give it fair play, is to spread information; to give the whole people education, moral and religious; to make them capable to perceive and appreciate the truth. Such was, and such my conviction remains, although it has been with such solemnity announced in the House; and abroad proclaimed in newspapers and in pamphlets, that the proposition is an insult to the Protestants of Ireland, though it has been described as "a firebrand about to be thrown into that peaceable country." The high authority which is arrayed against me on this occasion does not shake my conviction—it has been adopted on reflection—it remains unaltered. I am satisfied that the principle of this Resolution is important to the improvement of Ireland; that its adoption is essential to the tranquillity of that country, and will be most conducive to the real interests of the Church, and its just efficiency there. I have mentioned one high name, long adverse to all concession to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; a consistent enemy to all interference with the system and management of the Church Establishment and discipline in Ireland; a man who loves things as they are, and sees no occassion for improvement—the rev. Sir Harcourt Lees. May I be permitted, before I sit down, to mention—will the House be surprised to learn—that Sir Harcourt Lees is the Rector of Killanney, in the barony of Farney, a parish I have already mentioned; that he resides and maintains a large Establishment near the Black Rock, in the county of Dublin—recollect, that the Protestant families in Killanney are four, the Roman Catholic one thousand; that the benefice is worth 700l. per annum, and that the duty is performed by his stipendiary curate? Do you wonder that the absentee rector does not complain; that he exclaims against alteration, and sees no room for improvement; that he deprecates the Resolution and its principle? Do you wonder that he like the rest of the Irish clergy opposes Reform?

Mr. Sergeant Jackson

rose and said, he would do his hon. and learned Friend who spoke last the justice to say that, from the hour he first knew him, he was consistent in his public conduct. He differed, however, very widely from him in many points, as well as upon this most important Question. He was glad to hear from him one important concession—the necessity of a Church Establishment. He doubted, however, whether there were not many on the other side of the House who would not make the same concession. His hon. and learned Friend therefore, as well as himself, were in duty bound to support the Established Church. Previous to the Union it was thought that, if it should pass, the Protestant Establishment could not be maintained in Ireland, the great majority of the people being Roman Catholics. One of the main arguments in support of that measure was, that after the Union the Established Church would be the religion of a majority of the empire, and that the Church of Ireland would thus be secured. This was the argument which mainly influenced the Protestants of Ireland to concur in the measure. The Church of Ireland could not possibly subsist long after a measure like the present passed into a law. They were now called on only for the appropriation of a surplus, but would not the hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) make further demands hereafter? Would he be satisfied with this? That hon. and learned Member agreed to the remission of three-fifths of the tithes. In a letter which the hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to a friend in September, 1834, he said he accepted all he could get for the present, but would afterwards seek the remission of the whole. "I will take," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "any instalment I can get." His hon. Friend who spoke last said, there would be a surplus of 130,000l.; but he forgot that the previous income of 700,00l. would, as had been clearly shown by his right hon. friend (Sir Henry Hardinge), be reduced to 450,000l.; and where, then, could he find the surplus of 130,000l.? He thought every one who had heard the address of the Attorney-General must be satisfied that nothing could be more preposterous than to call upon the House to legislate upon the question which the noble Lord had introduced. How were they to act? Was a Bill to be brought in? How could they if the surplus was not ascertained? The fact was, that hon. Members were so de- sirous to embarrass the Ministry that they declined waiting for a surplus, and declared something, the existence of which was unknown, to be applicable for certain purposes. Much had been said about the expediency of preserving order, and the impossibility of so doing under the present state of the Established Church. To this he would reply, and all who came from the sister country must confirm his assertion, that if proper measures had been taken for enforcing the law not a shilling of tithes would have been uncollected on the 1st of January, 1834. For this he had the authority of a very respectable Gentleman, a relative of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who, in the presence of several Barristers, expressed himself to this effect:—"The Chancellor of the Exchequer, (then Lord Althorp) has made a very unfortunate statement respecting the extinction of tithes. What is likely to be the consequence? I feel that the course taken endangers my property and every man's property. The first step should have been to enforce obedience to the law, and then any alteration which it might be expedient to make should have been carried into effect." Was it part of the Legislature to see the laws trampled on with impunity, and to yield to menace and agitation? Were they called upon to act in accordance with popular outcries? But it had been said this measure would restore peace to Ireland; and, above all, it would gratify the Roman Catholics. That he denied. The Roman Catholics would not rest satisfied with anything less than the overthrow of the Protestant Establishment. What necessity was there for this Resolution? Who on his side of the House had denied that tithes ought to be applied to educational as well as other purposes? But Oh! said his hon. and learned Friend, the present funds are scanty and insufficient.—If so, let the proper quarter be applied to for an increase. Surely it was not necessary to take the Church-property for that purpose. He could not say whether or not the national Board of Education in Ireland had exhausted their funds of last year, but if they had he could partly account for it by stating that the sums they had given were in many cases, larger than were requisite. Still, however, he had heard of no application on their part for an augmentation of funds. By more than one hon. Gentleman the principle of appropriation had been recommended on the ground that it would tend to promote the efficiency of the Established Church, and enable it to make converts from the Catholic Church. Such was the view which the hon. Member for Weymouth took of the Question. Now, his conviction was, that if the principle were carried out, so far would it be from restoring peace and harmony to Ireland, that it would be productive of increased discord and even bloodshed.—According to the plan of some hon. Members those parishes in which a certain number of Protestants did not reside were to be deprived of the Minister and the benefits which resulted from the Protestant Establishment. The consequence of such a plan would be that a perpetual watch would be held over the Protestants. Their heads would be numbered, and there would be a constant study to keep down their number, so as to bring their parish within the operation of the reducing Clause. Emigration of the Protestant inhabitants had already taken place to a very considerable extent. He hesitated not to declare that these Protestant emigrants composed one of the most valuable classes in Ireland. They were quiet, well-disposed, substantial farmers; but they were compelled to transport themselves, their families, and their stock to foreign shores in consequence of the fearful insecurity of life and property in their native land. Would hon. Members add to this depopulation by adopting a plan—the inevitable effect of which must be to place them constantly under the watch of their enemies? Was it likely that by such a plan their fears would be lessened or their emigration checked and rendered less necessary? Much had been said as to the policy of granting a boon to the Catholics? Were, then, the Protestants to be overlooked? And was it of no importance that Ireland should be inhabited by men of peaceable habits, and not averse to the connexion with England? He could assure the House that if they decided upon carrying the proposed measure into effect by the Protestants in Ireland the decision would be received with dismay.—With regard to the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend, (Mr. Sergeant Perrin) he must say that the greater part of them were wholly irrelevant to the Question before the House. From certain documents in his possession his hon. and learned Friend had given them an account of the state of things in several parishes in the county of Monaghan. He had particularly dwelt upon the evils of non-residence. Who denied that there were evils? Were they denied by the Members on his side of the House, and by those who resisted the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Devonshire? On that point there was not the slightest difference between him and his hon. and learned Friend. Again, he begged to ask whether the hon. Members on his side of the House were advocates for underpaying the working clergy? Undoubtedly not; and it would be the duty of his Majesty's Government, as it was evidently their intention to bring in measures for the regulation of such matters.—Did the hon. and learned Member imagine that they were the friends and supporters of overpaid and non-resident clergymen? No; they were of opinion that the clergy should be adequately paid, and that no idlers should be maintained. Yet it was upon these points, which had no reference to the Question at issue, and upon which there was really no difference of opinion, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had dwelt. He had not intended to address the House on this subject, but after hearing the address of his hon. and learned Friend, and knowing the importance which attached to all that fell from him, he could not refrain, humble as he was, from making some observations in reply.

Mr. Gisborne

said, that on the subject before the House he had always acted with the greatest impartiality, because it was his misfortune, generally, upon this subject to be opposed—he did not mean to Lord Melbourne's Government, for he had never had occasion to be so—but to the Governments which preceded that noble Lord's, in the same manner as he was to the present. He would, without making any exordium, go at once to the point on which he conceived the Question now to stand. The point between the two sides of the House appeared to him to be this—that, whereas, the Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, together with the noble Lord (Stanley), and the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), asserted that Tithes were, in fact, by reason of the mode of collection, the sole cause of the disturbances in Ireland, so far as related to Ecclesiastical matters, whilst they, on that (the Opposition) side of the House, asserted that they were not the sole cause of those disorders; but that the existence of the Irish Church as a Protestant Church Establishment, maintained solely for a small part only of the inhabitants of that country, contributed also, with the tithes to cause those disturbances.—That, he apprehended, was the point of difference now arising between the two sides of the House on the Resolution then before them. He conceived that the House could hardly come to a right solution of that point of difference without first considering the system on which the Irish Church was founded. The Protestant Church in Ireland had always been the corner stone and foundation of our system of Government in that country. Protestant Lord-lieutenants of counties, Protestant Magistrates, Protestant Sheriffs, a Protestant court, a Protestant judicial bench, packed juries, and an Orange yeomanry—these were the institutions—a part of them now rescinded, and a part retained—that formed part and parcel of the same exclusive system of Protestantism. The real Question which affected the feelings of the people of Ireland was this, for whose benefit had these institutions been maintained? Had it been for the benefit of the Irish people? When he heard the noble Lord (Stanley) say that he could not believe that the Protestant Church, maintained out of its own resources could be the cause of the discontents in Ireland, it seemed to him (Mr. Gisborne) that the noble Lord did not understand the elementary principle on which society rested. What was the principle on which law and order were maintained in society? Surely not the principle of force. The idea of maintaining order and law by force was a monstrous and barbarous idea. Social institutions were of no value, nor were they capable of promoting either the happiness or prosperity of a people, unless they were maintained by public feeling and public opinion. Those who lived under them must think and feel that they existed solely for their advantage, and that that was their only object. But was this the case in Ireland? Was it so particularly with respect to the Church Establishment? In England and in Scotland every man's first object was the maintenance of the law, and for this they willingly sacrificed a portion of their time and money, and, if needful, of their personal liberty. If any outrage threatened society, the most extensive combinations were formed to suppress it. But the case was quite different in Ireland. In England and Scotland there was a feeling in every man's mind, that, with some causes of complaint, the institutions of the country mainly existed for his benefit; but in Ireland the institutions were not in accordance with the feelings of the people. That was the cause of the alienation of the people from those institutions, and that was the cause of the necessity that existed there for the maintenance of order and law by force. It was not simply the existence of the Irish Church; but it was the fact of the general feelings of the people being alienated from the institutions of the country, of which the maintenance of that Church was the foundation, that produced a state of society in Ireland under which no security, and no prosperity could exist. He had ever held that all institutions in order to produce prosperity and happiness must rest upon the opinions and feelings of the people. It was possible that this country was strong enough to maintain those institutions by force. That was a system which existed in many States in Europe, and had existed in all parts of the world; but it was perfectly absurd to give the people political power, and, after having done so, to attempt to maintain any institutions which were not in consonance with the principle involved in that act. The ecclesiastical institution in Ireland not being in consonance with the feelings of the great bulk of the people was the foundation of all the insecurity, and all the misery which existed in that country. This Resolution of the noble Lord was the last, the sincere—he trusted it might not be the desperate—attempt to save the Protestant Church in Ireland. He would say, that it was with such an intention, and with the view to make the Protestant Church tolerable to the feelings of the people of Ireland, that the Resolution was now proposed. He had nothing to disguise from the House. He would say, that if the Protestant Church could not be made to exist in consonance with the feelings of the people of Ireland, it was impossible that the Government or the people of this country could maintain it. The only way to maintain the Church in Ireland was by letting the people feel they had an interest in it. The noble Lord (Stanley) had said, that if there were only ten Protestants—nay, if there was only one Protestant in a parish—he had a right to have a Church Establishment maintained for him; and the noble Lord also said, that the Catholic had not even the paltry right of having the surplus revenue of the Protestant Church applied to the education of his children. If that were the noble Lord's principle, then he had, indeed, divided the people of Ireland into two classes—into 500,000 Spartans on the one side, and seven millions of Helots on the other. Did the noble Lord really maintain this principle, even with regard to a surplus? Because, if this were indeed the principle of the noble Lord, then, much as he respected the noble Lord's talents, and highly as he admired his character, he must say, that he would most unwillingly ever see that noble Lord conducting the administration of the affairs of this country. Any connexion of the noble Lord with any Administration, if made inseparable from such a principle as that, would, in spite of his talents and his character, be a great national calamity. The noble Lord had told them, and other hon. Gentlemen had since repeated the observation, that the resolution proposed was with a view of giving peace at once and satisfaction to Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Gisborne) never thought such a thing, and had never heard of such a proposition. But he would tell the noble Lord what the object of the resolution was, and what it would do:—its object was, to remove, and he believed it would remove, an impediment, without the removal of which peace could not come to Ireland. It would remove an insuperable impediment out of the way, and that was all it professed to do. He sincerely hoped that they might be able to attain that object. But if that impediment should not be removed, by the resolution being now rejected, he most earnestly believed that peace never could be produced in Ireland without the total destruction of the Established Church. He had a right, therefore, to claim for those who supported this resolution, that they were, by so doing, making a last and a sincere effort to maintain the Protestant Church in Ireland. He perhaps might be allowed to say a few words on the subject of the right of interference with Church-property. It had been said, that Parliament could not interfere with property over which there existed in no way any supreme power. The Church itself could not alienate the property, nor, it was said, could the State in any manner deal with it. How did the Church become possessed of property of this unintelligible quality? "Why, Sir, (continued Mr. Gisborne) in some dark and ignorant age, some gross, profligate, some enormous sinner, some oppressor of the people, some despoiler of the widow and the orphan, when lying on his death-bed is visited by a wily priest, who tells him his sins are so great that unless he give his property to the Church his soul will remain in purgatory till the day of judgment, and in eternal torments ever after. That is the foundation of the right of the Church to that property; and the consequence of such a gift—a gift made, perhaps, after the wavering reason had ceased to guide the act or intentions of the donor—is to be that, to the end of society, this estate must be devoted to Ecclesiastical purposes. That is your first absurdity. Then, this gross and unscriptural attempt to expiate sin—this, which you, yourselves, hold to be impious, heretical, and anti-christian, you construe into an unalienable title to this property for Protestant purposes. That is your second absurdity." To show that he was not exaggerating, nor mis-stating anything, he would not bring any paltry instance, nor cite any small portion of property which some wretched sinner had been deluded out of at the end of his life. He would read the preamble of an Act which was made the foundation of large possessions held by the Church. That Act was made by a King who was an usurper, and who, in the first year of his usurpation, being anxious to secure the clergy on his side, presented them with this large donation. The preamble of the grant of tithes by King Stephen, in 1135, ran thus:—"Because, through the Providence of Divine mercy, we know it is to be so ordered, and by the churches publishing it far and near, everybody hath heard, that by the distribution of alms persons may be absolved from the bonds of sin, and acquire the reward of heavenly joy, I, Stephen, by the grace of God, King of England, being willing to have part with them who, by a happy kind of trading, exchange heavenly things for earthly, and smitten with the love of God, and for the salvation of my own soul, and the souls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and ancestors, confirm tithes and other donations to the Church." That was the foundation of a large portion of the Church-property. It was in conformity with Stephen's intentions, who, while speaking of heavenly joys, was intriguing for an earthly crown, that you founded your title to all your conscientious feelings, which will not allow you to propose any part of this property to be devoted to other than strictly ecclesiastical purposes. It was objected strongly by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) against gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side of the House, that, if a new Government should be formed in consequence of this Resolution, it must be supported by persons of very incongruous opinions. He was surprised to hear that objection come from the noble Lord. [Lord Stanley had made no such objection.] Gentlemen would remember that a very prominent part of the noble Lord's speech was, that the Opposition was formed of men entertaining the most incongruous principles; that they were persons who had agreed together on this occasion, for the purpose of embarrassing the Government; but who, when they should succeed to their places, would move together very badly indeed. Now, there was a remark he wished to make to the noble Lord, because the noble Lord either agreed in principle with the present Government, or he did not. If he agreed with them, why did he not join them? If he did not agree with them, then he (Mr. Gisborne) would ask, was the noble Lord the person to make an objection to those who acted together on the Opposition side of the House? When the noble Lord was in office, he (Mr. Gisborne) was, for two or three years, not, certainly, a regular, but a general supporter of the Ministry of which the noble Lord was a member. He supported it on all questions, he believed, in which the Ministry was in any trying difficulties with the House. He had voted with it in resisting the Repeal of the Malt-tax; in resisting the Motion for a Committee to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress; in opposing the proposition for inquiry into the Pension List; and in support of the Russian Dutch Loan; on which last question he had even made a speech, such as it was, in their behalf. Did the noble Lord think that it was any objection to his Government that it had attracted to itself his (Mr. Gisborne's) support? The noble Lord was as well aware at that time as he was at present, that they differed from each other most widely on the appropriation of Irish Ecclesiastical property. If a new Government should be formed tomorrow he would give it the same cordial and disinterested support which he had given to the Government which had preceded the present. "In that case," continued Mr. Gisborne, "the noble Lord will, in all probability, come over to this side of the House, and I shall go over to his. I shall occupy nearly the same seat which the noble Lord occupies; but, I admit that, in doing so, I shall not occupy so distinguished a position in the House. But the difference in my situation then from the noble Lord's situation now will be this—that I shall be sitting there to support Ministers in whom I have confidence, whereas he is now sitting there to support Ministers in whom he avows that he has no confidence. The noble Lord, and many others on the Ministerial side of the House, had said, that it was the indispensable duty of the Legislature to regard the truth of any religion to which it gave countenance and encouragement; that it must attend to its gospel truth. Did the House remember on what occasion these words, "gospel truth" were first introduced to the consideration of Parliament? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) would allow him to refer to the times of Henry 8th. These words were first used in his reign, and frequently occurred in the preambles of the statutes of that, reign, When love could teach a Monarch to he wise, And Gospel light first dawn'd from Boleyn's eyes. It was under those auspices that Gospel truth first became an element in English legislation. He recollected, also, that the noble Lord was asked how it came to pass that, if the Legislature was bound to inquire into the truth of the religion to which it grants countenance and encouragement, it now supported a Roman Catholic Church in Canada. The noble Lord had replied that, in the case of Canada, we were bound by the express terms of a treaty. Be it so; still the noble Lord was placed in this dilemma—either he must abandon his treaty or his principle; for the noble Lord, he was sure, would not contend that a treaty was enough to induce him to give up the religious principles by which he would govern a nation. He was sure that if the noble Lord persisted in adhering to his principle, and in calling upon the House to decide political questions with reference to what he was pleased to denominate their Gospel truth, he would destroy the small remnant of harmony which still existed in Ireland. Such a mode of legislation never had produced, and never could produce, harmony in any country into which it was introduced. Its results, if they were to be still tried, would produce in Ireland, as they had produced in every other society, persecution, rancour, hatred, and death. Only one word as to what had fallen from the hon. Member for South Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton) who had said that he should consider it his duty to raise, what he must call the foolish cry of "the Church in danger." It was his conviction that if that cry were now raised it would turn out nothing more than "sounding brass," It would be raised, however, to administer advice to the right hon. Baronet like to that which was given to Captain Macheath just before he was led out to execution. That advice was expressed in two short pithy words, very appropriate to his situation, and they were emphatically these—"Die hard." He apprehended that the effect of the addresses, which he understood were now presented daily to the right hon. Baronet, and of the cry of "the Church in danger," which we were now told was to be sung in our ears from one end of the island to the other, until "it was frightened out of its propriety," would be to give that exhortation to the right hon. Baronet to "die hard," which, of his own accord, he seemed not indisposed to take. He was obliged to the House for the indulgence with which it had listened to him. He cordially agreed with the Resolution then before the House. He had been told that the effect of it, if carried, would be to shorten the duration of the existence of the present Ministers. It was not on that account that the Resolution recommended itself to his mind. If that should be a calamity to the country, he was innocent of any intention to produce it. He supported the Resolution on account of its being in accordance with principles which he had ever maintained. He had supported those principles in opposition to the last, as he now supported them in opposition to the present Ministry; and he supported them, at all events, equally careless as to the effects which the Resolution, if carried, would produce—[Cheers.] I should like (said Mr. Gisborne) to finish the sentence. I say, then, that I support the Resolution equally careless as to the effects it will produce on the existence of the present Government, or on the question who shall be their successors.

Mr. Williams Wynn

said, when the hon. Member who had just addressed the House, attributed all the insecurity and misery prevailing in Ireland to the existence of the Protestant Church in that country, the conclusion at which he arrived, that the adoption of the present Resolution was the only means to produce peace in that country, was most poor, lame, and impotent. Every one of the hon. Gentleman's arguments went not to the regulation, but to the total subversion of the Irish Church. Whereas, this Resolution was proposed by its mover under the pretence that it would secure and strengthen, rather than overthrow what he Mr. Gisborne), agreed with the Members for St. Alban's, Staffordshire, and Dublin, in considering to be a nuisance. The hon. Gentleman had, strangely enough, taken the donation of King Stephen as the foundation of the rights of the Church in Ireland; totally forgetting, it would seem, that King Stephen had not a foot of land in Ireland, and was as much a stranger in that country as the King of France or Spain. The hon. Member for Derbyshire had also said, that we ought to look at the foundation on which Church property rested; and the hon. Member said, that it rested on the donation of some enormous sinner, whom, as he was stretched on his death-bed, a wily priest had induced to atone for the vices of his life by making profuse donations to the Church after his death for the good of his soul. Now, admitting all this to be true, whatever might be the original title of the Church, still he would ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire to give him an answer to this question:—"Is there a single title to land in Ireland which is not posterior to that of the Church, and which therefore was not taken subject to the right of tithe?" It had also been said that Church property was only property held in trust for the benefit of each parish and that the State had a right to take its surplus revenues from the Church, and to apply them to the purposes of education within that limit. Admit that principle, and how far did it go? Was it only in the Church that it was to be followed up to its legitimate end? Or was it to be followed up, also, in cases where tithes were in the hands of lay impropriators? In the thirty or forty parishes of which the Duke of Devonshire was the lay impropriator—in the twenty parishes of which the Marquess of Lansdowne was the lay impropriator—in the same number in which the tithes belonged to Lord Donegal—was the House to look at the origin of their titles, and to appropriate the surplus revenue accordingly? "Tithes," say you, "are to be devoted to purposes of education, and therefore we shall be guilty of no injustice to you in depriving you of them for that object, although they were granted to, or purchased by, your ancestor. Tithes were originally devoted to these purposes, and we insist on their being applied to their original purposes." Where, he would ask, was the equity of such a Resolution. Where was it to end? Could it be contended that the portion of tithes granted to an Ecclesiastic, in return for which, Ecclesiastical duty was performed in the Protestant Church, should be confiscated, while that given to Laymen, subject to no duty or condition for public benefit, should be maintained. It seemed to him, that in the debate of that night, the question was explained differently from the way the question and the principle were explained and argued by hon. Members opposite last year. They were then told, that the Ecclesiastical properly to be resumed should be paid into a fund, out of which, in the first instance, the most liberal provision should be made for all the necessities of the Irish Church. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that night made a very different explanation of his views upon this subject. The noble Lord, and those who supported him, seemed to consider each parish in the light of a separate Church, though they admitted that the revenues of the whole Church were more than necessary. They did not take a general view, nor did they speak of parishes in which tithes are in the hands of lay impropriators. If a Protestant Church in the south had more than was necessary to supply the spiritual wants of its congregation, they were not to look at the parish in the north, where the tithes were in the hands of lay impropriators, and where the Curate only received 751l. a-year. No, the noble Lord would not go beyond a particular parish. Here was a parish with an income of 750l. a-year—there another with an income of only 75l. Out of the income of 750l. a-year—he would raise the income of 75l. to 250l. a-year, and would then leave all the rest to go to the maintenance of schools for the diffusion of general knowledge, not on the principles of the Established Church. The noble Lord in effect said, "we'll take away where there is a surplus, and where there is a deficiency we will not make it up." He protested against, such a principle. The noble Member for Devonshire had also said, in answer to a question, that if any gentleman chose to endow a chapel in the neighbourhood of his house, that endowment he would not take away. Now, were cases of that kind rare in past times? In Ireland, as in England, after the Restoration, when a licentious age excited a reaction and produced great zeal and devotion in the public mind, many instances occurred in which parties possessed of the tithes endowed the livings in their neighbourhood with them. Now, if these endowments had not been rendered public endowments by the sanction of Parliament, but had remained as private endowments, dependent on the piety of individuals, they would have been protected against the invasion of this Resolution; whereas at present he was afraid that they would fall under its grasping provisions. It was argued by hon. Members opposite, that the State was at liberty to confiscate that species of property, and turn it to other than religious purposes. If the duty of a parish could be discharged by a Curate of 75l., why should 750l. be given to a Rector? The answer to this was, that the hope of succeeding hereafter to a rectory, was among the principal inducements held out to a Clergyman to enter into the profession, and accept the curacy, and that the hope of promotion was among the most powerful incentives to good conduct. The present Government had already displayed ample disposition to remedy the abuses of the Irish Church by proper regulations; but because they showed that disposition, it was no reason that the property, granted to endow the Church in Ireland, should be separated from it, and applied to purposes wholly and entirely different. The details of this plan, and the manner in which it could be carried into execution, were, as yet, wholly unexplained. He really could not see how a principle of that sort could be embodied in the Tithe Bill now in progress through Parliament. It was more probable that the noble Lord would find himself obliged to bring in a separate Bill, in order more fully to carry out, according to the wishes of his supporters, the principle contained in his resolution. For his own part, he would never consent to be a party to the introduction of a measure of the kind, which he considered utterly impracticable, as well as devoid of all just principle. He never could bring himself to consider Ireland otherwise, than as an integral part of the empire, and the Church of Ireland as an integral part of the Church of the United Kingdom: so viewing both, it would be impossible for him to avoid regarding attacks made upon the property and independence of the one, as not equally levelled against the other. He was old enough to be one of the few Members of that House who could remember the period of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. He could also remember the several arguments urged to influence the consenting1 parties; amongst these was that great inducement held out to the Protestants of Ireland—namely, that if they consented to make those sacrifices, necessarily involved in a union under any circumstances, they would then, and in perpetuity, secure all the benefits which might result to them and their remotest posterity, from the preservation and maintenance of the Protestant reformed religion in Ireland, by the incorporation of the Church of Ireland into one establishment with the Church of England. How gross, then, would be the breach of faith that, of necessity, must ensue from the united Legislature not realizing the promises it held out, and how grievous the disappointment to those who had placed implicit reliance upon the fulfilment of those promises. Whatever might be the objects of others who had supported this Resolution, he could not believe that his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rice), was actuated by feelings hostile to the Protestant Church, and that he was one who would consent to anything that might lead to the subversion of the Church Establishment in either country. He feared, however, that if the motion was carried, many hon. Gentlemen who wished to proceed only a certain distance, would be obliged to go further. They would find that they had embarked in a voyage which they no longer had the option to abandon. The vessel might be steered for a port different from that of its declared destination. The crew might rise in mutiny—still they must proceed, unless their aid should be found no longer necessary, in which case they might be cast overboard. Do they depend upon the ostensible leader and commander? They will find him like the figure head on the prow, conspicuous indeed, and giving a name and character to the vessel, but wholly powerless to direct it, while it is urged irresistibly forward by the blasts from above and the currents from below, and guided by the concealed hand which holds the rudder, and thus hurried towards that vortex— That, hushed in grim repose expects its coming prey. Towards that vortex—towards certain destruction—he feared the vessel of the State was hastening; and seeing that it was, he could not help expressing his belief that the Church was in danger. Not only was the Church in danger, but if the present Resolution was carried, every institution in the country would be in danger. The existence of the House of Lords would be endangered—of that House which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin proposed to subvert, and substitute in its stead a Representative Assembly. He believed that it would place in imminent danger, the connexion between England and Ireland, and he looked upon the measure as a most material advance towards such destruction.

Colonel Sibthorp

, after remarking that he had no doubt the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne) entertained the expectation of inducing the right hon. Baronet to resign, and of placing himself in some very important situation, proceeded in the following words:—I am desirous to express my consternation at that—I will say—unconstitutional proceeding to which the noble Lord has lent his sanction. I think—at least I hope—that the noble Lord, on a future occasion—he who undertakes the Appropriation of the surplus property of the Church—will give us some opportunity of hearing from the same quarter a declaration that he means to leave Ireland in the possession of lay impropriators. I hope, when a Bill for the Reform of the English. Church is brought in, that we shall hear something of the House of Russell—of the House of Russell giving up their lay impropriations. I will not believe the sincerity of the noble Lord unless I see this take place. He will allow me also to say that I doubt his sincerity, because I believe him to entertain—to hold—I may say to be actuated by—the wish to turn out an honest Ministry, and bring in another, whose condemnation is well known in the public opinion of the liberal portion of the country. I am perfectly satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman below me will retain his post so long as a sense of honour will induce him to keep it; and I am satisfied that when he does leave it, he will carry with him the gratitude of one side of the House, and the overthrow of the other. This Question has already undergone considerable discussion; I have heard many arguments from this side of the House, but I have heard little more than vox et preterea nihil on the other. Sir, what said the hon. Member for Derbyshire?

Why he told you that this was the last attempt of the noble Lord to keep up the Protestant Church in Ireland. But he also told you that this would not pacify Ireland. Why what will the hon. Member—the great man—the Prince of Dublin—say to this? What has he said? He said that this was but an instalment. Of the body opposite, I know not what the head may be, but I believe the tail will leave the other part. What will be the result? Unprecedented confusion; an unheard of breaking up of the whole system, the head will be at one end and the tail will be—at the other. Sir, I say that on the right hon. Baronet's continuance in office depends the safety of the Crown and preservation of the honour, the character, and I will venture to say, the dignity of the country.

Mr. Hogg

contended that the arguments founded upon the fact that the Protestants formed but a small minority of the people of Ireland, if good for anything, would go the length of justifying a total abolition of that Church. In his opinion nothing could he more plain than that the supporters of the present proposition contemplated ulterior measures against the Church. If the enemies of Protestantism were once allowed to enter the breach, the House might rest, satisfied of this—that they would not retire without accomplishing all the objects of the attack—If the breach were once made, the defending party might most assuredly expect to live long enough to repent of the facility with which they appeared ready to make concessions. He was not an enemy to removing the abuses which in the course of ages had grown up in the Church. He should say, by all means reform the Church; but he would call upon them so to reform as not to impair the efficiency or destroy the unity of the Church; let them reform, but let them never do so upon hypocritical pretences, for he could scarcely designate the arguments used on the other side as anything else; fairly considered, they went the whole length of total abolition. He entreated the House to look at the avowals made by the supporters of the present resolution, and called upon them to say if they did not agree with him that the Church was in danger. He did not fear to repeat that cry, for he sincerely believed that the Church was in danger; and, after the resolution adopted by that House, he should say in imminent danger. If he possessed the power, he should willingly trumpet through the land the cry that the Church was in danger, and he did believe that the people of England would respond to that cry, and that they would not prove indifferent to that religion to which they were indebted for so many advantages, and which had showered on them so many blessings. It had been alleged that the resolution of the noble Lord did not amount to any very great encroachment. No doubt that was perfectly true; but it was a first step—it was the concession of a principle. Did they suppose that a wily spoliator would seize the largest and most precious booty in his first attempt? They might be assured that while he dilapidated he would make the pretence of effecting repairs. He was not ashamed to confess that he had always been a supporter of the measure of Roman Catholic emancipation, but he was as ready to confess that the advocates of the measure had expected results from it which unfortunately never had been realized, while, on the contrary, it had gone far towards realizing all the fears of those by whom it had ever been opposed. During the discussions on the Catholic Question, if any hon. Member could, with a prophetic spirit, have foretold the scenes then enacting in the House of Commons, and described them as necessary consequences of the measure of emancipation, he would have been treated as a maniac, or something worse. But now, when it was easy enough to have the full benefit of experience, the House should pause before it incurred the hazard of enduring all its evils. If they had been told in 1829, that a noble Lord like the Member for Devonshire could have brought forward such a motion, and that he was to be supported by the votes of Catholic Members, the whole would have been treated as a mere chimera—as the mere offspring of a diseased and bigoted imagination. It was true enough, that when a commutation was talked of, and even actually proposed, it was said, that the people of Ireland were shrewd and penetrating—that they were not to be deluded, but he would affirm that at all events, until the commutation should be effected, the supremacy of the law and the rights of the clergy should be maintained; had those rights never been tampered with, much blood would have been spared, and the Protestant clergy would not have been exposed to the sufferings which they had endured with such unequalled fortitude. As he had already Said, he was far from wishing to resist the progress of rational reform. He wished to see a more equal distribution of the revenues of the Irish Church; and above all (agreeing with the hon. Member for Weymouth) he wished to see the working clergy more properly maintained. He was as anxious as any man to see a speedy removal of the abuses existing in the Church Establishment, but he could not understand why the hon. Members opposite refused to coalesce with the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in attaining that object by proper and safe means. The right hon. Baronet would obtain for the people of Ireland all they could desire in this respect, and therefore he thought that House ought not now to be called on to decide a mere abstract question, from the affirming of which no possible good could possibly arise. This might be regarded as an extreme case, but surely it was neither wise nor expedient to discuss it until the contingency on which it was based arose. How could their decision bind future Parliaments, or could it be imagined by any rational man that the theories or anticipating legislation of the noble Lord would regulate hereafter the disposal of any surplus which might accrue? He maintained that the tendency of such a discussion as the present was, to endanger the real principles according to which the surplus revenues of the Church ought to be distributed. The resolution called upon them to seize a portion of the revenues of the Church for a particular object; but for his part he did not believe that the people of Ireland would be satisfied with anything of the kind. What, he should like to know, would they say of those who impeded every measure intended for their relief by factious opposition? Now, he would admit that Ireland had in former times been both oppressed and misgoverned; but this had not been the case latterly. For the last twenty years he contended that that country had not only had its full share of the time and attention of Parliament, but of the money of the British Nation—and he therefore must be permitted to express it as his opinion that the adoption of such a resolution as the present was calculated to effect great mischief in Ireland. He regarded the property of the Church as sacred and inviolate, and consequently he could not give his sanction to a resolution which went to establish a very different principle. The hon. Member adverted to the conduct of the Opposition on the Question of the Speakership, and was proceeding, to eulogise the character of Viscount Canterbury, when he was interrupted by cries of "Question"—"Divide," amid which he resumed his seat.

Mr. Lucas

said, that an allusion had been made to him by the hon. and learned Sergeant opposite (Mr. Sergeant Perrin), he would beg leave to answer his remarks. The hon. and learned Sergeant had alluded to five parishes in the county of Monaghan, in which the landholders were principally Catholic, while there was but a small proportion of Protestant landholders, and in which there were large livings, and scarcely any resident rectors. He admitted that the statement was correct, and that it was not a state of things which he could approve of, but in this and in similar instances, the fault was not so much in the individual clergyman as in the system. The Irish Church, like all other human institutions, was in the course of centuries liable to imperfections. The hon. and learned Sergeant had said, that he would restrict the incomes of the clergy to a certain sum. In that he (Mr. Lucas) would go with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was convinced that, in saying so, he merely expressed the opinions of a large body of the Protestants of Ireland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

He did not know that he should have felt it necessary to say a word upon this occasion if, during almost the whole of the debate which had taken place that evening, it had not been assumed that the House was again discussing precisely the same question that had formed the subject of six previous nights' debate. He, however, apprehended that the question which had formed the subject of discussion during those six nights was, at an early period of the present evening, disposed of. The House having last night affirmed the Resolution of the noble Lord in Committee, he, that evening, on the Resolution being reported, considering that there was no probability that any variance of opinion would be expressed by the House from that which it had expressed in Committee, permitted the Report to pass without discussion and without a division. But the Resolution which the House was now called upon to affirm was this:—"That no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the foregoing Resolution." He had great objection to the form of the present Resolution, and to the precedent which it would establish—a precedent perfectly novel, and with respect to which the noble Lord himself must have entertained great doubts, since it was an entire departure from the course which he originally gave notice it was his intention to pursue [Cheers]. The noble Lord, in the first instance, said, that if the House of Commons affirmed his Resolution, he would notify that fact to the Crown by address, in order to enable him to proceed with a Bill. What did he now propose to do? He had passed his Resolution; he proposed to make no communication to the Crown, he proposed to make no communication to the House of Lords, but he did propose that the House of Commons should inform itself that it had passed the Resolution, and that it would hereafter be irrevocably bound by it. [Cheers.] The noble Lord now called upon the House to declare, that no measure which should not embody the principle of a certain Resolution could lead to a satisfactory settlement of the tithe question. He objected to that proposition. He thought it would be most unwise in the House to declare before hand, that one single measure could alone lead to a final and satisfactory result. ["Hear, hear."] Those who approved of the Resolution originally moved by the noble Lord were perfectly at liberty to object to his present proposition. ["Hear, hear."] A majority of the House—a majority of 25, had affirmed a certain Resolution, against which a minority of 289 protested, independently of those who paired off, making altogether a minority of about 300 Members. The noble Lord now called upon the House again to affirm the principle of that Resolution in a still more binding manner—to declare that all further discussion was unnecessary—that no proceedings in Committee on the Tithe Bill needed to be listened to—that there was but one measure which could effect a final and satisfactory settlement of the tithe question, and that was the measure to which a small majority of the House had agreed. He (Sir Robert Peel) did not hesitate to denounce this proceeding as the tyrannical act of a majority [vehement cheering for some minutes]; the tyrannical act of a majority, by a proceeding of a perfectly novel nature—a proceeding for which no precedent could be found, precluding the necessity of further discussion, closing the opportunities of new arguments; resolving that they would not be convinced, binding themselves by an unnecessary pledge to maintain, under all circumstances, a certain opinion. This course of proceeding was unwise in itself, besides establishing a dangerous precedent. ["Hear."] What was the Resolution which the noble Lord called upon the House to affirm? It was, that if there should be a surplus of Church revenue, it should be appropriated to one single specific purpose, to the exclusion of all other objects. The House had already recorded its opinion—it had had it in its power to wait for the Report of the Committee on Public Instruction, and it would be perfectly consistent even in those who thought, that the surplus ought to be appropriated in the manner proposed in the noble Lord's Resolution, to wait until this House could avail themselves of information which would be contained in the Report of the Commissioners, and thus avoid making the precipitate pledge which was now demanded from them. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord himself, had that night, with singular candour, told the House, that he could not bring forward any detailed plan for the enforcement of his own principle, until he had seen and considered the Report of the Commissioners. [Loud cheers.] Would the House of Commons, then, adopt a course of proceeding by which it would preclude itself from profiting by the information which must be contained in the Report of the Commissioners? Would they adopt the novel course of pledging themselves irrevocably to a principle—of prophesying that one thing, and one thing only, could lead to a final and satisfactory settlement? The adoption of the Resolution now before the House would cut off all chance of that which was sometimes absolutely necessary for the wisest and most infallible in the conduct of human affairs—namely, all possibility of compromise. Occasions sometimes occurred in which it was necessary for one branch of the Legislature to modify its opinions for the purpose of effecting an amicable agreement with another branch on some great public question; but now it was proposed, that one of the three branches of the Legislature should, without waiting for the result of inquiries, which are acknowledged to be essential to the formation of any plan, declare, that they would adhere to a principle which they had laid down, and listen to no compromise what- ever. ["Hear, hear!"] If that course were adopted, the public men who were parties to it would be bound up from acting on the possible necessities of the future—the House of Commons would be cut off from the exercise of a free judgment—from the means of wise and honourable compromise, and would establish a precedent for insisting on the execution of its own designs, even before those designs had been moulded into the shape of a legislative enactment. ["Hear, hear!"] What was the object of all this precipitation? If there was a majority sufficient to carry the Resolution, it must be sufficient to enforce the principle of that Resolution hereafter. Why, then, not wait for the Committee on the Tithe Bill? Was not the conduct of the Opposition, in fact, a practical declaration to the people of England to this effect:—"We have confidence in our Resolution, but we have no confidence in ourselves?" [Loud, and continued cheering.] It seemed necessary for the parties to this proceeding to swear eternal friendship upon their Resolution. For two months, they had been attempting to discover a common bond, by which they could unite themselves in opposition to the King's Government; at length they discovered one, and so anxious were they in all times of future difficulty and embarrassment, to adhere to it with desperate fidelity, that they were afraid to trust their own discretion—they were afraid to trust in the permanence of their new alliance—they were afraid to trust their own perseverance in their own opinion, but they proposed, by a novel course, to bind themselves to each other, not to dissolve their only tie. [Great cheering.] He objected to the precedent it was proposed to establish, which was one which any majority hereafter might follow. Henceforth it would be merely necessary to gain a majority upon some preliminary point, and then to declare, that no compromise would be admitted. By agreeing to the present Resolution, the House would not only adopt the noble Lord's principle, but would proclaim to the people of England and Ireland, that the only satisfactory arrangement of the Tithe Question, must be founded upon the basis of a principle, from which 300 Members of the Commons dissented. ["Hear."]

The sentiments which he had heard in the course of the discussion, had not tended in any degree to diminish the appre- hensions which the former debate excited in his mind. ["Hear, hear!"] In whatever respect new ground had been taken that night, it was still more dangerous than the ground occupied before. The noble Lord was asked, how he meant to ascertain the surplus? He was asked to give some explanation of his principle, and in the course of that very short speech, in which he professed his inability to produce any plan until he had seen the Report of the Commissioners, he ventured on an explanation of his principle, and it was to this effect:—"If there be in the south of Ireland, in Kerry, or Limerick, for instance, livings superfluously endowed, in that case it would give no satisfaction to the payers of tithe in the parishes to which those livings belong to transfer the surplus to supply deficient endowments in the north, in Down, or in Derry; but the surplus ought to be applied to the purposes of education in the parish from which such surplus is derived." If that principle were followed out, it would establish a separate, peculiar, local, parochial interest in the amount of tithes; it would constitute each parish into a separate territorial division, and proclaim to the people of Ireland, that henceforth each parish should have a separate and peculiar interest in the amount of tithe levied within it. ["Hear," from the Opposition.] The hon. Members who cheered, affirmed that proposition. Then, he asked, in answer to their cheers on what pretence will you limit the appropriation of the surplus to purposes of education? [Cheers.] After having established a separate, peculiar, and parochial interest in the surplus, will you declare, that to no one purpose shall it be applied excepting that of education in each particular parish. ["Hear, hear!"] Supposing a parish should answer, "We have education enough already—we have several endowments for the purposes of education—the Protestant landlords have established schools—our children are all amply instructed, there are no demands in our parish for further education; at our own desire, and with a view to maintain our independence, we voluntarily make a small payment for each child, and we require no more funds for the purpose of instruction;" in such a case how would the noble Lord's limitation of his principle, satisfy public opinion in the parish of which I am speaking as an example? Supposing the noble Lord were to assign the surplus to a neighbouring parish, less amply provided with the means of instruction, did he think that that application of it would create more satisfaction than if he transferred it to a distant one? Did he, who objected to the transfer to Down, or to Derry, believe that after the establishment of his principle, the providing for the wants of an adjoining parish from the tithes of its neighbour would give satisfaction to the payer of those tithes? From what he (Sir Robert Peel) knew of local feuds in Ireland, he was sure that the application of surplus parochial funds to the necessities of a neighbouring parish was not likely to be received with greater favour than their transference to the north of Ireland. Thus, after disturbing all existing notions with respect to property, the noble Lord would fail to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, which was the only object which he professed to have in view. But did the noble Lord recollect that he himself was a party to a measure which made an important change with respect to large and overpaid livings in the south of Ireland—he alluded to the Church Temporalities' Bill, which was passed only two years ago? The preamble of that Bill was utterly at variance with the noble Lord's Resolution. That Bill was the last legislative declaration on the subject of the Established Church; and it was a declaration made on the advice and at the instance of the noble Lord; it distinctly laid down the principle of a different distribution of Church-property; it distinctly laid down the principle, that overpaid livings might be curtailed, that tithes might be detached from Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks; it laid down the principle that sinecures in the Church should be abolished, and the proceeds appropriated to certain purposes; but then, there was this express limitation, that those purposes should be Ecclesiastical, such as the building, rebuilding, and repairing of Churches, the augmentation of small livings, and such other purposes as might conduce to the advancement of religion and the efficiency, permanency, and stability, of the United Church of England and Ireland. [Cheers.] Thus, the Ecclesiastical Funds were limited to purposes strictly Ecclesiastical, and the object of the noble Lord's Act was declared to be to give permanence and stability to the United Church of England and Ireland. What confidence could the people place in the intentions or Resolutions of that House when it saw them exhibiting such utter disregard to the enactments, to the main principles of Bills brought in—not last century—not forty years ago—not by a Tory Government—not by the devoted friends of the Church, but by the Government of which the noble Lord was a Member? [Cheers.] The noble Lord had forgotten not only the preamble but the enactments of that Bill. These overpaid livings in the south of Ireland, which caused such scandal, and were so offensive in the eyes of the noble Lord. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] He could assure the hon. Gentlemen who cheered that he was going to prove, that the noble Lord was a greater Reformer than he had given himself credit for being; that the noble Lord had already made provision for the correction of those very abuses in the Church of which he was now so grievously complaining. Such, however, was the modesty of the noble Lord, so oblivious was he of his own good deeds, that he had actually forgotten the enactments of the Bill, of which he was one of the most powerful supporters, which provided a most effectual remedy for the very evils which now appeared to shock him so much; for by one of the clauses of the Bill it was expressly provided, that if any livings should be found in the south or in any other part of Ireland with incomes exceeding 800l. a-year, it should be competent to Commissioners to detach the tithes of certain townlands, from them, and assign them to neighbouring livings, for the purpose of securing a resident Minister. The limitation placed by the Bill on the extent of the deductions from these livings, was this, that no living should be cut down below 300l. per annum. If, therefore, the noble Lord would apply the principle of his own Bill through the agency of his own Commissioners, he would destroy all the enormous livings in the south of Ireland whose funds he now wished to apply to purposes of education. ["Hear, hear."]

Let the House now look practically to the consequences which must follow from the adoption of the noble Lord's proposition. After the resolution had gone forth, a resolution adopted after much parade—after a call of the House—after a debate, protracted to seven nights—the people in every parish in the south of Ireland would naturally scan it with a keenness, proportionate to all this preliminary parade and attempt to ascertain its real meaning. The noble Lord proposed that any surplus which might be obtained should be applied exclusively to education, on the express ground, that education is an ecclesiastical purpose; but how those hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who maintained that the surplus could, and ought to, be applied to secular purposes, could consent to bind themselves by the terms of the noble Lord's Resolution, he (Sir R. Peel) could not understand. However, that was a point for them to settle. He (Sir R. Peel) was glad of the limitation, because, if spoliation was to be committed, it was gratifying to know, that it was proposed to confine it within certain definite bounds; but how could such limitation meet the approval of those who declared, that the noble Lord's Resolution was only valuable on account of the principle which it contained? The hon. Member for Derbyshire, who had by his own confession been searching for precedents, had been able to quote only two authorities in justification of the principle of spoliation, one an ancient, the other a modern one. His authorities were Henry 8th. and Captain Macheath. [Laughter.] The hon. Member, after giving him (Sir R. Peel) credit for his historical knowledge as regarded Henry 8th., was kind enough to assume that he was equally cognizant of the principles and practice of Captain Macheath. He knew this at least of the character and exploits of the Captain—that he was a wiser man than the hon. Member; for he never appropriated a surplus till he had ascertained its existence. [Great cheering and laughter.] True; the Captain applied his surplus to secular purposes. [Laughter.] So far his example was a precedent, but he differed from those who appealed to his authority in this respect, that his surplus was never an imaginary one. But, to return to the noble Lord: when the noble Lord's Resolution should arrive in Ireland, accompanied by the speeches of the noble Lord and all the hon. Members who had supported it, the people would find it distinctly explained, that their interest in tithes was a local and parochial interest—that tithes belonged not to the Church, not to the State, but to each parish from which they were derived. They were further forewarned, that, in case the Protestant interest should here- after revive in a parish in which the surplus had been appropriated according to the noble Lord's principle, the new interests which might have accrued in the mean time were liable to be set aside, and the fund re-applied to its original purpose. ["Hear, hear!"] Suppose a vacancy should take place in a living of 1,000l. a-year, who was to determine what would be a fitting provision for the Protestant clergyman? This question would arise upon every vacancy. There would be a public meeting. The number of souls then in existence would be counted; the Roman Catholic clergyman would be at work, the expectant Protestant clergyman would urge his claim, the whole parish would be aroused from its slumber; for there would be a manifest interest in diminishing as far as possible, the stipend set apart for the Protestant minister. That stipend, be its amount what it might, would be regarded with an evil eye as a superfluous charge on the parish purse—as a diminution from the amount applicable to parochial purposes of public utility. See how many conflicting interests would be called into life by this new principle of appropriation; to how many new elements of social discord it would give birth. The Protestant landlord would have a direct interest in collecting round him as numerous a Protestant tenantry as possible, in order to establish a claim—an eventual claim, at least—to a part of the surplus. The more strong his sense of religion, the greater would be his interest in the establishment of this claim on behalf of the faith which he professed. You thus gave him a new interest, an interest recommended to him by the highest and purest principles, to surround himself with a Protestant tenantry, that is to say, to dispossess Roman Catholic tenants of their land on the expiring of leases, and supply their places by Protestants. On the other hand, the Catholic population would have a direct interest in intimidating and driving away Protestants; and thus religious jealousies would be added to the other causes which at present rendered the letting and the holding of land in Ireland sources of excitement and disturbance. Again, supposing the case to which he had already referred—namely, that a surplus should be found in a parish in which the means of education were already abundant, would not the Catholics say, "You have established the principle, that we have an interest in the surplus; we shall derive no advantage from the application of that surplus to instruction, and, therefore, we insist that it shall be applied to some other local purpose, and not diverted to another parish." How could the noble Lord answer that argument? ["Hear! hear!"] How could he, with his principles, divert the tithes—the parochial fund, which must not be transferred to Derry or to Down—how could he divert it to another parish? What endless discord there would be! The other parish might be tithe free. "Are we," the tithe paying parishioners will say—"are we to pay tithe for the benefit of those who are exempt? We had a resident clergyman under the old system. He did spend the produce of our tithe among those who paid it, but now the tithe is to be paid, as before, but it will be applied to the benefit of others." [Hear! hear!]

There was a part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cashel which appeared to make some impression upon the House; and, having alluded to the hon. and learned Member, he would add, that, strange as it might seem to some hon. Members opposite, there was very little difference between them (Sir R. Peel and Mr. Perrin). The hon. and learned Gentleman did not advocate the doctrine of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, that the Legislature might be indifferent with respect to Gospel truth. The hon. Member for Derbyshire was evidently an enemy to all establishments. Why, on his principles, would he allow the establishment to exist in England? It was no answer to say, that it was supported by the majority of the people; because, according to the hon. Member, there should be no endowment of any one form of worship. Endowments, according to him, obstructed the progress of truth; and each religion, whether pure or corrupt, should be allowed to make its own way. If this argument was good for anything, it clearly applied, not to the church in Ireland exclusively, but to the establishment in this country. The hon. Member for Cashel, however, was an advocate for religious establishments. Said the hon. Member, "I find a certain parish in Monaghan, which contains but four Protestant families—the amount now allotted to their spiritual guide I will reduce—but I will provide the four families with the means of religious instruction."

Why the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had not gone one step farther than this. He said, if there were ten Protestants in a parish, he would secure to them the means of religious instruction, and the opportunities of divine worship according to the rites of the Established Church. Or rather what he said was this. If they have now such means, I will not consent to deprive them of what they possess. And what said the hon. Gentleman? Not only that he would not deprive them of them, but that, there should be—not, indeed, an overpaid absentee rector, with an income of 700l. a-year—but a resident Protestant pastor to administer the offices of religion to those who required them—not with the paltry stipend of 75l. a-year, which the curate now receives for his services, but with an income of 250l. Here then would be 250l. a-year allotted with a wise liberality, not only for the spiritual instruction of four Protestant families, but for the purpose of recognizing the great principle interwoven with the existence of a Church Establishment, that for those members of it who lived or might live in that parish, there shall be the means of publicly worshiping their God, according to the principles of their faith. Now he (Sir Robert Peel) would ask the hon. Gentleman this question. If he were to divide the revenues of the Church equally among every parish, taking his own standard as the standard of clerical remuneration, was he quite sure that there would be a surplus of Church revenue? The sum of 250l. was assumed by the hon. Gentleman to be the minimum at which the proper performance of a clergyman's duties ought to be remunerated; he would assign this as the stipend of a clergyman in that parish in which there were only four Protestant families, but if he (Sir Robert Peel) took the case of a clergyman in a large parish, in a populous city, who was obliged to move in a certain station of life, and to maintain his family in decent and moderate independence, was it not clear that 250l. per annum would be a most inadequate provision? Give me 250l. as the minimum for the country parish, give me, what is manifestly not more than sufficient, where the Protestant congregation is numerous, where the parish is situate in an extensive town, and I meet the learned Gentleman with perfect confidence, on his own grounds, and I tell him that on his own principles and his own reasoning he has not one farthing of surplus.—See, too, what his admission is, his just and liberal admission, that 250l is not too large a provision for the clergyman who has charge of his parish with the smallest possible number of Protestants. See what it implies beyond the allotment of the stipend. It implies the necessity of a place of Protestant worship, it implies the necessity of a residence for the minister. The charge for these if not built—the repairs of them if built, fall now upon the revenues of the Church. Where is the surplus when all these essential requisites to Protestant worship shall have been provided for, limiting the provision to those parishes alone, in which there is a Protestant population? [Hear, hear!"]

He agreed fully with what had been said relative to the propriety of enforcing residence among the clergy. He would not limit that principle to the removal of the abuses caused by the absence of an incumbent, who spending his money at some distant watering place neglected the performance of his clerical duties. He would be contented to destroy pluralities. [Cheers.] He would not hesitate to declare that the ministers of the Church who were spending their incomes in places of mere amusement, and were neglecting the personal discharge of spiritual duties, were not fulfilling the condition on which the endowments of their benefices were given to them [loud cheers,] and a law should pass to remove those unsightly defects, if they existed, in the constitution of the Church in Ireland. And with his full consent that law should apply not merely to future, but to every existing incumbent. There was no vested interest that could be pleaded against the performance of that high trust for which alone that interest was vested. [Great cheering.]

He did not wish to enter upon a consideration of the Acts of Richard 2nd., which had no application to the question before the House—which related to the impropriation of tithes. If the tithes did not belong to the rector, they certainly did to the Church ["hear, hear!"] and should be applied to the purposes for which the Church was consecrated [Cheers]. If the learned Gentleman's argument was valid; if the parishioners, in their personal capacities, and not the Church, had a right to the tithes—how did he propose to deal with the lay-impropriator of tithes? Could the alleged right of the parishioners to tithes be defeated by their transfer to a lay-man.

An Hon. Member on the Opposition side.—Length of time has sanctioned the abuse.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Length of time! there is no right which prescription has given laymen to their property, which it has not given in at least an equal degree to the Church [Cheers].

He had another objection against this Resolution. Its object was to obstruct by unfair means the passing of the Tithe Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a way of notifying to the Government, in a dangerous and unprecedented manner, "We will not permit you to introduce your measure; we will not allow you to pass any preliminary stage in which after discussion any point could be agreed to; we will not consider the Bill in Committee, unless you agree to this Resolution as a preliminary condition." He could not agree to it. He objected to it on the ground, that the principle of the Resolution was dangerous and unjust; he objected to it on account of the manner in which it had been brought forward—he objected to it because those by whom it was prepared admitted a total want of information upon the subject on which they were legislating. Acting upon erroneous data—not having determined the amount of the property of the Church—not knowing how much they wanted for the purposes of education, they proclaimed their object to be a final settlement, a satisfactory settlement, and yet they established no principle by which their future course was to be guided; or if they did establish a principle, it was one of much more extensive and dangerous application than they professed it to be. After their debates of seven nights, there were many important points that had totally escaped observation. They had not taken into account how many livings there were in Ireland the right of presentation to which belonged to laymen and was held as private property. If they were to deduct these advowsons, they would find a large sum must be subtracted from their estimate of the Church property, for he apprehended that they would distinguish between the rights of the private and the public patron. In the Church Temporalities' Bill this distinction was made, and he supposed it would be made again, for the noble Lord would probably respect the rights of private property belonging to individuals. There were 300 livings in the hands of individual patrons. He did not pretend to know the exact amount of their value, but if it corresponded in a proportionate degree with the ordinary value of Crown livings in Ireland, and if they were to be treated as private property, about one-fourth of the whole revenues of the Church was at once placed beyond the control of the noble Lord. Here was one case, in which a great deduction must be made from this alleged surplus. But how could they determine, how could they approximate to the estimate of the surplus, without having decided on the principles of the new Tithe Bill, on the amount of the abatement which was to be made from the present legal demand of the Church. This was a most important point. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman who lately held the Office of Secretary for Ireland had declared that the landlords were not treated too favourably in the Bill sent up last year to the House of Lords, and had stated his determination, when the Tithe Bill came before the House, to insist on terms as favourable to the landlords of Ireland, as those contained in last year's Bill. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman acted on this principle, and was successful in enforcing it; he would make a very material reduction in the future revenues of the Church. [Cheers.] If, as in the last year's Bill, two-fifths of the tithes were to be given to the landlords, the tithes being valued at 545,000l. and one-fifth of 545,000l., being 109,000l., the sum of 218,000l. must be deducted from the value of the tithes. There would then be left 327,000l. as the future annual value of tithes in Ireland. And here he would beg the noble Lord to observe, that they were rapidly reducing his estimate of 800,000l. [Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.] If the noble Lord agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, so recently his colleague in office,—the colleague intrusted with Irish affairs, the author of the Tithe Bill of last year, it was clear that the tithe property of the Church was reduced by one blow to the annual sum of 327,000l. But were the compositions for tithe to be re-opened, as they were by the Bill of last year? If they were, here was a fresh deduction even from the sum of 327,000l. Consider these three separate causes of reduction of the assumed surplus—reductions of which you yourselves are the advocates. First, there is the private patronage of livings, which is not within your control. Secondly, two-fifths taken from the present amount of tithe. Thirdly, compositions of tithe re-opened; and then inquire calmly whether the remainder be more than sufficient for the decent maintenance of the Church. Now was it just towards the Church, was it likely to conciliate the good feeling and good-will of those for whom they legislated, to proceed to pass this resolution with such false assumptions of the real amount of the revenues of the Irish Church. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no excuse whatever for this course. Returns had been called for, and in three days they would be before the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite had eagerly sought for that information, but they now refused to be governed by it, and pledged themselves to listen to nothing but the resolution. [Cheers from the Ministerial benches.] They might act upon that determination, but happen what might, he would not adopt the principle of that resolution. [Loud and prolonged cheering from the Ministerial benches.] He would not give effect to it. When he considered the hopes they had raised, and the expectations they had excited, which he knew must be disappointed, he might well say that the boldest man would be justified in shrinking from the responsibility of that resolution. [Cheers.] Even if the resolution was passed, its principle would not apply, until vacancies in livings should occur. The result of this Debate, now continued for seven days, would only affirm a principle whose practical effects must necessarily be suspended, until existing interests had ceased. And what was the condition of these clergymen in the south of Ireland, who, the House thought, were loaded with superfluous wealth? They had been deprived of their tithe for the last four years. If he had interfered with the noble Lord's resolution, for the purpose of amending it (which he had no intention of doing), the first claim he should assert, would be to provide compensation for those who had suffered under, but patiently acquiesced in the wrong, which had been inflicted on them. Surely, the justest claim on a surplus, if there were a surplus, would be that of those who had been robbed of their property. ["Hear, hear."] If they found clergymen with wives and families resident amongst their parishioners, deprived of their rights because they had been temperate in the enforcement of them—because they had shrunk from extreme measures—because they had submitted to severe personal privations rather than come into collision with their flocks, were their demands for retribution to be disregarded? [Cheers.] He held in his hand one of many letters which he had received on this subject, and he was resolved to bring an individual case before the House, as an example in order that they might see the extent of pecuniary loss to which the clergy had been already subjected. It was written with great simplicity, and on that account was the more affecting. The right hon. Baronet then read an extract from the letter: "I entreat yon," said the writer, "if practicable, to create a fund to provide for the widows and orphans of clergymen, which the contemplated reduction of their incomes would render peculiarly well-timed, as many must now be disabled from partially attaining that object by effecting insurances on their lives. And, lastly, to relieve them from future instalments (together with arrears now due) to the Board of First Fruits, for loans advanced them to build their glebe-houses. I sincerely wish mine was an isolated case, but if many are similarly circumstanced with myself, they have great difficulties to encounter. I effected the composition in my parish (in 1832) at a sacrifice of 150l. per annum of the income I was for years in receipt of—namely, 580l.; thus voluntarily reduced by me to 430l. By the proposed Bill, this will be further reduced to 322l. 10s.; out of which I shall pay 50l. insurance, 43l. rent, 29l. first fruits; leaving a balance of 200l. 10s. to support my beloved wife, ten children, and myself, after being above forty years an unworthy labourer in the Christian vineyard. [Cheers.] A murmur, however, shall not escape my lips, for I feel convinced the welfare of the Established Church is the object you and the Government are most anxious to promote. Were the second measure, the provision for widows and orphans, adopted, (as I have humbly suggested), I should regard as trivial every pecuniary difficulty I might be destined to encounter, for it would console me under them all, and pluck from the pillow of death the only thorn this world could plant there. [Great cheering.] As a small atonement for thus presuming to trespass on yon, permit me to offer the accompanying poem, for which my eldest son obtained a Vice-Chancellor's prize. He was equally successful with two other poems, but the enclosed is the only one published." [The pathos with which the right hon. Baronet read this short extract, produced a great effect upon the House.] Here was a clergyman supporting his wife and ten children on an income reduced by acts of the Legislature from 580l. to 322l a-year, (the latter sum probably recovered with extreme difficulty), not murmuring at his loss, thanking those who inflicted it, for their wish to promote the interests of the Church, and ready to make any personal sacrifice which would conduce to those interests. Surely it is affecting to contemplate such a man cheerfully devoting, from the pittance which was left to him, some portion of it for the education of a son who was cheering the poverty and suffering of his home, by the glad tidings of academical distinction. This is no singular instance—it is one of a hundred similar cases—and shall we, without inquiry, pledge ourselves irrevocably to transfer from the Church to which these ministers belong, a portion of her property, and if we do transfer it, can we with any semblance of justice appropriate it to any object, before we have provided compensation for those who have been defrauded and robbed of their rights?

I will no longer interpose between that decision of this House which, if adopted, is to exclude all compromise, all hope of re-consideration; to pledge this House, in spite of further argument, in spite of additional information, in spite of its own conviction, to adhere obstinately to one unalterable Resolution. Against the principle of that Resolution, there stands recorded the deliberate protest of men, whose opinions are entitled to the highest deference, from their high character and acquirements, from their experience in the affairs of Ireland, above all, from their political relations, and the active part they have taken in the adjustment of Irish questions of the deepest interest and importance. I quote not the opinions of men prejudiced in favour of Protestant ascendancy, bound by the tics, or stimu- lated by the excitement of party, to uphold the predominance of the Church; I quote the authority of those who were the most powerful, the most uncompromising, the most effectual advocates for the removal of Roman Catholic Disabilities, and the establishment of perfect civil equality among all classes of the King's subjects. I quote the authority of Burke, of Plunkett, of Newport, and of Grattan. Of Burke, who, speaking of the Established Church in Ireland, considers "it a great link towards holding fast the connexion of religion with the State, and for keeping these two islands in a close connexion of opinion and affection; who wished it well—as the religion of the greater number of the primary land-proprietors of the kingdom, with whom all Establishments of Church and State, for strong political reasons, ought to be firmly connected." I quote the authority of Plunkett, who declared "the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, to be necessary for the security of all sects, to be the great bond of union between the two countries, and who emphatically declared, that to lay our hands on the property of the Church, or to rob it of its rights, would be to seal the doom, and to terminate the connexion between the two countries." I quote the authority of Newport, who protested against the enactments of the Church Temporalities Bill, who dissented from the policy of reducing the number of Bishopricks, who, while he advised a different distribution of Church property, for the promotion of the interests of the Church, insisted on the strictest application of that property to Ecclesiastical purposes. Lastly, I appeal to the solemn, the dying declarations of Grattan—of him who fought to the last hour of his existence with "desperate fidelity," in the cause of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. In his last moments he had strength sufficient to dictate a paper, of which the following is a faithful extract. Resolved, that a Committee be appointed with a view to Repeal the Civil and Political Disabilities which affect His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their religion. Resolved, that such Repeal be made with due regard to the inviolability of the Protestant religion and establishments. Resolved, that these Resolutions do stand the sense of the Commons of the Imperial Parliament on the subject of Civil and Religious Liberty, and as such be laid before His Majesty. These Resolutions contain my sentiments; this is my testimentary dispositions, and I die with a love of liberty in my heart, and this declaration in favour of my country in my hand. Supported by these authorities, I adhere with the greater confidence to that course which my own judgment and my own conscience dictates. Backed by the prescient sagacity of Burke, by the powerful reasoning and prophetic warnings of Plunkett, by the local knowledge and long experience of Newport, by the dying injunctions and testamentary declarations of Grattan, I give an unhesitating vote against principles tending to shake the foundations of all property, and to subvert the Protestant Church in Ireland.

Mr. Spring Rice

wished the House to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet had put the question on which they were about to decide upon its fair and just ground? He trusted that the House would allow him, in the first place, to justify the course which the Opposition had taken upon this occasion. It had been not merely charged upon them, that they had unduly precipitated this decision, but they had been reproached by the right hon. Baronet, with having gratuitously called upon the House to decide the question, in the absence of information which might have been obtained, and which the House ought to require. But they were driven to debate a question which was presented by the Ministers themselves at the very opening of the Session, so pointedly, that one of the earliest notices given was a notice on the subject of tithe by the Secretary for Ireland: but his noble Friend even before the right hon. Gentleman was in possession of the report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, had also given notice that he should move for the production of that report. He was then informed that the report was not forthcoming; still, so anxious was he for necessary information, that he said, "If we cannot have the report, let us have any preliminary information with which you can furnish us." This could not be produced, and his noble Friend only came forward with his motion, when he was compelled in consequence of the leave obtained by his right hon. and gallant friend the Secretary for Ireland, to bring in a Tithe Bill for Ireland, based upon principles, according to the statement then made, contrary to those of the resolution now adopted by the House. That right hon. gentleman might be perfectly certain that if the Opposition could have done so consistently with what they conceived their public duty, they should have been anxious to have delayed this dis- cussion until the report of the Commissioners was presented, because, in that case, that which was now matter of inference would have been converted into certainty, and any point which, without it, was controvertible, might have been placed beyond the reach of doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had taxed them with the necessity of proving the amount of the surplus, and at the same time he had charged them with not having the evidence which the report only could supply. He would take the liberty of repeating what he had urged upon a former occasion, that as long as there were parishes in Ireland, in which clergymen were endowed without having any duty to perform, there was no occasion to enter into further calculations upon the subject. Such cases proved the existence of Church sinecures which ought to be abolished, especially upon Church grounds. For the sake of the Church, and acting upon the principles laid down by Burke and by Grattan, the very authorities which the right hon. Baronet had quoted, he repeated that there could be no safety for the existence of the Church of Ireland, in those parts of that country where the Establishment was really requisite to provide religious instruction for a Protestant people, so long as parishes were allowed to continue in other districts in which a Church was maintained without a congregation, and where clergymen were supported who had no Ecclesiastical duties to perform. The right hon. Gentleman had taxed the Opposition with having propounded a resolution in such a manner that it might be construed in two opposite senses. He understood the resolution according to its plain and obvious meaning; and without adopting the principle of appropriation affirmed in this resolution, the question of tithes could not be disposed of, to the satisfaction of the House, or of the public. But he begged the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and, he begged the House to consider, in reference to the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech, that they were not now introducing any new principle, as he asserted they were—nor maintaining a new doctrine—nor taking a position for the purpose of harassing the existing Government. It was possible that some hon. Gentlemen now in the House, were not Members of the last Parliament, and therefore, were unacquainted with the principle laid down by Lord Althorp upon this Question; he therefore would take the liberty of quoting what was then stated. Lord Althorp's declaration exactly coincided with the course they were now about to take—it differed in no essential particular—and if it appeared that they were now only pursuing the course which he marked out when he was a Minister of the Crown, they could not, surely, on any principle of justice, and fair dealing, be charged with want of candour in their present mode of discussing this Question. Lord Althorp stated, on the 2nd of June,—"that Church-property was trust property, and if the amount of it were greater than was necessary for the accomplishment of the trust, if it were greater than was required for the maintenance of the Established Church, for the benefit of Ireland, so far from injuring the interests of that Church, so far from injuring the religious interests of the Protestants of Ireland, he thought that to apply a part of the revenues to the moral and religious education of the people, would tend much to promote the prosperity of the Protestant Church.* Let any hon. Gentleman who imagined that, on the present occasion, they were actuated by party or factious motives, shew him one single word in Lord Althorp's declaration which differed in sentiment from the present resolution—let such an opponent shew in what the one does not strictly conform to the other;—if any hon. Member clearly proved the distinction—he would abandon his argument, and cheerfully submit to his judgment. The right hon. Gentleman said, that we had anticipated the discussion of his Tithe Bill by prematurely bringing forward this resolution; but whose fault was it that they were not now discussing the Order of the Day for going into the Committee upon that Bill? The right hon. Gentleman knows that, on the evening when the resolutions on which that Bill was to be founded were discussed, the Opposition unanimously tendered him their support, and, if he had introduced the Bill on the 20th of March, the House would have been prepared to go into the discussion of the Bill in Committee. It was not fair, therefore, of the right hon. Gentleman to suspend his Bill from the 20th day of March until the 7th of April, and then tax the Opposition with anticipating the progress of his Bill, by coming forward with a premature resolution. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated, that the course the Opposition was taking, with regard to this resolution, was unjustifiable and was unprecedented. There had been much * Hansard, (third series) vol. xxiv. p. 15. in the course of the present Session unjustifiable and unprecedented, and which called upon the House to take their stand upon this Question; but he believed,—as he had stated previously,—that if a Tithe Bill had been brought forward,—the former Government being still in power,—and the hon. Member for St. Alban's had proposed, as an amendment, a resolution to the effect of this resolution,—the sense of the late House would have been in its favour, and it would have been carried, even against the wish of Lord Grey's Government. But what was there, unprecedented in the resolution? Did it contain that within it which was true, or that which was false? If it were true, so far from its being unjustifiable, it was not open to any objection. It was for the House of Commons to lay down those conditions on which it was willing to legislate, and those principles which it might believe to be essential to secure the success of the Tithe Bill; and he believed that unless this principle was affirmed, they might introduce what Bills they pleased—they might even press what Acts they pleased,—they might expect what results they thought proper,—but he was convinced that, without the appropriation of the surplus revenue, those Acts would prove no more effectual than the former Acts passed for a similar purpose. He had risen principally to set his Friends right with the House, to justify the course they had taken; and to prove, that so far from there being anything inconsistent with their statements, whilst in office, that their resolution was perfectly justified by, and in harmony with, these statements. It was not for him, to make any observations upon the concluding declarations of the right hon. Baronet; but he could assure the right hon. Baronet, that in the whole course of his proceedings with respect to this measure, the last thing which entered into his contemplation was that of making it the means of defeating his party. But if that right hon. Gentleman, or those who thus expressed dissent, wished to hold out the idea that they were to be fettered in the just and legitimate exercise of their legislative powers, lest they should defeat his party, then he said—speaking, in a reformed Parliament—that the friends of the Ministry neither rightly estimated the legitimate allegiance of the friends of a Government, nor the legitimate discharge of duty on the part of those who were in opposition to it. There were weightier interests, connected with the passing of this Bill than the mere existence of any Government [Cheers,] Yes, he believed that, as much as any hon. Members on the other side; and they would cheer again, when he told them that the first and chief of these interests he considered to be the maintenance of the Church, in its efficiency, but in its due proportion, as the means of giving religious instruction to the Protestants of Ireland. He was convinced that, so far from there being any reason, there was not a plausible excuse for withholding such instruction from them. The tranquillity of Ireland was staked upon the settlement of this Question. He by no means disregarded the arguments which had been made use of, on the ground of the danger connected with any plan for the purpose. He felt most forcibly that there were dangers connected with any bold proposition on the subject. But were there no existing dangers and difficulties in the present state of the Church-property in Ireland, when the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that, under the existing law, he could not undertake for the recovery of the tithes without the use of military force? Was not that a danger and a difficulty? It was not enough to point out the dangers and difficulties which were connected with the proposition, but they must compare the existing dangers and difficulties with those which were attributed to the resolution; and it was by the balance of the account, that a reasonable and practical Statesman would alone be determined. He should further take the liberty of stating, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman had, with some degree of injustice, adverted to the authorities of men to whose opinions he paid the greatest respect; but those authorities, after all, as used by the right hon. Gentleman, were more of their names than of their opinions; because if it were true, that, without a settlement of this Question, there was no safety for the Church of Ireland, but that its safety, on the contrary, entirely depended upon a settlement of this Question; then, the arguments of Mr. Burke, the declaration of Lord Plunket, and the dying attestation of Mr. Grattan, instead of being against the resolution, might be appealed to as the highest and best authorities, in its favour—and he called upon this House in their name, to assist in saving the Irish Church, and in giving tranquillity to the country. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that his Friends had been in every instance, the great protectors of that Church? Did he think that when those with whom he acted last year, threw out the Tithe Bill in the House of Lords, they were acting as its friends? Did the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin think, that the language he had used on various occasions, when questions connected with the Irish Church, and education had been under consideration, had tended to its support? If the advice which had been given, would have saved the Irish Church, it would have been saved long since; because his advice had been, unfortunately, obeyed; unfortunately, since it had been of that species which had led to the difficulties of the Church. On the contrary, he called upon the House now to take a different course for the purpose of giving to the mass of the people of Ireland, whether Catholics or Protestants, an interest in preserving the Church-property. He wished to tell the Catholics, though he believed there were but few of them who had any disposition to appropriate any Church-property to Catholic uses, he wished them to be told by the declaration of the legislature, that any such hopes must be extinguished by the firmness with which we will discharge the duty of legislation, and by making one proposed appropriation. He wished, at the same time, to tell those Protestant landlords who might desire that tithes should be merged into rent, that they would have no claim to the tithes, but that the surplus should be appropriated exclusively to the purposes of general education. He would not then renew the old dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and himself on the statute of Henry 8th. He would not inquire into the similarity between King Henry 8th and Captain Macheath, he would only state that, especially with regard to the plurality of their loves, and the looseness of their principles, there was more resemblance between them, than the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be willing to admit. He would take the liberty of adding as a Protestant, that believing as he did his own religion to be the true one, and the offspring of free inquiry, he, therefore, believed that education was most important; and that to promote knowledge was the best means of diffusing the Reformation. Let him have in one Roman Catholic parish, an effective schoolmaster, and place in another Roman Catholic parish a sinecure clergyman, and he would back the schoolmaster against the clergyman, as a better means of diffusing the reformed religion. He was aware of the disadvantage he laboured under in addressing the House, after the powerful appeal which had just been made to it by the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he had only taken the liberty of pressing a few facts upon their consideration, because he thought it would be unjust to go to a division while a mistake prevailed as to the main principle really at issue.

Mr. Hardy

asked the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) whether the system of religious instruction he would wish to establish would be from the pure and unmutilated Scriptures?

Lord John Russell

said, that the system he contemplated was the same as that acted on by the National Board of Education established by his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) the Member for South Lancashire.

The House divided on the Resolution, when there appeared—Ayes 285; Noes 258;—Majority 27.

Resolution agreed to.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Buller, C.
Adam, Admiral Buller, E.
Aglionby, H. A. Bulwer, E. G. E. L.
Ainsworth, P. Bulwer, H. L.
Angerstein, J. Burdon, W. W.
Anson, Sir G. Burton, H.
Attwood, T. Butler, Hon. P.
Bagshaw, J. Byng, Sir J.
Baines, E. Byng, G.
Bainbridge, E. T. Campbell, Sir J.
Bannerman, Alex. Campbell, W. F.
Baring, F. T. Carter, J. B.
Barclay, D. Cave, Otway
Barham, J. Cavendish, Hn. G. H.
Barnard, E. G. Cayley, E. S.
Barry, G. S. Chalmers, P.
Belfast, Earl of Chapman, M. L.
Bellew, R. M. Chichester, J. P. B.
Berkeley, Hon. C. F. Clay, W.
Berkeley, Capt. Clayton, Sir W.
Berkeley Craven Clements, Viscount
Bewes, T. Clive, E. B.
Bernal, R. Cockerell, Sir C.
Biddulph, R. Codrington, Sir E.
Bish, T. Collier, J.
Blake, M. J. Cookes, T. H.
Blamire, W. Cowper, Hon. W. F.
Blunt, Sir C. Crawford, W. S.
Bodkin, John James Crawley, S.
Bowring, Dr. Crompton, S.
Brady, Denis C. Curteis, E. B.
Brabazon, Sir W. J. Curteis, H. B.
Bridgman, Hewitt Dalmeny, Lord
Brocklehurst, J. Denison, J. E.
Brodie, W. B. Denistoun, Alex.
Brotherton, J. Divett, E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. D. Dobbin, L.
Buckingham, J. S. Donkin, Sir R. S.
Duncombe, T. S. Leader, J. T.
Dundas, T. Lee, J. Lee
Dunlop, Colin Lefevre, C.
Dykes, F.L.B. Lennard, T. B.
Ebrington, Viscount Littleton, Rt. Hn. E. J.
Ellice, Rt. Hon: E. Lister, E. C.
Elphinstone, H. Long, W.
Etwall, R. Lushington, C.
Evans, Colonel Lushington, Dr.
Evans, G. Lynch, A. H.
Ewart, W. Labouchere, H.
Fazakerly, J. N. Loch, J.
Fellowes, Hon. N. Marshall, W.
Fergus, J. Macleod, R.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. C. Macnamara, Major
Ferguson, R. Maher, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Majoribanks, S.
Fielden, J. Marsland, H.
Finn, W. F. Maule, Hon F.
Fitzgibbon, R. H. Mangles, J.
Fitzsimon, N. M'Cance, J.
Fitzsimon, C. M'Kenzie, J. A. S.
Folkes, Sir W. J. Methuen, P.
Fox, Lieut.-Col. Milton, Viscount
French, F. Molesworth, Sir W.
Grant, Rt. Hon. C. Moreton, Hon. A. H.
Grattan, J. Morpeth, Viscount
Grattan, H. Mostyn, Hon. E. M. L.
Gaskell, D. M'Taggart, J.
Gisborne, T. Murray, Rt. Hn. J. A.
Grey, Sir G. Mullins, F. W.
Grey, Colonel Nagle, Sir R.
Grosvenor, Lord R. O'Connell, Daniel
Grote, G. O'Connell, John
Gordon, R. O'Connell, Morgan
Goring, H. D. O'Connell, Maurice
Guest, J. J. O'Connell, M. J.
Gully, J. O'Connor, Feargus
Halliburton, Hon. D. Ord, W.
Hall, B. Ord, W.H.
Harvey, D. W. O'Loghlin, M.
Hawkins, J. H. O'Brien, W. S.
Handley, H. O'Brien, C
Hay, Col. Leith Oswald, J.
Heathcote, R. E. Oswald, R. A.
Heathcote, J. Oliphant, L.
Hindley, C. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Hodges, T. L. Paget, Capt. F.
Hodges, T. Parnell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.
Hoskins, K. Palmer, General
Howard, P. H. Parrott, J.
Howard, R. Parker, J.
Howard, Hon. E. Pattison, J.
Howick, Viscount Pease, J.
Holland, E. Pelham, Hn. C. A. W.
Hurst, R. H. Perrin, Louis
Hume, J. Pepys, Rt. Hn. Sir C
Humphrey, J. Philips, M.
Hutt, W. Philips, G. R.
Jervis, J. Phillips, C. M.
Kennedy, J. Pinney, W.
Kemp, T. R. Poulter, J. S.
King, E. B. Power, J.
Kerry, Earl of Ponsonby, J.
Lambton, H. Potter, R.
Langton, G. Power, P.
Price, Sir R. Talbot, J. H.
Pryse, Pryse Tancred, H. W.
Ramsbottom, J. Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.
Ramsden, J. C. Thornely, T.
Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P.
Rippon, C. Tooke, W.
Roche, W. Tracey, C. H.
Roche, D. Trelawney, Sir W. L. S.
Roebuck, J. A. Troubridge, Sir T.
Rolfe R. Tulk, C. A.
Ronayne, D. Tynte, C. J. K.
Robarts, A. Villiers, C. P.
Robinson, G. R. Vivian, Major
Rooper, J. Bonfoy Vivian, J. H.
Rundell, J. Wakley, T:
Russell, Lord C. Walker, R.
Russell, Lord J. Walker, C. A.
Russell, Lord Wallace, R.
Ruthven, E. S. Ward, H. G.
Ruthven, E. Warburton, H.
Scott, J. W. Westenra, Hon. J. C.
Scrope, G. P. Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Scholefield, J. Whalley, Sir S.
Seale, Lieut-Col. White, S.
Seymour, Lord Wigney, I. N.
Sharpe, General Wilbraham, G.
Sheil, R. L. Wilde, Serjeant
Simeon, Sir R. G. Bt. Williams, Sir J.
Smith, J. A. Williams, W. A.
Smith, B. Williams, W.
Smith, R. V. Wilks, J.
Speirs, A. J. Winnington, Sir T.
Speirs, A. G. Winnington, H. J.
Steuart, R. Wood, M.
Stewart, J. Wrightson, W. B.
Stewart, P. M. Wrottesley, Sir J. Bt.
Stuart, Lord D. Wyse, T.
Strutt, E. TELLERS.
Surrey, Earl of Stanley, E. J.
Talbot, C. R. M Wood, C.
List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir A. Boldero, H. G.
Alford, Viscount Bonham, F. R.
Alsager, R. Borthwick, P.
Arbuthnot, Hon. Gen. Bradshaw, J.
Archdall, M. Brudenell, Lord
Ashley, Lord Bolling, W.
Ashley, Hon. H. Bramston, T. W.
Attwood, M. Brownrigg, J. S.
Bagot, Hon. W. Bruce, Lord E.
Bailey, J. Bruen, Colonel
Baillie, H. D. Bruen, F.
Balfour, T. Buller, Sir J.
Baring, T. Burrell, Sir C.
Baring, W. B. Calcraft, J. H.
Baring, F. Campbell, Sir H.
Baring, Rt. Hon. A. Canning, Rt. Hn. Sir S.
Becket, Sir J. Carruthers, D.
Bell, M. Castlereagh, Viscount
Benett, J. Chandos, Marquess of
Bentinck, Lord G. Chaplin, T.
Beresford Sir J. Chapman, A.
Bethell, R. Charlton, E. L.
Blackburne, J. J. Chatterton, J.
Blackstone, W. S. Chichester, A.
Churchill, Lord C. S. Hanmer, H.
Clerk, Sir G. Harcourt, G. V.
Clive, Viscount Hardinge, rt. h. Sir H.
Clive, Hon. R. Hawkes, T.
Cole, Viscount Hay, Sir J.
Cole, Hon. A. Hayes, Sir E.
Compton, H. C. Henniker, Lord
Conolly, Col. Herbert, Hon. S.
Cooper, E. J. Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C.
Corry, Rt. Hon. H. Hill, Lord A.
Cripps, J. Hill, Sir R.
Dalbiac, Sir T. C. Hogg, J. W.
Damer, Hon. G. D. Hope, Hon. J.
Dare, R. H. Hope, H. T.
Darlington, Earl of Hotham, Lord
Dick, Q. Holdsworth, Thomas
Dottin, A. R. Hoy, J. B.
Dowdeswell, W. Hughes, W. H.
Duffield, T. Inglis, Sir R.
Dugdale, W. S. Irton, S.
Duncombe, Hon. A. Jackson, J. D.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Jermyn, Earl
Dundas, R. A. Johnstone, A.
Durham, Sir P. Johnstone, Sir J. V.
East, J. B. Jones, Captain
Eaton, R. J. Jones, W.
Egerton, W. T. Kelly, F.
Egerton, Sir P. Ker, D.
Egerton, Lord F. L. Kerrison, Sir E.
Elley, Sir J. Kirke, P.
Entwistle, J. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Estcourt, T. G. Knight, H. G.
Fancourt, Major Lawson, A.
Fector, J. M. Lefroy, A.
Ferguson, Capt Lefroy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Lemon, Sir C.
Feilden, W. Law, Hon. C. E.
Finch, G. Lennox, Lord G.
Fleetwood, P. H. Lennox, Lord A.
Fleming, J. Lewis, W.
Foley, E. T. Lewis, D.
Follett, Sir W. Leycester, J.
Forbes, Viscount Lincoln, Earl of
Forbes, W. Lopes, Sir R.
Forester, Hon. G. C. Lowther, Viscount
Forster, C. S. Lowther, Hon. Col.
Fremantle, Sir T. Lowther, J. H.
Freshfield, J. W. Lucas, E.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Lygon, Hon. H. B.
Geary, Sir W. Lushington, Rt. Hn. S.
Gladstone, T. Mackinnon, W. A.
Gladstone, W. E. Mahon, Viscount
Gordon, Hon. W. Mandeville, Viscount
Gore, W. O. Manners, Lord R.
Goulburn, E. Marsland, T.
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H. Martin, J.
Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Maxwell, H.
Grant, Hon. F. W. Miles, Phil. J.
Greene, T. G. Miles, W.
Greisley, Sir R. Miller, W. H.
Greville, Sir C. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Grimston, Viscount Neeld, J.
Grimston, Hon. E. Neeld, J.
Halford, H. Norreys, Lord
Hamilton, Lord C. North, F.
Hanmer, Sir J. O'Neil, Hon. Gen.
Ossulston, Lord Stanley, E.
Palmer, R. Stewart, Sir M. S.
Parry, Colonel Stewart, J.
Patten, J. W. Stormont, Viscount
Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Sturt, H. C.
Peel, J. Tennent, J. E.
Peel, Rt. Hon. W. Talmash, Hon. A.
Peel, E. Thomas, Colonel
Pemberton, T Thompson, Alderman
Penruddocke, J. H. Townshend, Lord J.
Percival, Colonel Trench, Sir F.
Pigott, R. Trevor, Hon. G. R.
Plumptre, J. P. Trevor, Hon. A.
Pollen, Sir J. Turner, T. F.
Pollington, Viscount Twiss, H.
Pollock, Sir F. Tyrell, Sir J.
Powell, Colonel Vaughan, Sir R.
Praed, W. M. Vere, Sir C.
Price, S. G. Verner, Colonel
Pringle, A. Vernon, G. H.
Pusey, P. Vesey, Hon. T.
Rae, Sir W. Vivian, J. E.
Reid, Sir J. Vivyan, Sir R.
Richards, J. Wall, C. B.
Rickford, W. Walpole, Lord
Ridley, Sir M. W. Welby, G. E.
Ross, C. Weyland, Major
Rushbrooke, Colonel Whitmore, T. C.
Russell, C. Wilbraham, Hon. R.
Ryle, J. Williams, R.
Sandon, Viscount Williams, T. P.
Scarlett, Hon. R. C. Wodehouse, E.
Scott, Lord J. Worcester, Marq. of
Scott, Sir E. D. Wyndham, W.
Scourfield, W. H. Wynn, Sir W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. F. Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.
Sheppard, T. Yorke, E. T.
Sibthorp, Colonel Young, Sir W.
Smith, A.
Smyth, Sir G. TELLERS.
Somerset, Lord E. Clerk, Sir G.
Somerset, Lord G. Fremantle, Sir T.
Stanley, Lord
Paired off for the Motion.
Alston, R. Fort, T.
Barren, H. W. Gillon, W. D.
Bellew, Sir P. Hawes, B.
Berkeley, G. Hector, B.
Blackburn, J. Heron, Sir R.
Bowes, J. Musgrave, Sir R.
Burdett, Sir F. Pendarves, E. W.
Conyngham, Lord A. Pryme, G.
Corbett, T. E. Strickland, Sir G.
Crawford, W. Talfourd, Serj.
Denison, W. Tynte, Colonel
Edwards, Colonel
Against it.
Barclay, C. Eastnor, Lord
Baring, H. Heneage, E.
Barneby, T. Johnstone, Hope
Bateson, Sir R. Maclean, D.
Bruce, Cumming Morgan, C. M. R.
Cartwright, W. R. Nichol, J.
Codrington, C. W. Owen, Sir J.
Davenport, J. Owen, H.O.
Polhill, Captain Smith, T. A.
Praed, J. B. Walter, T.
Sanderson, R. Wood, Colonel
Sinclair, G.
Back to