§ On the Motion of Lord Morpeth, the Order of the Day was read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Tithes and Church of Ireland Bill.
§ Mr. WardThe deep interest he had so long taken in this subject would, he hoped, induce the House to grant him its attention while he made a few observations. 953 He wished first to remark upon the Bill introduced by Government for the better regulation of the Ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, and next upon the mode in which the right hon. Member for Tamworth proposed to deal with that Bill. He assured the House that he would be as concise as possible; and profiting by past experience he would not trouble it by quotations from more antiquated records than the proceedings during the last two Sessions. He was first, anxious to set himself right regarding the exaggerated calculations adverted to by the right hon. Baronet, which had been made up to the present time respecting the revenues of the Irish Church. The right hon. Baronet had done him (Mr. Ward) the justice to say, when quoting from his estimate, that it was less exaggerated than some others; the fact was, that when he made those calculations, there existed a great deal of mystification on the subject, and it was impossible to obtain accurate data. He had formed his estimate with much labour from documents upon the Table, and at all events they were not so inaccurate as those formed about the same time by the Recorder of Dublin, and by the Member for the University of Dublin. One of them rated the Episcopal Protestant population at one million and a half, and the other asserted that the revenues of the Church did not exceed 420,000l. The calculation of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin was,of course, without the deduction of the Perpetuity Fund, or the thirty per cent, subsequently paid; but taking into view the whole of the property of the Church—Bishops' lands, the lands of Deans and Chapters, and the total tithe income, even now it was probable that the gross amount of revenue was upwards of 840,000l. The greatest difference between his calculation and that of the right hon. Member for Tamworth regarded glebes, which he had reckoned at 85,000 acres at 30s. per acre. The right hon. Baronet, on the other hand, estimated the glebes at 76,000 acres at 20s. per acre. Taking it at 20s. per acre, the amount, according to his (Mr. Ward's) estimate, would be 85,000l. and he could establish that the total revenue exceeded 840,000l. Then with regard to population, he (Mr. Ward) had estimated the Protestant Episcopalian population of Ireland at 600,000 souls. It appeared by the census lately laid before Parliament that their number amounted to 852,000; but in that calculation the Commissioners had included a great number of 954 Wesleyans, and other Members of the Protestant faith, not actually in communion with the Established Church. If the Members of those sects were deducted from the gross numbers returned by the Commissioners, he believed it would be found that the actual number of Episcopalian Protestants now existing in Ireland was 732,164. Thus it would be seen that his estimate of 600,000 last year was not so grossly erroneous as the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would lead the House to suppose. Having set himself right upon that point, he should at once proceed to address himself to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Baronet, the other evening. He need hardly say, that the right hon. Baronet and himself looked upon the subject from two completely opposite sides. The right hon. Baronet looked chiefly to the interests of the Irish clergy as a body—he (Mr. Ward) looked to the interests of the Irish people at large. The right hon. Baronet looked to the possibility of sustaining the Church Establishment on the widest possible base—he (Mr. Ward) looked to the absolute necessity of reducing the Church Establishment to the lowest possible scale consistent with the wants of the Protestant population. He could not think that the argument of the right hon. Baronet bore in any way upon that point. Looking at the amount of the Protestant population—even admitting it to the full extent stated by the Commissioners—the question was, whether there was any necessity for supporting so great a number of Protestant clergy? And whether, if the number were necessary, we were justified in supporting them at the expense of the Roman Catholic people? He would ask, indeed, whether it was consistent with the interests of the Established Church, as contra-distinguished from the interests of individual clergymen to attempt to support so large an Establishment, and whether we could continue to do so without involving both England and Ireland in one endless train of confusion and misery. How did the arguments of the right hon. Baronet bear upon that question? What consolation did the right hon. Baronet's arguments afford to the peasant of the south and west of Ireland, where the proportion of Protestants to Catholics was one to eighteen as in Cashel, or one to twenty-six as in Tuam. If he were permitted to go into a statement of figures upon the point, he could prove to the entire satisfaction of the House, that the sinecures 955 of the Protestant Ministers in Ireland, taking the average of them throughout the whole country, were very much under-rated; he could show that the returns from which the averages were struck were in many instances utterly fallacious. There would not, however, he much to complain of in that, provided the whole charge were borne by the Members of the Established Church; but it became an intolerable grievance, when the chief part of the burthen was thrown upon those who had no communion with the Establishment, and who, moreover, were bound in conscience to maintain a clergy of their own. If the hon. Gentleman would examine the Reports of the General Committee on the State of Ireland, from which the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) quoted so largely the other night, when, after having voted for the restitution of the 147th Clause in the former Church Bill, he announced his determination on the present occasion of voting in favour of the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth—they would find from the evidence in every part of those Reports, that the reason for which the Catholics protested against the payment of tithes was, that they received nothing in return for their money. This was the expression constantly made use of throughout the whole of the evidence, 'for the payment of tithes we have no return. They did not resist the payment of rent, however large or exorbitant it might be, because they held land in exchange for their money: but in return for tithes they received nothing; hence an invincible hatred to the payment of tithes. This was not a feeling of a peculiar quality—it was not a singular feeling—it was a feeling inherent in human nature itself. Try the experiment where they would, in whatever country they liked, it would produce the same results. Take Scotland, for instance. There were 120,000 most respectable Episcopalians in that country. Try the experiment of transferring the English Established Church to Scotland. Did they suppose that the people of a single county in that country would submit for one solitary year to endure such an experiment. Did they suppose that at the end of the first year's trial they would not have transformed one of the most tranquil and contented people on the face of the earth into one of the most indignant and distracted. If no other country, then, would submit to such a system, why was it expected that Ireland should do so? 956 The only plea for the continuance of the enormity in that country was, that it had already been endured. All agreed that it could not now be imposed. What, too, were its results? Impoverishment and exasperation on the part of the poor—intolerance and religious feuds on the part of the better educated. What, then, was the proper course to pursue! It had been indicated by the hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland, and it consisted in this that the expenses of the Established Church, should be limited to the actual wants of the Protestant population, and that the residue of its property should be appropriated to the moral and religious instruction of all classes of the people. That he believed to be the only true remedy for alleviating the evils which at present existed in Ireland. If the Establishment were to be maintained at all, it was obvious that it must be placed on a fairer basis as regarded the Catholic population. He believed that if the Government did succeed in placing it on a fairer basis—if they did succeed in obtaining the sanction of the great majority of the Irish Members in that House to the arrangement embodied in the Bill then under their consideration, they would, for the first time, be giving to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland something of the appearance of a national sanction. As yet he denied that it had received anything approaching to a national sanction. It was common, when this subject was under discussion, for Gentlemen to talk of the Union. The Union was the verdict of a packed Jury. The Catholics of Ireland were not represented at that time. They were represented now; they were represented in that House, and a majority of the Irish Members, so representing the Catholics of that country, had concurred in rejecting a proposition for the Repeal of the Union. They looked to the House of Commons for justice—they looked to it to advance the interests of their country. He repeated, therefore, that if, under such circumstances, they could now obtain the support of the Irish Members to any new plan, based upon a new ground, they would be giving to the Church of Ireland a sanction which it never yet possessed, and thus, at the same moment, would be affording stability to the Establishment and satisfaction to the people. The argument used on the other side last night was, that no such compromise as was contemplated in the Bill could be expected to take place, because the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. 957 Hume) had frankly declared that he was willing to take the Bill as an instalment, and nothing but an instalment, and, consequently, not as a final adjustment of the question. He (Mr. Ward) felt not less strongly than any Gentleman in that House on the subject of the Irish Church; and he stated distinctly that he was willing to take the Government measure, after it had been temperately discussed in the Committee, as a fair compromise of a great national question. He did not wish to provide for the spiritual wants of the Protestant population in a mean or niggardly manner. He did not believe, that any Catholic Member had a desire to diminish the means of the Protestant Church below what its wants required. But looking at the present measure, he could not help thinking with the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey)—whose manly and candid statements of the conviction he had arrived at, and of the change which had taken place in his opinion upon the Report, was of a character to excite in the House feelings of the highest admiration and respect—he could not help thinking with that hon. Member that this was an excellent bargain for the Established Church. It was with that feeling that he should offer some observations to the House upon the subject, conceiving that in accepting the measure now proposed by the Government, he was in no respect compromising his own private opinion that a larger and more comprehensive measure would have been advisable. He was, however, willing to accept the present measure. He was only anxious, that it should be rendered as effectual as possible; and in the Committee he should not scruple, in the most friendly spirit, to point out to his noble Friend those parts of its details which he thought might be advantageously amended. The part of the Bill of which he approved most highly was that which went to establish the principle for which he had always contended, viz., the principle of appropriation. When he looked at the change which had taken place in popular opinion upon that subject in the course of a short twelve months—when he looked at the number of independent men who were now pledged to that principle in the face of the country and of their constituency, he could not but congratulate himself on being one of the first to assert the principle in that House. The first result of the establishment of that principle was to demonstrate that the Church of Ireland must be immediately 958 and materially reduced; and accordingly the form and manner in which that reduction should take place was set forth in the fifty-eighth Clause of the Bill, which provided for the sequestration of all livings in parishes where there were not fifty resident Protestants. He thought that the Government had there drawn a fair and unexceptionable line. He thought so in spite of the declarations which had been made in that House and elsewhere as to the number of places which, in consequence of such a provision, would be left without the means of receiving any spiritual instruction whatever. There never was an assertion which those who made it knew to be more completely unfounded than that. So far from seeing any thing in the Bill calculated to deprive the Protestant population of the means of instruction, he was rather disposed to regard it as going too far in the opposite direction, by providing for Protestant instruction, not only under all probable, but under all imaginable circumstances. Hence he feared that the admirable principle on which the 58th Clause proceeded might be neutralized by some of the subsequent provisions of the Bill. He regarded the Cist Clause as especially calculated to have such an effect. By the 61st Clause it was provided, "That when so ever there shall appear to be in any parish any members of the Established Church, and it shall likewise appear that there is a place of worship duly consecrated, and a resident officiating minister in such parish, it shall not be lawful, in case the Church thereof shall be sequestered, to commit the Ecclesiastical duties, and cure of souls within such parish to the incumbent or officiating minister of any neighbouring parish; but in every such case a separate curate shall be nominated and licensed for such parish in the manner herein before mentioned." Now how would that operate in parishes where the Protestant population was composed of a few families only or perhaps exclusively of the family of the incumbent. There are 140 parishes in Ireland with less than twenty Protestants in them, and setting aside the 600 parishes in which there were neither churches, nor glebes, there were ninety-two parishes with churches, glebe-houses, and resident incumbents, which had less than thirty Protestants in each. In each of these parishes, according to the provision of the 61st Clause, a separate curate must be appointed. That, in his mind, was a great defect in the Bill; and the inevitable 959 result of it would be to reduce the surplus considerably below the point at which it had been calculated. He wished to see a fairer line drawn between the provisions of the 58th and 61st Clauses of the Bill. Where there was not a Protestant population, he did not see what necessity there was for a Protestant Church. He did not believe in what the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) called the expansive force of Protestantism. The next point to which he objected in the Bill was the great discretionary power which it was proposed to give to the Lord-lieutenant. He objected to the delegation of so great a power to any person whatever. He had every reason to suppose, from what he knew of the noble Lord who now filled the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, that he would exercise any power intrusted to him fairly and justly: but the powers proposed in this instance to be conferred were so great, that unless Parliament fixed definitively the point at which reduction should positively commence, he feared the whole object of the Bill might be neutralized, if it should fall into unfriendly hands in the person of the Lord-lieutenant. He objected, therefore, to the 60th, 61st, and 70th Clauses, all of which gave great discretionary powers to the Lord-lieutenant, both as to the appointment of ministers and the amount of salary they should receive. He would not quarrel with the principle of universality as laid down by his noble Friend below him—that principle, which said that there should be no part of the country which could be regarded as out of the pale of the Established Church; but he must say, that he regarded the 5l. which under the provisions of the Bill, might be distributed in 150 instances to the officiating ministers of adjoining parishes for looking after the spiritual wants of other parishes in which there was a single Protestant resident, as money completely thrown away. Another point to which he objected, was the preservation of the whole staff of the Irish Church. He thought that one Bishop for every province in Ireland, with 4,000l. a-year, and an Archbishop for the whole country with 6,000l. or 7,000l. a-year, would be amply sufficient. If he went into any argument upon the point, he might say that the whole Protestant population of Ireland, amounted only to 800,000 souls, that there was double that amount in the diocese of London alone, for whose spiritual government there was but one Bishop, and 960 that in the new diocese of Manchester which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proposed to establish, there would not be less than 1,200,000 souls. He for one, therefore, could not perceive any necessity that existed for preserving so large a number of Bishops in Ireland, nor did he see any thing irreligious in extending the provisions of the Church Temporalities Bill, to reduce the number of Bishops to the lowest possible amount consistent with a proper episcopal superintendence of the Church, and to appropriate the revenues of the reduced bishoprics in aid of the fund provided for the parochial clergy, and for the advancement of the moral and religious instruction of the poorer classes. He now came to the arguments advanced in the course of the last night against the Government plan, and more especially to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) the Member for Cumberland, whom he regretted not to see in his place at that time, and whose absence he confessed he was not very well able to account for, because the right hon. Baronet must naturally expect, after the language he used last evening towards his old associates—after the bitter reproaches he had thrown out against them—after the deliberate accusation that they were guilty of a sacrilegious violation of the rights of the Church—after the application of such terms to those with whom he formerly acted in concert, the right hon. Baronet must naturally have expected that the first person who rose this evening would be anxious to reply to him. In the absence of the right hon. Baronet, therefore, he should not be prevented from using every argument he should have felt it his duty to use had he been present. He would not use any stronger terms than he should have used in the right hon. Baronet's presence; but his absence on the occasion should not induce him to abstain from commenting on the right hon. Baronet's speech in the terms which he thought it deserved. His noble Friend (Lord Howick) said, he had listened to that speech with astonishment.—[Here an hon. Member on the Opposition side made an observation]—The gallant Officer opposite said, that the noble Lord replied to it. The noble Lord did reply and replied to it most admirably. But, at the same time, he (Mr. Ward) admitted at once that the right hon. Baronet's speech was a speech of no ordinary length, of no ordinary proportion, not hastily prepared, and there- 961 fore not hastily to be answered. The noble Lord (Howick) said, that he had listened to the speech with astonishment. He (Mr. Ward) had listened to it with more than astonishment; he would not use a harsh term, but he would say he had listened to it with grief, with grief to see a man, whose name had been attached to measures of Reform and liberal improvement, so completely apostatised from his party, as to hold in that House sentiments of the most narrow-minded and bigoted fanaticism. In his speech of last night, the right hon. Baronet unsaid all that he had previously asserted in the course of his political career. The right hon. Baronet knew full well that we never could expect stability in the order of affairs in Ireland or in this country until the Irish Church Question was settled; yet he last night held language utterly at variance with that knowledge, and in which, as if not satisfied with his own apostacy, he took the opportunity of alluding invidiously to those with whom he formerly acted; and all this the right hon. Baronet did with the word "toleration" constantly on his lips. He thanked God, that his views of toleration were very different from those of the right hon. Baronet. He took his principle of what really constituted Christianity and toleration from a very high authority; and as the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) was indulged by the House in reading more than one passage which he conceived to hear on his argument, he trusted the House would indulge him by listening to one extract from a work of one of the most distinguished ornaments of the Established Church—he alluded to Bishop Watson. Bishop Watson said, "By Christianity I mean, not that a man should pass his life in theological controversy, or perplex himself in estimating the worth of the several systems of faith with which the Christian world has unhappily been oppressed, but that he should be habituated to consider the Gospel as containing a rule of life, which nothing should ever induce him to disparage or neglect. I scruple not in giving the name of Christian Churches to assemblies of men uniting together for public worship, though they may differ somewhat from each other in doctrine and discipline, provided they all agree in the fundamental principle of the Christian religion, that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world. Each Church is apt to impute not merely error, but crime, to every other Church. This imputation I think extremely wrong. It is 962 judging another man's servant. It is assuming dominion over another man's faith. It is presuming that we are rendering God service, when it may be that we are merely supporting our own prejudices, flattering our own self-sufficiency, and paying homage to our own intellectual pride." That was a definition of Christianity in which he (Mr. Ward) most cordially concurred, and he wished the right hon. Baronet had gathered his principles of toleration and his conception of the Christian religion from the writings of Bishop Watson. A question had arisen as to the opinions of the people of Scotland, and the right hon. Baronet had quoted the declaration of the Synod of Dumfries, as speaking the sentiments of the Church of Scotland, a declaration which he (Mr. Ward) would say was even more fanatical than the speech of the right hon. Baronet himself. But how was it shown that the people of Scotland held the same opinions as this Synod? They saw that thirty-five out of the fifty-three Members for Scotland voted on most occasions with the present Government. These were not the representatives of small burghs, but the representatives of the large commercial and manufacturing towns—of the city of Edinburgh, which had returned the Speaker of that House and the Attorney-General of the present sacrilegious Government. God forbid that he should so belie the sentiments of that liberal and enlightened nation, as to say that they were fairly represented by the miserable address from the Synod of Dumfries, to which the right hon. Baronet, had referred? What was the Synod of Dumfries? How was it constituted? Was the House aware that thirty of its members were actually appointed by the Duke of Buccleuch? Such was the fact; and it was his firm belief, that the address to which they had pledged themselves was not an address of their own manufacture. He believed it was sent up from somewhere about this quarter of the country. It smelt of the South. It savoured strongly or Exeter Hall. If it were submitted to the other Synods of Scotland, with a fair description, not a calumnious description, but a fair description of the provisions of the present Bill, he believed it would he universally repudiated by them. To his great astonishment, also, the right hon. Baronet had quoted from the works of Mr. Cobbett; and certainly the quotation was not a very happy or a very appropriate one. The right hon. Baronet quoted Mr. Cobbett for 963 the purpose of supporting the opinion, that tithes were as much the property of the Church as family estates were the property of a gentleman. Now the misfortune of quoting from Mr. Cobbett was, that if in one place he had asserted a particular opinion, with a little industry one might almost always find a direct answer to it in another. If the right hon. Baronet were ready to make one admission, and that was, that Mr. Cobbett, like himself, grew wiser as he grew older, and that his last opinion, therefore, was infinitely more valuable than his first; if the right hon. Baronet would admit that, he (Mr. Ward) would take the last work of Mr. Cobbett, which he entitled, "A Legacy to Parsons," and would quote a passage, which he thought afforded a pretty good answer to the proposition advanced by the right hon. Baronet. Mr. Cobbett said, "The great question now at issue is this: has the Parliament the rightful power to assume, to take possession of, and to dispose of the tithes and all other property commonly called Church-property, in whatever manner it may think proper?" And further on, he answered the question thus: "We are now going to see, that to tithes, to oblations, to Bishops' lands, to anything that you possess as clergy of the Church, you have no prescriptive right, any more than the Duke of Wellington has to his estate of Strathfieldsaye, which he possesses in virtue of an Act of Parliament, and solely in virtue of that Act of Parliament." The argument of Mr. Cobbett was, that what the law constituted, it could change; but the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was, that what the law constituted, no law could change.
Lord Stanleywas understood to ask, what was the ground of the Act of Parliament that settled Strathfieldsaye on the Duke of Wellington?
§ Mr. Wardreplied, that the ground of that Act still subsisted. That ground was the national gratitude; and he admitted it would be unjust to repeal that Act.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that the Duke of Wellington might forfeit the property given to him by the public will; and that Parliament might take it away from him.—[Cheers from the Opposition.]
§ Mr. Warddid not mind those cheers. He would repeat, that it would be a most unjust act to take that property away from the Duke of Wellington, because the reasons for which it was granted were still subsisting; but the question was, whether the original grounds on which the Church- 964 property in Ireland was held by that Church did any longer subsist? It was not enough to say, that originally there were grounds for the Church holding this property. He called upon the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord opposite to make out a whole case, and not to rest upon half a case. Let them prove to him that those grounds which originally subsisted did still subsist. He would contend, that a state of things had arisen in Ireland which could not be healed without trenching upon the property of the Church. It was the inalienable right of the Legislature to effect a settlement by an interference with that property, if the peace of Ireland could not be attained without it; and in attempting to effect that settlement, the Legislature was bound to attend to the interests, not merely of the clergy, but of the community at large. The right hon. Baronet had also argued, that the whole fee of landed property in Ireland was vested in the Protestants, and that as the revenues of the Church came out of the property of the owners of the soil, and not from the occupiers, it was the most unjust thing in the world for the Catholic community to complain of it. Now, if the Establishment was in fact supported by the property of the Protestants, then he would say, let the Protestants take upon themselves the whole charge of the Church, and that would settle the question at once. They then might make what provisions they thought necessary for their own wants. He should be perfectly willing to make that bargain with them. It would most certainly be a much better mode of settling the question than the mode proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), who wished the House to adopt the old system of building churches and glebe-houses, of sending out parsons to convert Roman Catholics to Protestantism, and all the other means that had been formerly taken to uphold the Established Church in Ireland. But why, he would ask, go back to this obsolete system? Did not the right hon. Baronet know that it had cost this country no less than 1,400,000l. from the time of the Union up to the year 1825, to carry on that system, when the grants were suspended in consequence of the recommendations contained in a Report made to the House of Commons on the subject, which pointed out its inefficiency? This expenditure, too, in support of that system, was going on at a time when every other country was outstripping us in the great work of national education. Let 965 them look at the case of Prussia, where they might sec in practice the very principle, to the support of which the Government of this country were desirous of devoting any surplus of the Tithe Fund which might be found to subsist after providing for the legitimate wants of the Protestants in Ireland. In Prussia there was a population of 12,000,000, of which 7,000,000 were Protestants. In that country, there were no less than 1,664,218 children actually receiving education in the Government schools from the general funds of the nation. "The masters and inspectors," said the law, "must most carefully avoid every kind of constraint, or interference with the children on account of their particular creed. Protestants and Catholics were received in the same schools, and even Jews were allowed to send their children to those schools; and private religious instruction was to be given to the children as their parents might desire. They were merely instructed in those principles in which Christians of all sects could concur. So great was the care not to impede the progress of instruction in any way, that it was stated that no particular books or mode of tuition were prescribed, in order to impose no shackles upon the constant onward course of improvement. This was the very system which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), so much to his own honour, had introduced into Ireland, and which he (Mr. Ward) believed was working very well there. He wished to see that system continued, in order that all those religious animosities, which a contrary system was calculated to cherish, be entirely done away. He now approached the last part of the subject on which he was desirous of addressing the House. He had made some general observations on the provisions of this Bill; and had also taken a brief notice of some of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. He had now only to allude to the mode in which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, proposed to deal with the Bill, by dividing it into two separate Bills, and to give to each of those measures a separate consideration, so that the House might pass them separately into a law if they felt it right to do so, or else to reject one of them and adopt the other. He readily admitted the admirable skill with which the right hon. Baronet left out of sight all the real objections that could be urged against his proposition. He admitted the 966 power with which the right hon Baronet had laid before them those visions of peace and conciliation to arise from the adoption of his proposition, which nobody better knew than himself could never be realized. He (Mr. Ward) looked at the question in this point of view—the Legislature had to deal in Ireland with an evil of long existence, and most grievous in its operation. No half measures could remove that evil—no palliatives would be of the slightest avail. They must probe the wound to the bottom, if they hoped to operate u cure. But this a mere commutation never could do. A commutation, without a change in the distribution of the revenues of the Irish Church, was worse than useless. It was a cruel mockery, carried to a cruel excess. How could the right hon. Baronet expect to reconcile a commutation alone to the 895 parishes which were without, fifty resident Protestants, or to the 496 parishes which were without twenty Protestants, or to the 150 parishes which were without any Protestants or any Protestant Church at all? What would it matter to the people of those places, as to the shape or mode in which the money was paid, provided they were compelled to pay it in some shape, without receiving any spiritual instruction for it whatsoever? Upon what plea, or upon what ground, he would ask, was the House to stultify itself by rescinding its former resolution—a resolution come to a very short time ago—which stated "That it was the opinion of this House that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland could lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which did not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution"—the resolution referred to, moved by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, expressly stated that any surplus of the Church revenues in Ireland, not required for the spiritual care of its members, should be applied to the moral and religious education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion. He need not remind the House that that resolution terminated a most severe and memorable struggle within those walls. It was that resolution which drove the right hon. Baronet from the head of the Government; it was that resolution which constituted the vital and essential distinction between the Melbourne Cabinet and the Cabinet over which that right hon. Baronet presided. Why, then, were they to rescind it? Why were they to throw themselves open to so gross a 967 charge of inconsistency, and to proclaim to the world that a struggle, which had convulsed this country from one end of it to the other, and which might soon possibly convulse it again, was a mere struggle for party purposes. What! party purposes? If ever there was a struggle in this or any other country for a great and vital principle, that was the struggle. But at all events the noble Lord who so loudly cheered (Lord Stanley) was the very last person in the world who ought to dispute that point. Upon what principle, he would ask, did the noble Lord retire from Earl Grey's Government? It was that principle which, unassisted, alone, and by its own intrinsic and irresistible force had broken up two Administrations already, and would most assuredly break up two more, if the attempt here or elsewhere to defeat this Bill should be successful, and lead to the formation of an Administration hostile to the principle on which it was founded. If those who now resisted that principle, whether in this House or in the House of Lords, should succeed, and upon the strength of that success again attain power, he would tell them that they would not—could not—hold that power for three short months. They might appeal to the people: he feared it not. The people of England were unquestionably in favour of the principle involved in the resolution of this House, and of those legitimate changes which his Majesty's Government were desirous to effect in the Establishment of the Irish Church. They were tired of these endless discussions, and anxiously wished that this matter were fairly and finally settled. He believed that the adoption of this Bill afforded the only chance of effecting that settlement. Let them look at the position in which the House would place itself, if they rescinded this resolution. This point was adverted to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland last night; but he, as being a late Member of the Government, was probably under some restraint; but he (Mr. Ward) could address himself to the subject as an independent Member, and he would say that if they receded from the principle of this resolution, they would stultify themselves, and put the arguments into their enemies' hands, and give up all hopes of ever settling this great Question. As the rights of the Legislature on this Question now stood, the consent of the House of Commons was necessary to any settlement of it, because there was a million of money 968 involved; which had been partly and which was still partly to be granted to the Clergy of Ireland. Suppose this House should at once consent to that grant, and the other branch of the Legislature should then so alter this Bill as to enable the Irish Clergy to hold their livings in the manner they now held them, did the House believe that they should ever have any change in the appropriation of the Irish Church revenue? They knew what was the feeling entertained upon this subject by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), and by, he might say, an innumerable body of Lords who were Members of the other House of Parliament. They advocated their own principles, and so did the majority of the Commons. Why should this House concede to them? "We, the Commons of England" concluded the hon. Member, "consent to a compromise—to a sacrifice of this million—upon certain terms, and upon a certain understanding; and that understanding is, that that million shall purchase a final and a fair settlement of this Question. But the right hon. Baronet opposite proposes that we shall make the sacrifice without obtaining the result—to pay for the cure, and yet perpetuate the disease? He proposes that we should, by our own hands, and by our own act and deed, furnish the only means by which the existing system can possibly be bolstered up. To that proposition I, for one, will not consent. It would be unwise, undignified, dishonourable, for the House of Commons to do so. I say dishonourable—because the House is pledged to apply a remedy to the existing evils. Indeed it is doubly pledged to it—pledged, indirectly, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin upon the repeal of the Union—and pledged by the more recent Resolution which distinctly bears upon this Question. If we give up the point respecting the million advanced to the Irish clergy, without obtaining a settlement of this Question, a settlement of it never can be obtained. Were we afterwards to send up a Bill to the House of Lords on the subject of appropriation, it would be no sooner sent up than scorned. I ask, then, is it wise, is it prudent, is it safe (setting aside all other considerations involved in this Question) to permit the existence of a constant source of irritation, and of difference between the two branches of the Legislature? Is it safe to trust to time, to circumstance, to chance, the settlement of a Question which is now in our hands, and in our 969 power? You tell me that, by insisting on sending up this Bill to the House of Lords, we shall run the risk of a collision. I am no friend to a collision; I am no friend to agitation. I wish sincerely to sec the great and best interests of this country promoted by the settlement of this great Question. I wish to see something like stability in the Government of this country; but I know you never can have that stability until this Question be finally settled. I look with horror at the idea of trusting the settlement of this Question to chance, and to time; and to leave the Irish people, who are now in a state of sanguine expectation, with their hopes chilled, and their feelings goaded by constant irritation, into an attempt to cut the knot themselves by violent means. I do not charge the right hon. Baronet with contemplating any such result; but I do, notwithstanding, hold that nothing less than an aggravated state of irritated feeling can follow the disappointment of those hopes that are now excited in the minds of the Catholic people of Ireland. I, therefore, most strongly urge upon this House the necessity of at once going into Committee on this Bill, undivided in its provisions—of discussing it fairly and calmly in that Committee—and of trying to come to some understanding respecting it. But, at the same time, I also urge upon the House the absolute necessity of refusing to attempt any other settlement of the Question, than that which will connect a change in the appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church with a change in the mode of collecting those revenues.
§ Sir Robert Batesoncomplained of I he personal attack made by the hon. Member for St. Alban's upon the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, whose able speech last night was as excellent in the principles it laid down as it was unanswerable in the arguments upon which those principles were enforced. He thought it would have exhibited much better taste if the hon. Gentleman had reserved that personal attack until the right hon. Baronet had been in his place to defend himself. It was, however, needless for him to undertake the defence of the right hon. Baronet's speech, and he should leave it to others who were better able than himself to perform that task. He did not wish to say, anything of irritation, but he must say, that the violent personal observations (couched perhaps in strict Parliamentary language) in which the hon. Member had indulged 970 against another hon. Member who was absent, were unusual, and of a character which he regretted had received the cheers of a portion of the House.
§ Mr. Wardexplained. He moved the adjournment last night, therefore he had no reason to suppose that the right hon. Baronet would not have been in his place to-day. But seeing the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, present (Lord Stanley), who was associated with the right hon. Baronet, he thought he was not justified in losing the argument which he wished to urge in consequence of the absence of the right hon. Baronet, however he might feel himself called upon, by reason of that absence, to refrain from urging it so strongly as he otherwise might have done.
§ Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that, notwithstanding the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, he must still express his disapprobation of the mode in which his personal observation upon an absent Member had been cheered by hon. Members on the other side of the House. With regard to the Question now under consideration, he begged leave to state why he should give his vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, as conscientiously and consistently as any vote which the hon. Member for St. Alban's had himself ever recorded. He conceived that this measure was not that which it had been described—a measure of peace and tranquillity to his unfortunate country. He could not bring himself to believe otherwise than that it would be a means of continuing religious animosities, and that the end would be to create civil and religious warfare, and, perhaps, rebellion in Ireland. Such, he anticipated, would be the result if his Majesty's Government persisted in their course of conduct towards Ireland. If that course were pursued, what would be the fate of Irish Protestants, against whom, as it seemed to him, there had long been directed a systematic attempt to put them down? That system had been pursued now for a very considerable time, and this Bill was part and parcel of the system of which the Protestants of Ireland had so much reason to complain. His Majesty's present Government, pushed forward from a pressure from without, were about to adopt measures which would have the effect and tendency of destroying Protestantism and establishing popery in Ireland. As to the proposed appropriation contemplated by this measure, he would merely observe, that the 971 able, argumentative speech of his right him. Friend, the Member for Turn worth, had shown that there would be no surplus fund to appropriate, and, therefore he thought that part of the argument need no longer be dwelt upon by him, and the more especially as he had not heard, even in the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of any hon. Member who had spoken from the other side of the House, any arguments which went to show that there would be a surplus. For himself, he would say that he could not see from whence the supposed surplus was to proceed. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged hon. Members on his side of the House with being new converts to reform. He, however, could not be attacked by that charge, for he had always been an advocate for real, efficient, and useful reform in the Church of Ireland—he had always joined in the claim for an abolition of sinecures and pluralities, and he had always deprecated the system of translation of the Bishops. He had, however, always wished that the Irish clergy, who in that House had been most foully calumniated by hon. Members who, though they had spoken with so much strength, knew but little of Ireland, whatever might be their knowledge of Prussia and other European countries, should be properly remunerated for their useful and efficient services. He did not believe that there was in the world a more learned pious, or benevolent set of men than were the clergy of the Established Church in that country. He knew something of Ireland, and he could state that this plan of annihilating so many parishes would produce the evil, beyond the injury which it would inflict upon religion, of depriving the Irish population of the advantage which flowed from the residence among them of so many of the clerical gentry who were the dispensers of charity to the poor and afflicted. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. Member for St. Alban's, as to the numerical strength of the Irish Members being in favour of this Bill, he begged to tell the Irish Members opposite, who professed to represent the feelings and wishes of the Irish people, that though their numbers might be greater, yet, that he and those who thought with him on this topic represented as much of the intelligence, the property, and the respectability of Ireland, as did the numerical majority on the other side. That was his opinion, and no ironi- 972 cal cheers from any quarter would induce him to change it. An hon. Member opposite who spoke on a former night, (Mr. Walker) had expressed his approbation of this measure as a means to Christianize the Irish Protestant Church. The hon. Member had done well to state that he was himself a Protestant, or no person would have supposed such to be the case after such a statement. If that hon. Gentleman thought the Protestant Church required Christianizing, it would be most consistent with Christian principles if he at once withdrew from that church. The hon. Member for St. Alban's had thought proper to attack the right hon. Member for Cumberland, for making what he termed a lengthy speech. Now, the hon. Member, whose modesty was proverbial, had himself made a longer speech. The noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, had last night talked of the enormities of the Protestant Church. He thought it would be much better for the cabinet at once to say, let us extinguish this Church as an Established Church. That would be a more manly straightforward way than for a calumniator to profess attachment to it, while at the same time they were doing every thing in their power to subvert it. He could say, that the speech of the noble Lord was the most extravagant he had ever heard, or that had ever emanated from the bench opposite. The sentiments he uttered might have been suitable to the bench behind the noble Lord, or to the mob oratory of the Corn Exchange in Dublin, but were most mischievous, coming from the source they did, when uttered in that House. He was surprised to have heard from the noble Lord something like a threat that a certain individual might, if the House did not deal that justice which he required, utter his denunciations when that individual, whose power was greater than that of the noble Lord, or, indeed, the whole cabinet, returned to Ireland. He believed in his heart, that the fear of that individual's censure was the cause why the noble Lord and his associates in the cabinet were driven to the lengths they were. The noble Lord had also told the House that the landlords of Ireland might be refused their rent on the rejection of this measure—that threat had also been held out by the noble Lord in his extraordinary speech, and would go forth to the misguided people of Ireland, and serve them as a hint to adopt that system of passive resistance to the payment of rents which had been success- 973 fully made by them in respect to tithes. He must say, that it was with great dread and apprehension that he heard the noble Lord make use of such language. Such a speech he could not thing was consistent with the wisdom of a cabinet Minister. He confessed it was with very great dread and apprehension that he heard such sentiments as had fallen both from the noble Lord and the hon. Member for St. Alban's, and especially when he placed them in connexion with other expressions uttered in another place by the individual who held the responsible situation of Prime Minister of this country. When that individual talked of the plunder and confiscation made in the times of Oliver Cromwell and Charles 2nd, he (Sir R. Bateson) construed it into a threat, which implied something of precariousness to the property of the landlords of Ireland. Were the Members who agreed with him (Sir R. Buteson) to be frightened into the adoption of a measure which they deemed bad by such threats as these? An hon. Member had already alluded to the numerical strength of the Irish and Scotch Members, in favour of this Bill. However that might be, he was satisfied that the majority of the English Members would never pass this Bill through the House; and he would further say, without meaning any offence, that in his opinion the present question was one upon which the Roman Catholic Members ought not to give a vote. He might be denounced as a bigot and a fanatic—he might be held up to execration, here and elsewhere; but such was his honest opinion, thus spoken fearlessly and independently. It appeared to him that hon. Gentlemen had entirely forgotten that in the province of Ulster a different religion prevailed from that of the other three provinces, and it had escaped from their memory that it would be unfair to leave the Irish nation to the views of the numerical majority of the other three provinces. That appeared to him to be the drift and the result of the argument of the hon. Member for St. Alban's. To that effect he had understood the hon. Member's argument. With respect to Strathfieldsaye, the hon. Member had said that Strathfieldsaye was a gift from the nation, and could not be taken away because the owner was still alive. He would ask the hon. Member if he would apply that principle to the Blenheim property and because the illustrious Duke of Marlborough was not now living, the property was to be taken away from 974 his heirs and successors. If that was a specimen of the hon. Member's liberality, he (Sir R. Bateson) felicitated himself that he did not belong to the same school. With all deference to the hon. Member he must say, that however great the information of the hon. member might be as to South America, Prussia, or any other foreign state, he knew nothing about Ireland. The real efficient reform which was desired by the people of Ireland, Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Presbyterian, was not the destruction of the Church, but the removal of such abuses as might have crept in. This Bill, instead of being a reform, would prove to be a premium for the assassination and destruction of Protestants in Ireland. With regard to the measure, he must say, that it would not lead to the tranquillity of his country. It was not introduced with a view of bettering the condition of religion. It was merely a political measure, brought in for the sake of gaining the support of a powerful party in that House—by whose means alone his Majesty's present advisers could retain their places for a single hour.
§ Mr. Sheilsaid, that the hon. Baronet who had designated himself as the representative of the intelligence of Protestant Ireland, and afforded such proofs of his capacity to fulfil the functions which he was deputed to discharge, had in the conclusion of his speech, contradicted the commencement. The hon. Baronet had referred to a powerful party by which the Government were supported, and yet in the outset he had spoken of the Irish Whig Members in a tone of depreciation. Surely the hon. Member must know that not only were they the great majority of the Irish. representatives, but that there were many, very many among them who enjoyed large possessions, and were men of station equal to that of the hon. Baronet; and, after all, must he not feel, that whatever might be their individual qualifications, their votes were of weight—that their numbers were not likely to decrease (quite the reverse), and that it was for serious consideration, whether it would long be possible to withstand the adjurations for justice which they addressed to the House of Commons. He must say, that he approved of this Bill because it contained a great principle—that principle of which the germ was to be found even in the Temporalities' Bill, and which the noble Lord opposite had had the merit of establishing. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] That Bill contained a Clause pro- 975 viding for the suspension of benefices. [Lord Stanley: For what purpose?] Some people take the will for the deed—he would take the deed for the will. He cared not for what purpose; the fact was sufficient. Districts in Ireland under that Bill were to he left without a clergyman. The few Protestant inhabitants were thus, de facto, deprived of the benefits of spiritual consolation. From these premises, in fact, a conclusion in principle was to be drawn; and he cared not, if the premises were admitted, whether the inference should he disputed by one so deeply concerned in its denial. He would, however, pass to the Question before the House. The Motion was selected as the ground on which the combined (strangely combined) opponents of the Government were to try their strength. No stand was made on the Corporation Bill; the Conservatives had the virtue not to resist what they had not the courage to propose. But on the Irish Church, prejudice might be excited, fanaticism might be kindled, misrepresentation might be diffused,—accordingly round the standard of sinecurism a rally was made, and an alliance (a holy one) was formed between the Conservative party (whom no one could fairly blame) and the ex-Reformers, the antagonists of their old friends, and the friends of their old antagonists—dealers in pious philippics and religious intrigue. To popular excitement, connected with the old horror of Popery, it was manifest that these united forces were looking; but they would find (to use a phrase of the right hon. Member for Tamworth) that they mistook the echo of their own delusions for the confirmation of public opinion. Where were the petitions of the people? had even the Cumberland yeomen stirred. They had heard of a declaration from a fanatical Scotch Synod, but from the mass of the Scotch people had any remonstrance been preferred? How did the majority of Scotch Members vote on the Resolution on which this Bill is founded? No, the people of that country looked to this Government with a confidence which appeals to antiquated theology could not disturb. They saw, that in die short period during which the Ministers had held office, they had carried one of the most important measures of Reform, which had ever yet been propounded; that they had carried it without the aid of the Members for Cumberland or Lancashire—without whom it now appeared possible that a Government could go on; and 976 seeing such practical benefits already effected, they would listen with incredulity to those whose zeal for religion was not a little heightened by their emotions as partisans. The English people saw into the expedients which were adopted by the champions of the Establishment. Of these expedients a very signal specimen was last night afforded. Why was an extract from Clarendon read by the right hon. Baronet? Was it to produce an impression in the highest quarter? The right hon. Baronet produced the passage in which the downfall of the monarchy was referred to the exclusion of the Bishops from the House of Lords. Now, this very passage was adverted to in 1831 by Mr. Croker; and what was the reply of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire? These were his words:—"At length, when Charles wanted to force episcopacy upon Scotland, he was forced to call together that Parliament which he had for so many years endeavoured to dispense with. But they knew him too well to put any trust in him. When he spoke of subsidies, they spoke of grievances; and when they properly refused them without better security than promises, the insincerity of which they were convinced of, he had recourse to a prompt and abrupt dissolution, and thus added wanton insult to continued injury. He was soon again compelled to call them together. Again he thought to temporise, and again he met the same resistance; and his tyranny ended, as I hope tyranny ever will end, in base, and timid, and degrading concession." Such was the account given by the noble Lord opposite, a great orator, in reply to a most valuable historian, of the causes which led to that event which the Member for Cumberland has attributed exclusively to the fall of the Church. But since citations from Clarendon were indulged in, he would presume to read one from Rapin, which bore at least as immediately upon the subject. Speaking of the Church abuses in the reign of Henry the 4th, he says—"The King demanded an aid of money of the Commons, who took occasion from them to renew their former instances with regard to the clergy. Wickliff's doctrine had gained so much ground, that the majority of the House of Commons leaned that way. Thus biassed, the Commons presented two petitions to the King—one against the clergy, the other in behalf of the Lollards. In the first they set forth, 'That the clergy made 977 an ill use of their riches, and consumed their incomes in a very different manner from the donors' intent; that their revenues were excessive, and, consequently, it was necessary to lessen them; that by this means the kingdom's safety would be better provided for, the poor better maintained, and the clergy more attached to their duty.' The clergy considered the petition as tending to undermine all religion. This was industriously insinuated to the King, with all the aggravation which parties concerned are capable of displaying on such an occasion." This passage he referred to in order to show that the doctrine of secular appropriation was not new, and that Catholics were prompt to apply it to their own Church when the occasion required. He should return to the matter more immediately before the House. The course pursued by the opponents of this Bill was remarkable. After the second reading they oppose the principle, before the Committee they criticise the details. They opposed the Bill of last year on the second reading, although it did not contain the appropriation clause. The present Bill contained an appropriation clause, and much besides which was condemned—nothing which was approved; yet the second reading passed without cither a division or a comment. Everything was objected to; they who would have cut 25l. per cent from the incomes of the clergy, complained of a subtraction from tithes; and the great author of the metallic currency, who had reduced rents to one-half, thinks that the Church ought not in its finances to be affected by the revolutions of Mark-lane. It was insisted, that there would he no surplus. If there were not, no practical harm would be done to the Church; but the recognition of the principle would be a just and conciliatory tribute to the reasonable feelings of the Irish people. But how did the right hon. Baronet make out that there would be no surplus? He had expatiated on the poverty of the Irish Church. Why did he always refuse a Committee on the subject? It was repeatedly proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The right hon. Baronet stated, that the revenues had been exaggerated; but what test would he employ to ascertain, then, what was the amount of the Bishops' revenues? The right hon. Baronet said, that they did not exceed 130,000l., a-year; but their amount 978 really was 150,000l., as returned by the dignitaries themselves. Whether this ought to be conclusive he would not determine; but he knew, that in calculating the net income the Bishops had deducted agents' fees and all expenses incidental to the collection of their fortunes. He knew that the income of the Archbishop of Armagh, was now 17,000l. a year, would rise to 23,000l. a year by his own return, and that neither this increase, nor any other, was included in the 150,000l. It was stated, that the glebe lands of Ireland were worth only 70,000l. a year. Even the right hon. Member for Tamworth had stated, that Lord Althorp had underrated the value of the glebe lands. They amounted to 85,000 Irish acres (five Irish make eight English). Most glebes have good houses on them, and 12,000l. a year was not an exaggerated estimate. But why had not a return of their value been obtained? Again, on what authority was the amount of Ministers' livings set forth? He came to a most important item, which illustrated the spirit of depreciation, with which the wealth of the Church was reduced by its advocates. He held a Return of the amount of the property of the Minor Ecclesiastical Corporations. It was stated to be 57,000l. a year. At what sum did Lord Althorp, before that Return was made, estimate this portion of the Ecclesiastical possessions? At 20,000l. But it was alleged a large portion of that sum was applicable to the reparation of cathedrals. Granted; but still was it not Church property? and was it not most unfair to exclude it from the account. But were the surplice fees not to be mentioned? They were not fixed permanent property; true;—but in estimating the means of livelihood of the clergy, we must take this item of sustenance into consideration. Thus it was manifest that there never had been a just and full account of Church property; and if there had not, the blame lay with those who had refused Committees, and would never give the House access to the true sources of information. He would venture to say, that if to-morrow a Committee was moved for on the Irish Church, it would be opposed by the Conservatives and their associates. But the real object of the opponents of the Bill in the course which they had adopted, was, by running into collateral topics, to lead away the attention of Parliament from the single question, whether the Resolution passed deliberately by the House should be 979 rescinded. That Resolution had nothing to do with details. It affirmed a great principle; and the Conservatives having been flung by that Resolution out of power, endeavoured by indirect means to nullify it, and render it of no avail. But to that Resolution the House would adhere; and if the Bill should return from the Lords mutilated in that essential particular, this House would repudiate the wretched fragment of the measure which might be thus returned. That Resolution was passed without the Report. The Report gave it the strongest corroboration. It had changed the opinions of the Member for Berkshire, who made a great sacrifice of his personal feelings, and his parliamentary attachments, to his duty. To the leading features in the Report, and to no other, he should refer. What had become of the three millions of Protestants, of which the Member for the University of Oxford had so often said so much? There appeared to be only 852,000 Episcopal Protestants in Ireland, and even they included the Methodists, who were attached by so slender a tie to the Church. In the province of Armagh (the north of Ireland), the fortress of orthodoxy, there were upwards of 600,000 Presbyterians, and there were not 600,000 Episcopal Protestants. What inference did he draw from thence? This; that the allegation that the Church was the tie between England and Ireland was a fallacy. The Presbyterians were attached to England; they were hostile to the Church (so said the Moderator of the Ulster Synod, Mr. Montgomery): the conclusion was obvious; England did not need the Church treasure to fill the military chest, out of which the garrison of Ireland (the Irish Protestants) were to be remunerated for their mercenary allegiance. Thus far for the north: descend to other districts. He would take one only—the province of Tuam. What was its Ecclesiastical wealth? The Returns showed, that the Episcopal revenue in that province amounted to 22,000l. a year at the least. The glebe lands, prebendiary revenue, and tithes amounted to at least 100,000l., including the first item. He believed, that it was much more. This was a large sum. Now came the question, "how many Protestants were there in the province?" There were 1,100,000 Catholics, and what would the House think? 300,000 Protestants? No; 200,000? No. One? No, no; only 45,000. Gracious God! 100,000l. a year for the "spiritual conso- 980 lation" of 45,000 Protestants! This was in itself most gross; but contrast made it monstrous. Turn from Tuam to a neighbouring country. Not France, because there was a foolish notion that the French are infidels, and therefore no analogy could be derived from their example. Turn to a country just near you, where there is great zeal in religion—a zeal which Protestants might regard as almost equivalent to fanaticism; turn to Belgium, the ally of England for which she had sacrificed so much—the Catholic country with a Protestant King. The Catholics, after all, were, not so very exacting—turn to Belgium, and what state of things did they find there? There were four millions of Catholics. What hierarchy suffices for that number? One Archbishop and four Bishops. How much money do they receive? For that, after all, was the question. Why, 17,000l. a-year, by which the seminaries attached to their sees, as well as their own dignities, were sustained. Gracious Heaven! The Irish primate with 23,000l. a-year, and the whole Belgian hierarchy, and all their establishments, with only 17,000l.! Pass to the priesthood. Here is the Belgian budget. He had the official document; and mark the duties of the Catholic clergy are infinitely more laborious. The practice of confession was alone sufficient to render the functions of the Catholic priest far more onerous than those of the Protestant pastor. And with this small sum religion thrives in Belgium (religion never dies except of pecuniary repletion), while the Protestant Church in Ireland, with all its wealth, makes in conversion very little or no way. But he might be told that he ought not to refer to a foreign country: be it so. He would go to Scotland. He had been invited to travel thither by the right hon. Member for Cumberland. The right hon. Member said, that some Scotch synod or other had interfered in Irish affairs. I stop not, said Mr. Sheil, to inquire into their right, or their discretion. I stop not to ask whether they or their ancestors revolted against episcopacy, and won the enjoyment of their religion with their good broad swords, and established the great principle that the Church of the minority should not live at the cost of the majority of the people. Putting these considerations aside, I ask this plain question, "how much does the Scotch Church cost?" Not certainly 300,000l. a-year. There are nearly two millions of Churchmen in Scotland; they have about 300,000l. a-year. 981 (I really believe less) for their spiritual wants. There are in Ireland not half the number, and there is nearly three times as much money. The advocates of the Irish Church, in talking of the amount which ought to be given to a Protestant clergyman, refer to the sum paid by the Catholic peasantry to the Catholic priest. Give the parson so much out of tithes because the Catholics give so much to their priests? Out of what fund? Out of their own uncontrolled, spontaneous liberality—out of their own pockets, and out of their own hearts—proving the success—the triumph of the voluntary principle, the virtue of the priesthood, gratitude of the people, the noble moral qualities that reside in the Irish people. Yes, I speak it with pride; we maintain our priests in comfort, our hierarchy in respectability in the Christian mediocrity that becomes them; to the worship of our God we raise magnificent temples, worthy of the lofty recollections associated with our religion, and with spires "whose silent lingers point to heaven;" and when, out of our own resources, we do all this—when, paupers as we are represented to be, we have thus, unaided by the state, not only given sustainment, but a just elevation to our ancient Church, how paltry is it to Protestantism, with its enormous revenues, boasting as it does that all the aristocracy belong to it, to come here, making a poor face, and with its cullers replenished with the public gold, winning and whimpering about the wretched destitution to which it is reduced. Abandoning all metaphysical disquisitions, I proceed, not to a consideration of mere expediency, but of paramount and dire necessity, and I lay down a very plain proposition, which is this: whatever may be your inclination, you have not the ability to maintain, as it now stands, the Irish establishment. Why? because the power of the Irish people has risen to such a pitch, that, to the mistaken interest of a powerless minority, the rights, undoubted, although not undisputed, of the enormous majority, cannot any longer with impunity be sacrificed. What is the great question into which all these matters of incidental consideration really resolve themselves? The policy upon which Ireland ought to be—must be governed. At first view, this subject seems to be a wretched dispute between Catholic and Protestant—a miserable sectarian controversy. It is no such thing; it is the very selfsame question by which Cabinet after Cabinet has been annihilated—of which the Catholic question was 982 but a part; it is the struggle for complete political equality on the part of the overwhelming majority on the one hand, and for political ascendancy on the part of the minority on the other. Can that ascendancy be maintained? Look at Ireland, and at the circumstances by which the existing state of things has been produced. I should be justified in going back half a century in tracing the growth of the popular power from its small and slender incipiency to the elevation and the extent to which it has spread itself, and has ascended. There are men now living, who recollect the time when the great bulk of the Irish people were reduced to a state to which serf-ship and helotism might be justly applied. We had no property, and we could not by law acquire it; we had no intelligence, and all access to the sources of education was denied us; we were not only excluded from every political privilege, but shut out from every honourable profession. The mass of the Irish people appeared to be a mere dull, inert, inanimate, and almost brute heap of senseless matter; yet within it the principles of vitality were contained. Those principles were by great events brought out. America was made free; the Irish Protestant Parliament asserted its independence; then came that resuscitation of nations through an apalling process, the revolution of France; but all this I pass by, and come to events much more proximate to the time, which is within the remembrance of every man in this House. There are two men in this House, who of the power of the people have had the most painful, the most dear-bought—I hope it will prove to be the most instructive—experience; and those two men are Members for Tamworth and for Lancashire. Both entered official life as Secretaries for Ireland—both devoted themselves to ascendancy, and both became its victims. In 1813, the Member for Tamworth was appointed Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant; and uniting great capacity with great anxiety to do good, had circumstances been less untoward, and had he had just laws to administer, how different would have been his Government? But he was attached to a party which neutralized his talents and frustrated his purposes. He could not go to the root of the evil; and although he now expresses a strong disrelish for Ecclesiastical abuses, of that disrelish while he was in office, he gave no very unequivocal evidence, and allowed sinecures (those objects of his virtuous abhorrence), to remain 983 undisturbed. He had no resource, except measures of repression; the insurrection Act was renewed, and on the 3rd of June, 1814, a proclamation was issued, under his auspices, to prevent the assemblages of the people. The Catholic board was put down; not so the spirit of the people; it was only dormant; it never can he dead. It was resuscitated in that confederacy which embraced an active people, and made such a display of union and of strength, that in 1825 it was deemed requisite by the Ministry, of which the right hon. Baronet was a Member, to suppress it. Vain and idle effort. It was laughed by us to scorn. We returned from London, where we had agreed to connect the Church by money with the State, provided the State should by liberty consent to connect itself with the people. The offer was repudiated. We invoked the Irish peasantry, who were armed with the elective franchise. Those gallant,devoted, dauntless, heroic men rushed to the hustings with the courage and devotion with which Irish soldiers, led by you (pointing to Sir Henry Hardinge) rushed to the breach. The holds of ascendancy were carried—the Beresfords were annihilated in Waterford, the Aristocracy was beaten to the earth in Louth; these were, however, but the preludes to the great encounter. In two years after Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, having vacated his seat as a Member of the Cabinet, stood for Clare; he was opposed by the leader of the Irish people; he was discomfited; the heart of Ireland thrilled with exultation; the national sympathy became contagious; the soldiers shouted, and threw up their caps for joy. Astonished by what they saw—appalled by what they anticipated—the Duke and his distinguished Colleague gave way at last to the power of the Irish people. But all had not been accomplished; it remained that, having won emancipation for ourselves, we should secure Reform for you. There was a majority of English, and a majority of Scotch Members against Reform. It was achieved by the men whom the Irish people had poured, in a noble exercise of their privileges, into this House. "We did the State some service, and they know it;" and the first to acknowledge it was the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire. Strange, that with that confession on his lips, he should not have felt deeply conscious that the power to which he had resorted as an auxiliary might be converted into an irresistible antagonist; and that when, with that fiery eloquence of which 984 he is the master, he was amusing the House of Commons, and applying a torch, and setting the passions of England on fire, it should never have occurred to him that we should avail ourselves of his example, and in as strong and peremptory a tone as that in which he had demanded the Reform of the Parliament, the Reform of the Church would be required. But he had a great abhorrence for rotten boroughs, while for rotten livings he entertained an equally vehement, and not very unnatural, predilection. He set up as the champion of the Church, and entered into a struggle with the Irish people. It was not long before he alienated the whole Irish party, not only from himself, but from those Colleagues who have since been released from the in-cumbrance of his co-operation, and between whom and Ireland, an honest, sincere, and permanent reconciliation, founded upon wise measures, and upon a just sense of the honourable motives from whence they have originated, has been effected. The first proceeding, on the part of the noble Lord, which indeed affords tolerable evidence of his genius for Government, was the Stanley "Arms' Bill"; this even his associates scouted from the Cabinet. He then proceeded with his Church Reform, and in order to conciliate the Irish Catholics, excluded every Roman Catholic Member from the Tithe Committee. In 1831, he gave 60,000l. to the clergy, and passed a Bill by which he transferred certain arrears to the Attorney-General, and commenced in the inferior Courts a scene of unexampled litigation. The profuse shedding of human blood ensued. In 1832, his Tithe Bill, by which a final adjustment was to be accomplished, was produced. It was instantly denounced as pregnant with the most baneful consequences. Mark, Englishmen! mark this:——At the period when that Bill was brought forward, the Irish Catholics did not demand a reduction of tithes; there was no 1,000,000l. then due; no sacrifice from the clergy, no sacrifice from the country, was required. All we asked was, a recognition of the principle which is, at last, expressed in this Bill; and if that principle had been recognized in time, how much misfortune to the actual incumbents, how much loss to the English people, would have been saved! But the Bill Was passed, in despite of reiterated admonitions,to which its projector was as insensible as the animal from which the Scriptural illustrations of deafness are derived. The people assembled to petition Parliament: their meetings were 985 dispersed at the point of the bayonet, and the petitioners tried and incarcerated under the verdicts of Juries from which Roman Catholics were excluded. The popular indignation rose to the highest point, and at the general election the Standard of Repeal was planted upon every hustings. The Coercion Bill is passed—1,000,000l. is given to the Irish clergy—the Church Temporalities' Bill is introduced, with a great but latent principle of improvement—the influence of the noble Lord prevails, and the 147th Clause is struck out;—meanwhile the clergy starve. The Session of 1834 is opened. The letter of Lord Anglesey—(whose heart was full of the love of Ireland, but whose good intentions were marred by his coadjutor in the Irish Government)—is produced; it calls for a new appropriation. Mr. Ward brings his Motion forward—the Church Commission is issued by Lord Grey: the noble Lord—(who affects to consider Lord Grey as opposed to Irish Church Reform, when the Commission stares the noble Lord in the face)—retires from office, lets go a Parthian shaft at his associates, and there he now is, facing his former friends, and in juxtaposition with his former antagonists. How far he has descended or has risen in public estimation, I leave to be determined by his own judgment, and that of the party of which he is the leader, which has been rapidly diminishing in numbers, and has undergone, to use the mathematical phrase of the Member for Tamworth, "a process of exhaustion." The Government, in 1834, having been relieved from the assistance of the noble Lord, brings a Tithe Bill forward, which would have given the clergy bread, and have gone a considerable way towards an adjustment of the question. It receives the approbation of a large body of the Irish Representatives; it is thrown out, and the clergy are left to perish by those sinister auxiliaries who support the Church by making martyrs of its Ministers,—Parliament is prorogued—Lord Melbourne is dismissed from the Cabinet—with as little ceremony as a menial would be discharged from the Palace. Suddenly, and to himself, I believe, unexpectedly, the right hon. Baronet is raised to the Premier, ship; the fortunes of this great country are placed by his Sovereign in his hands; he arrives, declares himself the champion of the Church, dissolves the Parliament, strains every Treasury nerve to return a Conservative House of Commons. The Parliament of his own calling, meets; he is 986 beaten on the Speakership, and does not resign; he is defeated on the Amendment, and still retains his office; he is discomfited upon the Irish Church, and he no longer considers it compatible with his dignity, his duty, or his honour to remain in power; he surrenders the trust reposed in him by his Sovereign, and retires with disaster, but without humiliation, for he fell in a contest with millions; he had chosen a nation for his antagonist, and it was impossible that he should not he overthrown. Far be it from me to dispute the talents, the consummate skill, the various attributes for Government which the right hon. Baronet displayed; the greater his merits, the greater the evidence of that power by which he was overthrown. Of that power I have traced the progress; that power vested in millions, deputed to the great majority of Irish Representatives, developed, not created by emancipation, confirmed by Reform, and which, so far from being attended with any likelihood of decrease, is accompanied by the certainty of augmentation. Three millions have swollen since the Union to 7,000,000; they command the majority of the Representatives of the country: they are led on by men of ceaseless vigilance, and unalterable determination: in their intelligence and in property they are making rapid advances; with Roman Catholics of high ability the bar is crowded; by them the highest law offices are filled; they are within a step of the bench of justice; if there were no further change by the Legislature, the advance by the people would be still inevitable; the Corporation Bill (for you cannot legislate for one country on different principles from those which you apply to the other), is at hand, can you wish, and if you wish, can you hope, that this unnatural, galling, exasperating ascendancy should be maintained? Things cannot remain as they are; retrograde it is impossible they ever should. What expedient are you prepared to adopt? Would you re-enact the penal code, let loose Orangeism from its den, bid the Orangeman draw forth his sabre clotted and rusty with blood of civil warfare, that he may sheathe it in the nation's heart? No! From so horrible a conception, you instinctively recoil. Will you dissolve the Parliament? What! after you have already had recourse to that perilous expedient. You thought that you could manage the House of your own calling; you declared it at Tamworth. Have you not too deep 987 a stake in fame, in fortune, in property, and in renown, to renew these terrible experiments? You think the English people are with you. If a Conservative Parliament should be assembled, its duration must be brief, and its existence stormy while it lasts; but if the excited people should infuse an undue proportion of the democratic element into the representation, you will have raised a spirit which you will have no spell to lay, exposed an institution more valuable than the Church, to peril; and, put, perhaps, what is more precious than the mitre, to a tremendous hazard—and all for what? For what are these terrible risks to be run; these awful chances to be incurred? For what are Cabinets to be annihilated, the country to be brought, perhaps, to the verge of convulsion, the Palace to be shaken to its foundation? For the Church! the Church of the ministry—the Church, from which no imaginable benefit can henceforward flow; but whence evils after evils in such continuous abundance have been derived—the Church, by which, instead of being advanced, religion has been retarded, and for whose maintenance an enormous army is maintained, which has cost England millions of her treasure, and Ireland torrents of her blood.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonwas aware after the eloquence and ability displayed by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, that he had nothing to offer to the consideration of the House which would entitle him (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) to its indulgence, on the same principle that it had listened, he was sure with pleasure and delight, to the oratorical display of the hon. and learned Member. However any Member of this House might differ with that hon. and learned Member on the view which he had taken of this subject, no person could withhold from him the praise of having supported his opinions with great eloquence and great ability. But though in that respect he (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) could not follow the example of the hon. and learned Member, yet it should be his duty—and in discharging it he had to claim the indulgence of the House—to bring back its attention to the sober consideration of a few matters of fact—to the real merits of the question now before it. But in the first place he must be permitted to address himself to a few points adverted to by the hon. and learned Member. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the principle which was 988 involved in the Bill now under the consideration of the House was also found in the Bill introduced two years ago by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and which was commonly called the Church Temporalities' Act. Now, he ventured to affirm, that it would be utterly impossible to find two measures more diametrically opposed to each other than the Bill now before the House, and that introduced by the Government of which the noble Lord was a member. He was greatly mistaken indeed if there existed in principle a single point of similarity between them. What was the arrangement under which the Church Temporalities' Act proposed to suspend certain livings in Ireland? And first, under what authority was this suspension to be carried into effect? As to the authority the Board which was constituted under the Act, and which was authorized to interfere for the purpose of suspension, was composed of nine persons, members of the Established Church—five out of the nine being Bishops. Then, what was the nature of the application of the funds arising from the suspension of the appointment to benefices in which Divine Worship shall not have been celebrated for three years? Upon this part of the subject, he begged the particular attention of the House to the provisions of the Act itself, in which it was enacted, "That whenever any benefice whereof the King shall be patron, or the right of presentation or collation whereto shall be in any Archbishop, Bishop, or other dignitary, or in any Ecclesiastical Corporation, shall, after the passing of this Act become void in any manner whatsoever, and that it shall appear to the Commissioners under this Act, by the certificate of the Ordinary, that Divine Worship shall not have been celebrated therein for the three years next preceding the 1st day of February, 1833, then and in such case it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, if they shall so think fit, by an instrument under their Corporate Seal, to direct that the appointment, presentation, or collation of any Clerk to such benefice shall be suspended until such Commissioners shall think fit by a like instrument otherwise to direct; and in the mean time, and for and during such period as such benefice shall remain vacant, all and every the tithes, profits, and emoluments, whatsoever belonging, or appertaining thereto, and all arrears thereof which may have accrued due since the said benefice may have become void as aforesaid, shall be 989 vested in and received by the said Commissioners under this Act, to be by them applied to the building or repairing of the Church and glebe-house in the said benefice." And here, let it be observed, that these were strictly Ecclesiastical purposes. The Act then continues: "And if the circumstances of such benefice shall not require such application of the said funds, then to be paid into the general fund under the administration of the said Commissioners; and the said Commissioners shall have all and every the like remedies for the recovery of such tithes, profits and emoluments, and all arrears thereof, as any Clerk filling such benefice might or would have, and shall be for all such intents and purposes in the place and stead of such a Clerk; and it shall and may be lawful for the said Commissioners, and the Archbishop or Bishop associated with them, pursuant to the provision hereinafter contained, in any case where the spiritual wants of any benefice so unfilled as aforesaid, shall appear to require the appointment of an officiating minister, so to declare and appoint such moderate stipend or salary to be paid to such officiating minister as they shall think proper, and thereupon the Bishop of the diocese shall appoint and license a Curate for the performance of Ecclesiastical duties within such benefice for and during such period as the same shall remain unfilled; and in case the spiritual wants of such benefice shall not appear to require the appointment of such Curate, then and in such case, and for and during such period as aforesaid, the cure of souls, and all and every the occasional duty or duties within such benefice so remaining unfilled as aforesaid, shall be committed to the incumbent or officiating minister of some adjoining parish, to be remunerated by a moderate stipend or salary, in like manner fixed by the said Commissioners and the Archbishop or Bishop associated with them, such incumbent or minister to be nominated and appointed by the Ordinary, and whom such Ordinary is hereby required to nominate and appoint at the request of the Commissioners under this Act, under such regulations as he may think fit to make; and the Ordinary shall and is hereby required, when thereunto required by the Commissioners under this Act, to grant such certificate as aforesaid in all such cases as aforesaid; and the said Commissioners shall, from and out of the tithes, profits, and emoluments of such benefice hereby vested in them, pay to the Curate so appointed as afore- 990 said, or to the incumbent or officiating minister to whom the cure of souls and occasional duty shall have been committed, as the case may be, such stipend or salary as may have been fixed and determined in manner aforesaid." Such were the provisions of the Act, the principle of which they were told was to be found in the measure now before the House. By the Temporalities' Bill it would be perceived that the tithes and profits, arising out of suspended benefices, were to be applied by the Commissioners to the building and repairing of glebe-houses and churches; and should that application not be required, they were to be invested in the general funds, which was also under the administration of the Commissioners. In fact, under the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, those revenues were to be applied, not to secular purposes—not merely to ecclesiastical purposes generally, but for the use of the very benefices which might be suspended, should circumstances require such an application. In the measure before the House what provision was there analogous to that? But the Temporalities' Act also required that an Archbishop and a Bishop should both concur in the proposed arrangement for the suspension of any benefice. No such provision was to be found in the measure now tinder consideration, by which the funds applied by the Temporalities' Act to strictly Ecclesiastical purposes were sequestered and diverted to secular purposes. He said, that in his opinion it was utterly impossible that any two Bills could be more directly opposed to each other than the Temporalities' Act and the present measure. But those who opposed the Bill had been taunted by the hon. and learned Gentleman with not having stated what part of the Bill they approved of, and to what part of it they were opposed and for not having stated the grounds upon which they desired to divide it into two separate Bills. There was one part of this Bill which contained some good provisions of which many Members on his side of the House probably approved. He did not mean to say that they approved of them in all their details; but these were more properly the subject of discussion, and of improvement, in Committee. But there was another portion of the Bill which applied a supposed surplus to secular purposes, and that provision was highly objectionable in point of principle to a great many more Members of that House, and it was for the purpose of giving a fair opportunity of dis- 991 cussion and decision upon each part by hon. Members, who think that one part was in principle unobjectionable, whilst they deem the other to be highly objectionable, that it was proposed to divide the measure into two parts. But allow him to ask, did that division of the Bill prevent both parts from passing, should a majority of this House approve of them? Most certainly it did not. It was quite competent for the House first to pass one part, and then the other, should it so think proper; but, he trusted, the House would bear in mind that by one part of the Bill it was proposed to effect a settlement of the Church-property, arising out of tithes, upon a basis more secure and satisfactory than that which at present subsisted, and of that portion of the Bill ho, in common with a large majority of hon. Members, approved; whilst the other part of it proposed to appropriate an imaginary surplus of Church revenue to purposes other than Ecclesiastical, and of that part of the Bill he believed a very large proportion of the Members of that House regarded as utterly inadmissible. He should now refer to another portion of the Address of the hon. and learned Member, in which he indulged in no small proportion of that exaggeration into which orators were sometimes betrayed when they became warm and interested in the subject of their speeches. He did think that the hon. Member had very much exaggerated the amount of the income of the Church, the amount of revenue derived from glebe lands, the amount of the income of the Bishops of the Irish Church, and of one distinguished prelate in particular; and he had grossly exaggerated the amount of tithe. He recollected the hon. and learned Member to say, that the income of the Irish Bishops was in the gross 150,000l., and in the net 128,000l. Now, allow him (Mr. Jackson) to point out to the House, and to the hon. and learned Member in particular, how this 128,000l. becomes reduced to a sum considerably less. He held in his hand a return of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in which he found, first of all, that ten benefices were reduced, for which a deduction was to be made to the extent of 50,780l.; on account of the See of Derry they must subtract 6,160l., 4,500l. for the primate, and an additional sum of 4,500l., on account of three-tenths reduction on tithes, making the whole amount to be subtracted from the net revenues of the Irish Bishops, 65,940l. Taking this sum of 65,940l. from 128,708l.,, 992 the amount of the net revenues, a balance remained of 62,868l., which was the income provided for the twelve remaining Bishops in Ireland. After this, he thought himself warranted in saying, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn a long bow in his statement of the incomes of the Irish Bishops. The hon. and learned Member had stated the income of the Archbishop of Armagh at 23,000l. a-year; he said that the revenues of that prelate was 17,000l. a-year at present, and that it would be increased to 23,000l. By the Church Temporalities' Bill the income of the primate (Archbishop of Armagh) was fixed at 10,000l. a-year, and the most reverend Prelate's revenue was greatly lessened. The primate took only one-eighth for renewal, while other bishops received one-fifth. The fact was, that the revenue of the Archbishop of Armagh fell greatly short of the hon. and learned Member's calculation; probably the hon. and learned Gentleman was misled by supposing that the primate took the same rate of renewal as other bishops.—[Mr. Sheil had spoken on the authority of a return made by the Archbishop of Armagh himself.] There was another part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech on which he wished to make a single observation. The hon. Gentleman had contrasted the incomes of the Belgian Bishops with those of the Bishops of the Irish Church; but this was not a fair comparison, for the Belgian Bishops were provided for by the State; they are mere stipendiaries; whereas the bishops of the Irish Church derived their incomes from property which belonged to them as much as did his estate to any nobleman or gentleman. He contended that it did, and in support of this principle he had the high authority of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, for saying that the Irish bishops had as good a right to the property which they possessed, as private individuals had to their possessions. [Mr. Ward said, the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood him; he had said no such thing.] Well, whatever might be the opinion of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, his opinion was, that which he had expressed. He (Mr. Jackson) thought the bishops had as good a right to their incomes as any nobleman or any gentleman in this House had to his private property. He must now refer to another observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he could not refrain from saying, that he heard that observation with a good deal of asto- 993 nishment. The hon, and learned Member for Tipperary said, that the claim put forward now was the same as that put forward on the agitation of Catholic Emancipation, and that the present struggle was analogous to that. That question, he said, was precisely the same, in point of principle, as the one now before the House. There were many gentlemen examined before a Committee of that House, and of the other House of Parliament, previous to the passing of the Emancipation Bill. The names of some of them had been mentioned. Amongst them were Mr. Blake, Chief Remembrancer, and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman, when examined before the Lords, stated, that if Catholic Emancipation were granted, neither resistance to tithes, nor a cry for a repeal of the union, nor any other topic of irritation, would ever again be heard of in Ireland. How far had this statement been borne out by the facts? How had the debt of gratitude, created by the passing of the Relief Bill, been redeemed? Was not every succeeding concession met by a fresh demand, and made a stepping-stone for further advances and encroachments? Pledges had been given that Emancipation would be considered as a final and satisfactory adjustment of Irish claims, but those pledges were not kept. Now, having taken the liberty of submitting to the consideration of the House such observations as he conceived the address of the hon. and learned Member called for, he should proceed to consider what he thought were the most important features of the question now before the House. Several hon. Members on the opposite benches (and amongst them the hon. Member for Berkshire), assigned this reason for supporting the Bill before the House—"that the Established Church had been tried, and failed as a means of promoting the Protestant religion in Ireland, and that, having so completely and utterly failed in its object, it ought to be abandoned." That was a very great error indeed—he did not say it was an intentional misrepresentation, but he was prepared to contend that, the parties who put forward such an opinion could not be acquainted with the history of the country. Another mistake had also gone abroad, which excited deep prejudice both without and within those walls. It was said, that the Established Church had failed to advance the interests of the Reformation in Ireland, because of its enor- 994 mous wealth, and this allegation was repeated till incalculable prejudice and odium had been raised against the Establishment. He had taken some pains to examine the History of the Church in Ireland, and could show that one of the chief causes of its inefficiency for two centuries and a-half, so far from resulting from overgrown wealth, had proceeded from a total inadequacy in the means of the Establishment. He was not surprised at hearing that exclamation from the other side. He knew that the opinion to which he referred had gained ground to a considerable extent, and he was not astonished that it had found its way even within those walls. But he would show that it was founded upon total ignorance of the real facts of the case. He was quite aware that the state and condition of Ireland, with regard to agriculture, had been so changed during the reign of George 3rd, there had been such an increase of tillage, and consequently such addition to the amount of the tithes, that people imagined the Irish clergy had always been as largely provided for, and therefore the statement he had just made appeared paradoxical—that what was the state of the Reformed Church in Ireland for 250 years prior to that change? Hon. Gentlemen were not, perhaps, aware that Ireland, during that period, was almost exclusively occupied by pasturage. It was matter of history, that in the reign of Elizabeth, Ireland was the theatre of continued wars and disturbances, which impeded not only the progress of the Reformation, but also had the effect of preventing the tillage of the land. It was also well known that the Rebellion of 1641, and the civil contests which followed the Revolution of 1688, together with the confiscations of property and proscriptions which then took place, produced such a feeling of insecurity among the people of Ireland, as to render them but little disposed to bestow any time or trouble in the cultivation of the lands of that country. The result of this state of things was, that the rectorial and vicarial benefices in Ireland were exceedingly poor indeed; and during the whole of the periods he had mentioned, there existed no adequate provision for the clergy whatever. The land being for the most part employed in pasturage, there was scarcely any amount of tithe derived from it. In corroboration of the correctness of this statement, he would appeal to the authority of Spenser and Sir J. Davis, in the reigns of Elizabeth and 995 James 1st; of Bedel and Wentworth in the reign of Charles 1st; of Swift, Boulter, and King, in the reigns of Anne and George 1st. In the reigns of Queen Anne and George 1st, the Irish Church had to struggle against all the complicated evils which had grown out of the antecedent state of things. The number of churches had diminished, the glebe-houses had been pulled down, and the glebe lands destroyed; added to this was the banishment of the clergymen from their benefices, and the impossibility of residence, or the due discharge of clerical duties on their part. The miserable poverty of the benefices was the true cause of unions of parishes, which must be admitted to have been a great evil in the Church of Ireland. Spenser says, "Since the livings are not sufficient scarce to make their gowns, much less to yield meet maintenance, there is no way to help that but to lay two or more of them together till such time as the country grew more rich and better inhabited." Sir J. Davis says, "As for the vicarages, they are so poorly endowed, that ten of them united will hardly suffice to maintain an honest minister." It will be also found that Swift and Boulter, who differed on most other subjects, concurred in this; at least that both of them deplore the miserable condition of the Irish Church—the total neglect of tillage, and the consequent prevalence of unions and of famines in the country. In 1728, so deplorably insufficient was the provision for the Protestant clergy, that Primate Boulter thought it necessary to introduce a bill into the Irish Parliament for the purpose of imposing a penalty on every person possessing land to the amount of 100 acres who did not till five acres out of the 100. The act remained in force for a considerable period of time, but utterly failed to produce the desired effect; and in 1736, only eight years after the passing of that Act, the landed proprietors of Ireland, the descendants of Dissenters who had followed Cromwell and King William the 3rd into Ireland, and had been located there, feeling no attachment to the Church, but great desire to serve their own interests, had sufficient influence to procure the passing of that most iniquitous and unconstitutional vote of the Irish House of Commons, abolishing the tithe of agistment. Thus the Church was at once deprived of all tithe issuing out of more than 19–20ths of the whole land of Ireland. But loss of income was not the only mischief inflicted 996 on the cause of religion by this atrocious proceeding: for whilst the extensive domains of the gentry were exempted from tithe, the burthen of supporting the clergy was thrown upon the miserable tillage—the potatoes and oats of the poor farmers and cottiers throughout Ireland. He believed it might be confidently affirmed that no difference of opinion would be found amongst writers on the affairs of that country—they all agreed that the consequences of the series of political events in Ireland had been the multiplying of unions, the dissemination of the number of working clergy, and the enlarging of the sphere of duty allotted to each to such a degree as to render it totally impossible, even for the most zealous and best qualified men, had such been selected for the priesthood, to have discharged their pastoral duties in any adequate degree. Such was the state of the Church in Ireland until the reign of his late Majesty, George the 3rd. In that reign bounties were granted on the inland carriage of corn in Ireland, which greatly encouraged agriculture; and the effect of the American and French wars, which continued during so considerable a part of that reign was, to bring into tillage so large a proportion of the country, that from having been under the necessity of importing corn from England during all the former period, Ireland became a great exporting country, and he feared that the agricultural interest in England, of late years, suffered considerably from the redundant supply of corn supplied from the sister country. The effect of this change in the state of agriculture upon the income of the Church in Ireland was obvious. The value of tithes was considerably augmented, and it was quite certain that benefices which had not previously produced one or two hundred pounds a-year, then yielded one or two thousands. Thus a new and opposite evil arose, and unions which ought undoubtedly to have been dissolved, as soon as the necessity which created them was removed, were for some time suffered to continue. This, however, was not to be imputed to the working clergy, but rather to those in whom the patronage of the Church resided, or those whose duty it would have been to adopt the state of the law to the altered circumstances of the country. He was ready to admit that the success of the Church in Ireland was in some instances as much impeded by the overgrown wealth which attached to some of the benefices in consequence of these 997 unions, as it had been before impeded by the extreme poverty of the Establishment. He was no advocate of unions, of pluralities, or of non-residence; but it was only justice to the Church in Ireland to say, that a greater change had never been wrought in any institution in the world than had taken place in the Irish Church Establishment, and within the last twenty or thirty years. He would undertake to say, that no portion of the Christian Church on the face of the earth possessed a more pure, zealous, exemplary, and devoted ministry than did the Established Church in Ireland. And was this body of men to be punished for the vices which belonged to the Establishment in by-gone times, and which they had in no way contributed to produce? These vices were, as he had shown, the result of misfortunes of the country, and not of the fault of the clergy. It was not his intention to trouble the House with any calculations respecting the present income of the Church, because the statement made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Taraworth, on that head was so clear and satisfactory that, in his judgment, it amounted to mathematical demonstration. Besides, he had not heard any Gentleman who had since spoken even attempt to answer that statement. The right hon., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had made a speech, undoubtedly characterised by extreme skill and ability, and which had produced, as it was calculated to do, u great effect on that House, had nevertheless taken great care to avoid altogether matters of figures, which he stated to be wholly irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman said, he would have nothing to do with them, and therefore did not affect to answer the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He certainly could not understand, that when a proposition was made to appropriate an alleged surplus of Church revenue to certain purposes, it was of no importance to show whether, in point of fact, there would be found any surplus to appropriate. It appeared to him that that Question was the very first which ought to be inquired into. He believed that the real cause why the right hon., the Chancellor of the Exchequer, declined to answer the statement of the right hon. Baronet was, because it was not susceptible of an answer. Then if, the calculations of the right hon. Baronet neither had been, nor could successfully be controverted, what became of the delusive allegation of a surplus, when it 998 manifestly appeared that there did not exist a revenue adequate to the payment of 200l. per annum, on the average, to the working clergy of Ireland, for whom it appeared to be admitted on all hands that such n provision would not be by any means redundant. He would now call the attention of the House to a few facts which would show the improvement which had taken place of late years in the condition of the Irish Church, and for this purpose he would compare together the circumstances of three different periods. In the first place, he would show what the state of the Church was at the period when agistment tithe was abolished, about one hundred years ago. At that period there were in Ireland 800 resident clergymen, 400 churches, and 150 glebe-houses. At the period of the union (in the year 1800) the number of resident clergymen had increased to 1,000, the number of churches to 689, and of glebe-houses to 300. At the present time the number of resident clergymen amounted to 2,000, being an increase of 1,000 since the period of the union; the number of churches amounted to 1,300, being an increase of 600 since the same period; and the number of glebe-houses had increased from 300, their amount at the time of the union, to 800, being an increase in 35 years of 600. Did that statement show that the heads of the Church at the present day in Ireland had neglected their duty? Did it show, that indisposition existed on their part to dissever unions, or to abolish pluralities? The improvement which it exhibited to have taken place in the Irish Church, was, in fact, almost incredible. [An hon. Member on the Ministerial side here called on the hon. Member to stale the number of the Protestant congregations in Ireland.] The hon. and learned Gentleman continued:—He was not prepared to say [cheers]. He advised hon. Gentlemen opposite to hear before they cheered. He was about to say, that he was not prepared to admit the perfect accuracy of the official Report on the Table. He had received a great number of letters from Ireland, complaining that justice was not done to the Protestant population in that country in the returns made, and he knew that other hon. Gentlemen had received similar communications. But the Report, such as it was, did contain some statements which demonstrated that a great improvement had taken place in the condition of the Protestant population of Ireland. Taking first the diocese of Ardfert, 999 because the learned Member for Dublin was best acquainted with that diocese, he found that in the two periods mentioned in the Report of 1831 and 1834, the state of the Protestant population in different parishes was as follows:—
With reference to the last-mentioned parish of Dingle, he would state a circumstance that ought to have some weight in that House. He was one of those who contended that a Church Establishment ought not to depend on the amount of the population which belonged to it. The principle on which a religion ought to be established in any country, was the principle that the State was bound to provide for the religious instruction of the people. He maintained that it was the bounden duty of a Christian State to make adequate provision for the instruction of the people in that religion which was deemed by the State to be the true religion. [Loud cheers from the Opposition.] He stated that opinion broadly. Hon. Gentlemen might dissent from it, but he had a right to maintain and express his own conviction. With respect to the clergy in Ireland, he repeated, that they were indefatigable in the performance of their duties, and that they were engaged in preaching the Gospel both in season and out of season. With respect to the parish of Dingle, he did happen to know that about two years ago, when a right hon. and learned Friend of his was engaged on the Munster circuit, it was visited by two clergymen of the Established Church. They preached to the people in their native tongue, in the market-house, which was completely filled by the concourse of people, in spite of the opposition of the Roman Catholic priests, and those who attended joined in prayer with the clergymen for a blessing on the instruction which had been imparted. What was the consequence of the zeal exhibited by these clergymen?—he found an increase in the number of Protestants in that parish in the short interval from 1831 to 1834. The hon. and learned Gentleman here stated, that the spread of the Protestant religion in Ireland had been greatly impeded at the time of its first introduction, by the appointment 1000 to benefices of men ignorant of the native language, and incapable fitly to discharge their important duties. A great change, however, had taken place in this respect—knowledge of the English language had spread, by means of education and other causes, and the result had been, an increase of the Protestant population in the various dioceses through Ireland from 1831 to 1834. The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the following statement of the Protestant population in various parishes in the dioceses of Kilmore, Meath, Armagh, Leighlin, and Tuam, extracted from the Report, being but a very few of the numerous cases which he had upon his paper:—
Parishes No. of Protestants. 1831 1834. Ballyhaigue 41 96 Castle Island, four parishes 252 294 Dromod 32 49 Kilcashan 129 164 Kilgobbin 87 102 Kilnaughten 531 562 Dingle 228 249 The parish of Ennismagrath was that of the celebrated Mr. Maguire, a champion of the Roman Catholics in resisting the progress of the Reformation. With regard to the parish of Achill, he would mention the system of persecution which had been put in practice against a Protestant Clergyman, who went there with the sanction of his diocesan, to endeavour to improve the temporal and spiritual condition of its neglected population. He established several schools in the parish, and spent upwards of 1,500l. in making improvements there, in founding a dispensary, and in providing the people with employment, food, and clothing. Yet he was denounced from the altar by the Roman Catholic priests; the children who went to his schools were attacked, and the clergyman himself was literally persecuted out of the island. He would now let the house hear the language in which the Roman Catholic Archbishop (Dr. Mac Hale) spoke of these meritorious exertions on behalf of this aimable Protestant clergyman:—"It is in that island (Achill) that the demon of fanaticism and religious rancour has fixed, as if his last resting place. Driven from the interior of the country, through the wise forbearance of its inhabitants, who are resolved at last to laugh at itinerant readers, and not to lend themselves to schemes of delusion, in order to prolong the lingering dominion 1001 of a falling establishment, that was so long the bane of the country, it takes up its citadel in the island of A chill, ere it utterly disappears from the land "[cheers]. What! was the meaning of those cheers? What did hon. Gentlemen mean that it was a proof of religious rancour to found schools for the education of the people, where none before existed? Was it the spirit of "religious rancour" which induced this benevolent person to expend large sums of money in providing his destitute fellow-creatures with food, clothing, and medicine, and furnishing them with the means of employment in that remote and destitute island? Was not the hon. Member for Middlesex warranted in saying, that he looked upon the present measure, not as all that was justly due, but only as an instalment of 3s.4d. Here was a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church avowing the doctrine that the Protestant Church was to be rooted out of the land. Could any reliance be placed upon the statement of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, who said he would he satisfied with the present measure, which he called a fair compromise, and said it would settle the Established Church in Ireland once and for ever? Could they take the hon. Member's statement for that, when they found a Roman Catholic prelate openly avowing that the object of the Roman Catholics was the utter eradication of the Protestant Establishment from the land? In whatever plausible manner the question might be wrapped up, nothing less than the existence of the Protestant religion in Ireland depended upon the issue of the Motion before the House. From what he had seen and heard in Ireland, he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind, no matter what might be said about a final settlement of the question once and for ever, that the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy, and a portion of the Roman Catholic laity, he would not say all, would be satisfied with nothing short of the utter demolition of the Protestant church. He did not state this for the purpose of blaming them; far from it. He should be sorry not to believe that the Roman Catholics were as fully convinced of the truth of the religion which they professed, as he was of that of the religion he professed; but in proportion as they were sincere and attached members of their own Church, in the very same proportion they were hostile to the Protestant religion, and desired to pull down tin Establishment. He, therefore, did not say that the Roman Catholic archbishop, in 1002 expressing a desire to pull down the Protestant Church, was blameable, but he appealed to the Members of the British House of Commons, and asked them whether they were prepared to join in the work of demolition? For his part, he believed that it was utterly impossible they would do so. What were the objects for which the Protestant Church was established in Ireland? The first great and paramount object was, in discharge of the bounden duty of the State, to provide for the preaching of the doctrines of the Reformed religion, the Gospel of eternal truth, to the whole body of the population; 2ndly and 3rdly, for great political purposes. He (Mr. Jackson) would repeat, for great, and, he would add, most sound and legitimate political purposes; for sound policy would be ever found coincident with sound religious and moral principle. The second and third, which might be called the political objects of introducing the Establishment, were the spread of civilization amongst the people of Ireland, and the securing of British connexion. Had not the Established Church successfully promoted all these important objects? Could it, with any degree of truth, be said to have failed? Had it, until very recent times indeed, received anything like a fair trial? Looking at the system of persecution with which it was now, and for some years past had been visited, could it be said even now to receive a fair trial? But, above all, could it be said to have failed of success during three centuries of trial by reason of the overgrown wealth which it possessed? Such had been the purposes for which the Protestant religion was established' in Ireland, and its continuance was made an express part of the Treaty of Union. He asked them as British senators, whether they were prepared to demolish the Irish Protestant Establishment in the teeth of the fifth article of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland? That Article was in the following terms: "That the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Episcopal Protestant Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, of the said United Church shall be, and remain in full force for ever as the same are now established by law for the Church of England, and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken 1003 to be an essential part of the Union." Were the Commons of England and Ireland prepared to violate that national compact, and to demolish the Protestant Establishment? If the Bill before the House should pass, the Legislature would abandon the only principle upon which a Church Establishment could be maintained. If the maintenance of an Establishment were to depend upon the amount of population professing the doctrines of the Established Church, then the great body of the people of Ireland being Roman Catholics, it was clear that if the principle was to be followed out, the Protestant Church must be pulled down, and, to go a step further, the Roman Catholic Church must be established in its place. Would the British House of Commons desert the Protestants of Ireland? How had the Protestant population of that country uniformly conducted themselves? Had they not always been the steady friends of the British connexions? had they not always hazarded their lives and property in defence of the country? had they not on all occasions, when the country was menaced with invasion and insurrection, come forward in support of the Government, the constitution, and the laws of the land? Would it become this country to desert the Protestants of Ireland now, and to assist in pulling down their Church? He implored hon. Members to weigh well what they were now called upon to do. He called upon English gentlemen to consider what would be the consequences affecting their own country and their laws, if they complied with the demand which Ministers now made upon them. They would find the destruction of their own Church involved in this violation of the sacred principle, and the security of all property shaken to the very centre. He implored the British senate to adopt the Motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; but, at all events, to beware, lest, in the vain hope of conciliating and satisfying those who would neither be satisfied nor conciliated, they would not only destroy the Protestant Church in Ireland, but bring swift and inevitable ruin on the most valuable institutions of the empire.
Parishes No. of Protestants. 1831 1834. Ennismagrath 454 483 Ballygarth 23 42 Carlow 1,409 1,755 Clonfert, West 1,021 1,121 St. Peter's 486 592 Borishoole 455 497 Abbey Strowny 210 246 St. Mary Standon 1,564 1,666 Achill 76 156
§ Viscount Morpethsaid, that as he had already had an opportunity of explaining the details of the measure and his own views respecting it, and as the Motion of the right hon. Baronet turned upon a point which, at the commencement of the Session, was discussed almost to the process of ex- 1004 haustion on which the right hon. Baronet dwelt so much, and distinctly and peremptorily decided by the House, he might naturally have considered himself discharged from the duty of addressing the House upon the present occasion; but there had been some things stated in the course of the present discussions in the character of the grossest misrepresentations. He did not mean to charge any one with having been guilty of intentional misrepresentation, but certainly erroneous statements had been made with respect to the provisions of the Bill, which authorised him to request the House to grant him its attention, whilst he made a few remarks to counteract the impression which those statements were calculated to produce. The first part of the yet undivided Bill, which, from what he gathered of the progress of the debate, was likely to continue undivided, related to Tithe-property. First, with respect to that part which referred to the settlement of the property in tithe. Many objections had been urged by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) against the provisions by which he intended to carry that settlement into effect; and he should almost say, that of the two divisions of the measure, the right hon. Baronet expressed himself with more caution and forbearance with respect to the great principle of appropriation involved in one of the provisions, while he directed most of his arguments and strictures against the principles involved in the other part of the Bill. He begged to say, with respect to the provisions of the Bill for the settlement of property in tithes, that there was not one of them which he should not be quite ready to have patiently and candidly discussed in the Committee. There was not one of them which was not brought forward on his part, and he was sure he might declare the same on the part of the Government also, with a sincere desire to secure and realize as much as could be secured and realized, to the existing clergy, and to the uses to which the Protestant Establishment should hereafter bequeath them, consistently with what was due to the other parties interested, and with some restrictions which were certainly imposed by the pressure of surrounding circumstances. But with respect to the mere details, any improvement that could be suggested which came within the path and not without the principles of the measure, he could at once assert would be most gladly acceded to. One of the points to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. 1005 Peel) directed some of his most marked censure—he did not think the right hon. Baronet meant to impute blame in this respect to him and those with whom he acted—was, that they diminished by three-tenths the existing tithes. Indeed, it would not have been very consistent in the right hon. Baronet to have charged blame upon them here, considering that it was to a larger amount that he was himself prepared to make a reduction. But one of the points on which the right hon. Baronet dwelt much was, the proposed mode of taking the averages; and really from the tenour of the observations which the right hon. Baronet addressed to them on this part of the subject, the House might have been tempted to think that the present rate was permanently fixed upon them. Now what was the fact? By the first Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), he believed the amount of the composition was to continue the same for three years, and after to vary on an average of the three years preceding. By a subsequent Bill the amount was to continue according to the decision of the vestry, either for seven or fourteen years, or if they thought fit for twenty-one years, the variation depending on the average of the seven years preceding. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet did not interfere with those compositions established for twenty-one years; but in all other cases it prescribed a change. Now if any other plan were proposed by which the averages could be taken, on which the Composition of Tithes were founded, he should be ready to listen to it; but he must say; that it did seem to him that the clergy would be even worse off under the provisions of the former Acts than they would be under this Bill; for at the end of seven years these compositions were subject to a variation on the average of the seven years preceding, and it might happen that the whole of the past seven years would give an unfavourable average; whereas, under the present Bill, if in any one year prices rose, the clergy would be entitled to some benefit from such a rise. Then the right hon. Baronet adverted with some severity to their proposal for opening the Tithe Compositions, but at the same time he candidly released them from much of their responsibility by conceding that some such provision was absolutely called for, in order to prevent the cases of fraud that might arise. Now it was only in cases of fraud, or where grievous injustice 1006 had been suffered, that the House was called on to consent to the opening of the composition. From the statement of the right hon. Baronet, the House would be led to conclude that the opening of the compositions would be compulsory. Such, however, was not the case. The compositions were not to be opened except under certain restrictions imposed by the Bill. The right hon. Baronet also seemed to be apprehensive that the cost of the revision must in all cases come out of the pockets of the clergy, whereas the Bill provided that if upon the revision the composition should not be reduced one-seventh of the whole, the expense should fall upon the owners and occupiers of the land. Under these circumstances the owners and occupiers of land had quite as good a chance as the clergy of paying for the expense of re-opening the compositions, including the cost of the barouche-and-four upon which the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to lay so much stress. It should also be remarked that the expense on re-opening the compositions was not a permanent charge, but would occur only once, and could be borne only by those clergy who were to obtain an additional grant on the amount of composition which was to be charged on the perpetuity purchase fund. Having mentioned the perpetuity purchase fund, he must say, that the right hon. Baronet was not entitled to complain of his invasion of it, inasmuch as it could be clearly demonstrated that the invasion meditated by the right hon. Baronet, the late Secretary for Ireland (Sir Henry Hardinge) would have effected it to a far greater degree. The right hon. Baronet had represented the receipts of the perpetuity purchase fund to be 55,000l., and the expenditure to be 88,000l.; but he had the satisfaction to inform the House that he had received a statement from Ireland, from which it appeared that the receipts amounted now to 83,521l., and the amount expected to be received, within six months, from the 1st of July, was 47,000l. The amount of purchases completed was 196,000l., and those in which tenants had refused to purchase amounted to 23,000l. He would now pass to that part of the Bill which related to a different appropriation of the Ecclesiastical revenues, which in fact he felt to be the main point in issue. An objection had been made to the Bill by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, which, if founded in fact, would have weighed materially in his mind against it. 1007 His right hon. Friend represented that the Bill would he a virtual repeal of the Church Temporalities' Act, in consequence of the great diminution which it would cause in the funds placed at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ecclesiastical purposes. His right hon. Friend opened three batteries upon this part of the Bill, if he might be allowed to borrow a metaphor from the opposite camp. First, his right hon. Friend said, it would repeal that Bill by carrying the fund, which arose from the suspension of the appointment of clerks to livings (in which there had not been divine service for three years preceding February, 1833) to the purposes of the Reserve Fund, and not to the general fund of the Commissioners. Secondly, the funds arising out of tithes, without cure, appropriated to dignities and prebends were, under the Church Temporalities' Act, to be applied, in the first instance, to the augmentation of small livings, and failing this, to go to the general fund of the Commissioners, to be applied to strictly Ecclesiastical purposes, for the building and repair of churches; these funds, also, under the present Bill, were to be converted into one of the feeders of the Reserve Fund. Thirdly, the funds arising from the sale of the perpetuities were under the Church Act to be applied to the augmentation of small livings, and building glebe-houses; but under the present Bill it would be charged with a tax of 5l. per cent.—and therefore the right hon. Baronet said, he was justified in saying that this Bill effectually destroyed the enactments of the Church Temporalities' Act. With respect to the first, it would be desirable in the first place to ascertain what was the estimated amount of the sums to arise from these suspended benefices. Lord Grey, in the introduction of the Church Temporalities Bill into the House of Lords, in 1833, stated that there would be about sixty-six benefices that would come under the operation and effect of the suspension Clause; the gross revenue of which, though not stated by Lord Grey, was estimated to amount to 6,600l.; and the provisions contemplated by the present Bill, of carrying the disappropriated tithes of dignities and prebends (of which he would speak hereafter) to the general fund of the Commissioners would cover any deficiency of income that might arise by carrying the funds of any suspended benefices, in which there were less than fifty Protestants, to the Reserve Fund. With 1008 respect to the second:—the funds arising from tithes, without cure, appropriated to dignities and prebends, these funds would form no portion whatever of the Reserve Fund; neither would the income arising from them, included in the income of the 860 parishes enumerated by him on a former occasion. That was only a return of the incomes of such parishes, or parts thereof as constituted parochial benefices. Now the dignities and prebends referred to, were, in some cases, either complete sinecures, without any parochial duties annexed to them, as in the case of the deaneries of Dromore, Tuam, and Clonfert, the precentorships of St. Patrick's, St. Canice, Waterford, and others; or these dignities and prebends consisted partly of parishes with parochial duties annexed, and partly of tithes of other parishes, without any parochial duties annexed—as, for example, the deaneries of Ferns, Limerick, and Killaloe, the treasurership of Lismore, the prebends of Kilbrogan, Dromdaleague, and many others. Now let them see what will be the operation and effect of the Church Temporalities' Act, and the Act of last Session, in regard to these dignities and prebends, and what the operation and effect of them, as regarded the present Bill. There could be no doubt but if the dignity or prebend were a complete sinecure, it would be competent for the Lord-lieutenant and Council to suspend it altogether, and to direct that the funds therefrom arising be carried to the general fund of the Commissioners for the building and repair of Churches, or the augmentation of small livings, as the Commissioners might see fit, under the Bill of last Session. In the case of the deanery of Dromore, which consists of the rectorial tithes of seven parishes, amounting to 1,491l. 19s., without any cure of souls annexed, this being a complete sinecure, and all others like it, the fruits of them would be carried to the general fund of the Commissioners. And now let them see the effect of these measures in regard to a dignity or prebend, which consisted partly of a parochial benefice, and partly of rectorial tithes appropriated thereto, without any cure annexed to these rectorial tithes. Take the case of the deanery of Ferns; the corps of it consists of three benefices, and the rectorial tithes of Maglass parish, without cure, the vicarage of Maglass, to which the cure of souls was annexed, forming part of Killinick union; this being the case, when the deanery became vacant, it being a 1009 dignity, it would be still competent for the Lord-lieutenant and Council to give the rectorial tithes of Maglass parish to the Vicar of Maglass, under the Church Temporalities' Act if they considered the Vicar insufficiently endowed; but if the vicarage or parish of Maglass should contain less than fifty Protestants, and if the appointment to the vicarage should, on this account, be suspended, then there had been due care and foresight exercised in the framing of the present Bill, by enabling the Lord-lieutenant and Council to direct that these disappropriated tithes should be carried to the general fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the building and repair of churches and augmentation of small livings; a power which did not exist before; so that instead of the general fund in the hands of the Commissioners being at all diminished or reduced, it would actually be extended and increased for the very purpose of building churches and augmenting livings, if the Commissioners saw fit. Thirdly, and with regard to the perpetuity purchase fund, the income arising from it would not, eventually, under this Bill, be diverted from any of the purposes, to which it was eventually intended it should have been made applicable, under Lord Grey's Church Temporalities' Bill; additional inducements to realise this fund within a limited period of two years, were held out to the tenants, and supposing that the income estimated to arise from the sale of these perpetuities, should be realized within the two years, or the interest of the capital, should at all events be realized (because the tenants would be allowed to borrow money at 3½ per cent., and mortgage their estates, paying to the Commissioners 3½ per cent., until the principal was liquidated), what would be the effect of the whole arrangement? Why the interest of the monies realized in this way would be 42,000l. during the lives of the present incumbents of benefices. This 42,000l. would be charged with an annuity of 28,000l. a year, to uphold the incomes of the existing incumbents to 75l. in every 100l. worth of compositions; the difference between the 28,000l., and 42,000l., or 14,000l. a year, would be made immediately available to the general purposes to which the general fund of the Commissioners is applicable; and on the expiration of the lives of the existing incumbents, the whole of the 42,000l. would remain to be made applicable to the same purposes as originally contemplated by Lord Grey—namely, the augmentation of small livings, and the 1010 building and repair of churches and glebe-houses. It was clear, then, that the present Bill did not interfere with, much less repeal, the provisions of the Church Temporalities' Bill, as contended for by the right hon. Baronet. He felt, that the great difficulty under which the argument on his side of the House laboured was, to answer the questions that had been addressed to them, as to whether they would have an available surplus after supplying all the imaginable Ecclesiastical purposes to which the Church revenues could be directed. He did not, however, shrink from that difficulty. He admitted at once, that in one point of view there were many things which had been advanced by the opposite side of the House, which they might find it hard to answer. He thought, that many of the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be irresistible, if it were not for the fact, that they were legislating for a country the members of the Established Church in which ranged between 800,000 and 900,000 people, while the numbers of the Dissenters included 7,000,000. He would admit, that if it were not for the views suggested by that disproportion of numbers, a more improved mode of distributing the Church revenues than that proposed by the Bill, might be found. For instance, they might be applied to improve the thirty livings in Armagh to which the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had alluded, or to provide spiritual instruction in parishes, in which there was at present no cure of souls. But the object being to effect a new and final settlement of the question, or what he and those who acted with him thought might have some chance of being a final settlement of it,—if this opportunity should be lost, he apprehended it never would be finally settled. The Legislature was called upon to show, that the immense preponderance of Dissenters over those who conformed to the religion of the State was not entirely overlooked in the new settlement of property strictly national. It was not proposed, that the spiritual wants of the dissenting majority should be provided for; it was not proposed, that their ministers should be paid either with 5l. or a crust of bread: it was not proposed that their chapels and churches should be built, not with 100l., or 15l. a year, but with a single farthing on a plank of timber duty free; but it was thought right that it should be shown that their very existence on the soil of their birth and 1011 of their ancestors was not entirely forgotten. Really, when he witnessed the zeal of hon. Members on the other side of the House—he begged pardon of his right hon. friend, the Member for Cumberland, he ought rather to say, the tolerance—when he heard them assume a high tone in talking of the invasion of the rights of the Church, and the desecration of things holy, he could not help asking the question whether, if in England, by the right of conquest, or the force of prescription, a different religion, he would not say the Roman Catholic, for to that there were political as well as religious objections, but the form of doctrine usually termed the Unitarian, had become the religion of the state, whether the opposition to the payment of its dues would not have outrun the great dispute in the Court of Chancery on the subject of Lady Hewley's charity? If hon. Members would but sometimes put themselves in the place of other persons, he thought there would be a difference in their conduct. He was sure there would be more charity in their language. The hon. and learned Member, who last addressed the House said, that the State was bound to support the religion which was founded in truth. That principle would impose upon those who dissented from it the duty of eternal opposition, And, after all, who was to decide what was the truth? Was knowledge upon that point to be obtained from the fallible lips of the hon. and learned Member, or from the equally fallible lips of himself? No; the only intelligible ground on which an established religion could rest was, on its being the opinion of the majority—the opinion of the majority exceeding in number those who profess any other faith. The present state of Ireland, he admitted—indeed he never had disguised it—would not allow them to carry that principle into effect; past prescription, and present circumstances prevented it. In consequence of that state of things, he asked this House to sanction what had been fairly and justly described as a compromise. He knew, that use might be made, and had been made, by the right hon. Baronet, of an argument on the possible contingency of the inhabitants of a sequestered or reduced parish being sufficiently provided with that education, and, consequently, of the funds arising from that parish being transferred to some more remote locality, to be there used; it being inferred, that some umbrage might be felt at the transfer or withdrawal of that in- 1012 come which might perhaps be supposed to be vested in the soil. He admitted, that if that were to be the general course of procedure—if it were to be the general rule, that a parish should lose all benefit in the revenues drawn from it, there would be considerable force in the objection, though it would be balanced, and in his opinion more than balanced, by the expediency of tying down the whole income within the parish boundary. On that head his opinion was fortified and sustained by admissions made by the right hon. Baronet in the speech which he made on introducing his present Motion, and on previous occasions, and by the steps which he in common with the other Members of the commission of which he was the originator, had been prepared to take with respect to the English Church, in furtherance of such a distribution of Ecclesiastical revenues, limitted, he admitted, to Ecclesiastical uses, as on due inquiry might seem to be for the general good of the Church. True, indeed, the general good of the Church might be consulted, but the hardship to the individual parish in such transfer or withdrawal would remain the same. He understood, that the right hon. Baronet was prepared to make no objection to the transfer of any admitted superfluities from a notorious sinecure benefice in the county of Kerry or of Cork, for the remuneration of a hard working under-paid one in Down or Armagh; or, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Cambridge, "to transfer the thinness of Waterford to the richness of Clogher." He understood the right hon. Baronet to consider, that instead of attaching revenues to the soil to which they belonged, it would be better, that they should be assigned to purposes for which they might be most needed in that particular district, but for which some share might be desirable for their fellow countrymen in other districts. In that the right hon. Baronet consented to redistribute for the benefit of a section, "while we," added the noble Lord, "seek to re-appropriate for the benefit of all." He would confess, whatever might be the credit which he should gain by the assertion, that it was always with reluctance, that he entered into the extreme case which he thought might be made out against the present dimensions of the Irish Church. It was useless for the supporters and advocates of that Church to put on such a bold front, and to send forth such loud shouts of defiance, both within and without 1013 those walls; yet it was no matter of surprise to him that an attempt was made on the opposite side to defend the ground which they took up. They had heard various statements made in the course of the evening respecting the present amount of revenues disposable for Church uses in Ireland. It struck him, that nothing was more idle and futile than to quarrel on that point—inasmuch as they had it attested on the best authority, on documents that could not err. He was prepared to go through the different items, placing the most perfect reliance on the information furnished throughout. He could venture to state the present gross revenues disposable for Church uses in Ireland, at 807,533t., and the present net income at 744,926l. He deducted from that three-tenths of the present amount of tithe composition, or 166,500l., and then sixpence in the pound on that reduced amount, or 9,700l.; for he could not consent to take into account any further loss of the clergy arising from the expenses, or the results of the revision of tithes. The expenses, at all events, could only apply to one year, and surely the income of the Church had been unjustly raised hitherto; he could not suppose, that
1014 it would be materially diminished by any revision; he had no reason to calculate on a continued depression of the price of corn, for that might rise as well as fall. After making, then, the deductions which he had stated, excluding every result which attended the revision of the tithe composition, the sum at the disposal of the Church in Ireland would then be 568,726l. He would read a statement of the items composing the income, and he would commence with the "annual revenue of the continuing and suppressed Bishoprics" [Hear, hear!]. Where was his mistake? He was giving a statement of the property to be applied to the uses of the Church; and he had no reason to exclude the incomes of the sees suppressed by the Church Temporalities' Act, because he had not yet understood that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) in that measure of his had alienated these revenues, or any part of the property of the Church in Ireland. Surely, then, no objection could fairly be taken to his including the revenues of the suppressed sees in the income of the Church. The noble Lord then read the following statement of the items of the income:— 1015
I. CORPORATIONS—SOLE. 1. The annual revenue of the continuing and suppressed Sees appears, by the Report of the Ecclesiastical Revenue Commissioners, to amount to (see 1st Report, pages 42, 43) .. .. .. Gross. Net. £151,127 12 4 or £128,808 8 3 N. B. The principal sources of this revenue arise from rents reserved by lease and annual renewal of fines; but the true amount of Episcopal revenue is even greater than is above stated, as it appears, from the Commissioners' Report, that there are 213 tenants under the Sees holding for terms of 21 years, whose annual renewal fines are not included. 2. The income arising from glebe lands amounts, annually to .. .. 92,000 0 0 80,000 0 0 Deducting serve rents and expenses of collection. 3. The income arising from ministers' money, amounts annually to .. .. 10,000 0 0 9,500 0 0 Deducting 5l. per cent for collection. 4. The income arising from Ecclesiastical Tithe Compositions is .. £555,000 0 0 of which there belongs to Archbishops and Bishops, and to corporations aggregate, held either in their own hands, or let to tenants at reserved rents 23,218 5 5 531,781 17 7 505,192 12 10 deducting 5l. per cent for collection. £784,909 6 11 £723,496 1 1 * The difference between this sum and £45,000, the gross amount of tithe compositions belonging to these corporations, is enjoyed at present by their lessees under existing leases. To this account was to be added the item of 5,500l., being the amount of rents received in houses and lands, and of annual renewal fines payable to dignitaries and prebendaries as such. Now since that income had been allotted to the uses of the Church, he would inquire, in order to put it to the test of its working—to the test of its utility, and of all on which its desirableness as an Establishment was founded, and in which alone it could be justified—what had been the result with reference to the growth of the conforming and the dissenting population? His noble Friend the Member for Northumberland (Lord Howick) in Ms most able speech of the previous night, had quoted the proportions which had obtained at different times between the Catholic and Protestant population throughout Ireland; he had those proportions at various periods drawn out in detail, and if the House desired, he would read a statement of them. ["Read! read!"]—He found that Sir William Petty, in the reign of Charles the 2nd, calculated the proportion of Protestants to Catholics as three to eight. Maule, Bishop of Dromore, in 1733, estimated it to be three to seven and a-half; in the Hearth-money returns of 1732–33, it was taken at three to eight; and in the Hibernia Dominicana, which was compiled by a Roman Catholic prelate, Bishop Burke, who was not very likely voluntarily to depreciate the numbers of the Roman Catholics, the proportion was calculated to be three to five and three-quarters. The present proportion was three to twelve and three-quarters. He would here observe, in reference to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed the House, as to how deficient were the means of the Irish Church, how impoverished it was in the times of Sir John Hayes and Primate Boulter, that it appeared that in those times the numerical proportion of its members to those of the Catholic Church were so much the greater; so that if anything were to be collected from his argument it was this, that a church which he considered to be under paid was precisely that which was most successful in increasing 1016 the number of those over whom its influence extended. If, however, the general returns which he had read were not sufficiently satisfactory, he would refer to those which were given by Wakefield, and which had been furnished by the clergy themselves in the separate dioceses, in 1766, and compare them with the state of things at present existing. The noble Lord then read the following statement of the proportions of Protestants to Catholics in the several dioceses at the two periods of 1766 and 1834:—
II. CORPORATIONS—AGGREGATE. 1. The income belonging to Beans and Chapters, as a common estate, amounts to 1,042 11 5 928 0 2 2. The income arising from economy estates, and belonging to Deans and Chapters, is .. 11,055 14 7 10,502 18 10 3. The income arising from estates of Minor Canons and Vicars Choral, is .. 10,525 19 5 9,999 13 6 £807,533 12 4 £744,926 13 7 But during the whole of the period which had elapsed in the interval, had the supplies of the Church remained stationary? had they languished? had there been no "feeders" to it, to use again the term which had so forcibly rivetted itself in the memory of the right hon. Baronet from the time that he (Lord Morpeth) had employed it in a speech which he had formerly addressed to the House. It had been stated, he believed by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that for churches built by Parliamentary aid since 1800, the country had paid 415,185l. For those which had been built in the eighteenth century, 61,580l. had been paid. Of glebe-houses 480 had been built since 1800 at a cost of 336,881l.; in the eighteenth century 163 had been built at a cost of 16,775l. Glebe-lands had been purchased within fifty years at a cost of 61,487l.; so that a sum of 920,900l. had been applied in the eighteenth century and since 1800 to the service of the Church, in addition to its annual income. What, then, was the state 1017 of things which these facts presented? Why that of a constantly increasing Church-property, with a progressively diminishing Church population. With such a state of things existing, he could hardly dread the title of spoliation as applied to him in his attempt to remedy it; and he must confess that he did not consider it as an objection to the measure which the Government had brought forward, that it did effect a great change. Of course, if he did not think that change to be at the same time an improvement, he should not support it, nor recommend it; but the mere circumstance of its being a considerable alteration in no way inspired him with any distaste towards it. From the calculations which he had submitted to the House, it was evident that it could not be said of the Irish Church, as had been said of our ancient Parliamentary system of representation, that it had "worked well;" nothing, indeed, according to his view, could have worked worse; for it had worked badly for its own popularity and its own diffusion; and it had worked still worse for that general spirit of religious dissension and discord for which he would not say that it was, indeed he knew it was not, answerable, but in which it was involved, and which, of all the evils that distracted. Ireland, appeared to him to be the gravest and most fatal. He would remind the House of the peculiarities of the Irish national character. Frank, gay, and warm-hearted, they were, when their feelings were enlisted in any cause, with but few exceptions, found to verify the saying, that "he came not to send peace, but a sword." He admitted that the responsibility of this state of things was common to both parties; but that did not diminish the duty of the Legislature to do away with the cause of this continued mutual hostility. Viewing as he did the anomalies of the Church Establishment in Ireland, he was not sorry that they, who were both Protestants and Churchmen, had thrown themselves forward in an endeavour to remove them. The portion of the Bill which referred to a different appropriation of Church-property, divided itself very much into the effect of the suspending clauses in the single parishes, and their effect in unions; and first, with respect to unions. When he had introduced this measure, nothing had been more ridiculed than the proposal for the suspension of ministers in certain parishes, and the assignment of 5l. per parish to neighbouring incumbents to take charge of them. His 1018 noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire had expressed his very courteous astonishment at the boldness of the measure which he had been instrumental in introducing to the House. The House were by that time aware of what had been already done under the operation of the Act which his noble Friend had himself introduced, which he had sustained with ill his ardour, and defended with all his eloquence. By the instrumentality of the Commissioners appointed under that Act, consisting of two archbishops, four bishops, and five laymen of the Church of England, all of them appointed with his noble Friend's full concurrence, if not directly by him, he found that actually within two short years, there had been eight benefices suspended under the operation of its provisions. It was true, as they had been reminded by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that, the revenues had not been appropriated to other than ecclesiastical purposes, and the spiritual wants of the parishes had been first provided for. But let the House see at what cost that had been done. He knew well how greatly he differed from the noble Lord, and how greatly the House too differed from the noble Lord on the general question of appropriation; the Resolution of April last was convincing on that point, and he confessed that, with all his exalted and unfeigned respect for the very high abilities and the not less high and shining character of his noble Friend, after having once heard him declare, in his place in Parliament, in so many plain words, and with a grave face, that if every Protestant were swept from the face of the land, not even in that case was he prepared to depart from his principle of non-appropriation, he must own that all hope of realising that object of his ambition, an agreement with his noble Friend, had departed from him. In the Bill before them, the sequestration or suspension of parishes was limited to places in which the number of Protestants was under fifty; but his noble Friend wished for no such limitation in his suspending machinery. He found, by a Return laid before that House, that one of the eight benefices which had been suspended under the noble Lord's measure, Erry Rectory, in the diocese of Cashel and the county of Tipperary, contained no fewer than fifty-three Protestants. Here, however, he must own that his own Return rather failed him, for in that he found the Protestant population of the benefice of Liscleary, in the county and diocese of Cork, 1019 to be set down at thirty. He looked at the Return of the Public Instruction Commissioners, and found it there set down at eighty-three; and he accordingly began to suspect that a case of partiality was thus made out against those Commissioners, though in the opposite direction to that in which it was imputed to them by Gentlemen on the other side. Observing, however, that the number of members of the Established Church in Liscleary was returned as amounting to eighty-six in 1831, and to eighty-nine in 1834; and that this Return was confirmed by the statements given of the entire population of the diocese, that in the return which he now possessed giving the number 1,410, whereas, in the Return of 1821, 2,807, and in that of 1834, 2,909 were respectively given, he thought that it must be obvious, that the Bishop who forwarded the Return referring to the present period, had computed the number of families instead of the number of heads in the Protestant population of the parish. At all events, if the Return of the Public Instruction Commissioners were correct, an appointment to a church had been suspended under the Act of his noble Friend, in a parish containing eighty-three members of the Church Establishment. Then as to the 5l. stipend, the announcement of which, when first made to the House, was received in so marked a manner, it now turned out, that however well calculated that proposal might have been to excite amusement, it could not lay claim to the charm of novelty; for it appeared, by the same Return which announced the suspension of eight benefices under his noble Friend's Act, that for one of them, the benefice of Carne, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under his noble Friend's Act had assigned a stipend of 4l. to the incumbent of the neighbouring parish. It should be borne in mind, that the Bill before them offered 5l. when there was neither church, nor glebe-house, nor flock, nor duty. For Seskenan vicarage, containing from twenty to forty members of the Established Church, they had assigned 5l. as the payment to be given to the neighbouring incumbents; in that of Killteynan rectory, where the number of Protestants of the Established Church was fourteen, they had also assigned 5l., and the same amount for Dunbyn rectory, as well as for Erry rectory, in which the number was fifty-three. There was another instance not mentioned in the Return, but to be found in the Report of the Public Instruction Commissioners, of a benefice in the 1020 province of Leinster, in which 4l. had been assigned to the rector of an adjoining benefice. He now came to the change which the measure effected in unions, a subject more complicated and difficult. The circumstances of these unions were so very various, were involved in so much difficulty, in respect both of the number of their population and their existing condition, that he thought it would be impossible to deal justly with the clergy who were to fill the benefices which they composed, with the Protestant flocks who were to be found within them, and with the public whose interests the House was bound to consult, if it did not vest somewhere—and if it vested it any where, surely it ought to vest it in the most high responsible quarter-that very large discretion to which his hon. Friend the Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) had in his most impressive speech, made some allusion, but which the right hon. Baronet had entirely overlooked. In his opinion, the effect of the 77th Clause of this Bill must be, in the apprehension of every man who gave it a fair consideration, to leave it at the discretion of the Lord-lieutenant and his Council to take into consideration all the circumstances of the unions, and to deduct from them only such sums as they might think proper—of course, if they thought proper, deducting nothing at all. The right hon. Baronet had said, that he had before him forty cases illustrating the effect of the measure in reference to unions. The right hon. Baronet selected, however, only three, and he, no doubt, selected them with his usual tact and discretion. The first was the union of Dundalk. What was the case of this union, and what the recommendation of the Commissioners respecting unions of parishes in regard to it. The tithes of Dundalk consisted only of 17l. 16s. 8d., and the value of the glebe land, which the right hon. Baronet omitted, but which was not material, was reported to be 68l. 5s.; the tithes of Castletown, with which it is united, were compounded for 200l. 6s. 5d., and constituted the greater part of the revenue; and Dundalk, the county town, did contain 1,555 Protestants, while Castletown only contained fourteen. But what did the Commissioners recommend respecting it? viz., "that the Lord Primate states that this union will cease on the next avoidance, and that it is not intended to be renewed; and the Commissioners state that they agree in opinion with his Grace that a revival of this union is not desirable." And 1021 who were the sacrilegious persons who made this recommendation? They were the most reverend the Archbishop of Armagh the Primate of all Ireland, the right reverend the Bishops of Down and Connor, and the Bishop of Cloyne, besides the Lord-lieutenant, the Master of the Rolls, Dr. Radcliffe, and John Henry Forster. The next union cited by the right hon. Baronet was Collon Union. What, too, did these Commissioners recommend in the case of Collon Union? Why the very same Commissioners stated that the continuance of the union between Collon and Moston appeared necessary, but they considered a partial dissolution of the union practicable and advisable, by separating the parish of Dromyn from the union, and with this view they recommended a church and glebe-house to be erected in Dromyn. The third union to which the right hon. Baronet referred was Kilgarriffe, which consisted of three parishes, and would according to him be left with only an income of 357l. for the support of two clergymen. But he found on inquiry that these two clergymen were all the time only one man, who held the two-fold situation of vicar of the parish, and prebendary of the parish of Island, held in union with this vicarage, and whose duty as prebendary appeared, by the Report of the Commissioners on deans and chapters' property, to be to preach five times in the year in the cathedral church. Before he had heard the statements of the right hon. Baronet, he had himself, wishing to see how far it was proper to vest so large a discretion in the hands of the Irish Government, taken two cases—and the first two, which he found in the same volume as that containing the Returns relative to the unions, both of the same class, and one of them being that of an union, all the parishes of which would come under the suspending portion of the Bill.
1766. 1834. Armagh 1 1¼ 1 1¾ Deny 1 0⅔ 1 11/5 Down and Connor 10 2⅔ 10 4 Dromore 10 6 10 7 Raphoe 1 11/5 1 2¾ Kildare 1 3½ 1 8¼ Kilmore, Ardagh 1 4¾ 1 6 Cashel 1 9 1 30 Cork and Ross 1 5 1 9 Cloyne 1 8 1 23 Elphin 1 10 1 18 Killaloe 1 9 1 182 Killaloe 1 6 1 8¼ Tuam 1 9 1 46
Lord Stanley,interrupting the noble Lord, handed across the Table to him a volume containing some report, said if the noble Lord would read the particular passage he pointed out, the noble Lord would find that he was incorrect.
§ Viscount Morpethdid not see how the passage bore upon his statement. He had not seen anything to disprove what he had stated. His authority, it was true, might have deceived him; but until it was proved to have done so, he should continue to entertain the most undoubting conviction of the truth of these allegations which he had made. He was alluding, when he received 1022 the interruption from his noble Friend, to two cases of unions, the first which had come under his notice in the Report. He wished to call the attention of the House to all the parishes comprised in these unions which came under the suspending Clauses of the Bill as not containing fifty members of the Establishment, as well as the other parishes belonging to them, the inhabitants of which varied in number. The numbers of the members of the Established Church in the two unions to which he referred, with the numbers of parishes which belonged to them, and the Protestants residing in them, were as follow:
With regard to the latter union, in which the number of Protestants was four, and the amount of tithe composition 270l., he did not hesitate to say that such a case should be summarily dealt with; but with respect to the first of these unions, in which the total number of Protestants was 196, and the tithe composition amounted to 1,044l., he thought that it presented quite a fit subject for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Lord-lieutenant, in order that they might see whether some reasonable arrangement might not be come to, by which a due amount of remuneration would still be reserved to those who performed the duties in the unsuspended parishes of Knocktopher and Anghavilla, whilst a more suitable appropriation might be effected with respect to this union, than that by which the sum of 1,044l. was expended for the purpose of providing for the spiritual wants of 196 Protestants. A considerable impression was made on the House on a previous night, by the statement of the number of parishes in Ireland, which it was proposed, under the Bill, to suspend or sequester; but although the appointment of clerks to many parishes 1023 would be suspended under the provisions of the Bill, yet the appointment of clerks to the benefice of which these parishes might at present form part, would not, necessarily, be thereby suspended; and some pains had been taken to ascertain the effect of the Bill with this view, in regard, not to the parishes, but the benefices, in the following dioceses; which would be as much affected, if not more, by the provisions of the Bill as any other diocese, excepting those of Meath and Cashel. The first was the diocese of Waterford, which had been materially relied on by an hon. Member who spoke last night. This diocese at present consisted of thirteen benefices, consisting of thirty-two parishes. The appointment of clerks to six of these benefices might, by the Bill, be suspended; but of these six benefices, one was a complete sinecure, and in two others there were not any Protestants; and in the remaining three benefices, one only contained five Protestants, another fourteen, and another nineteen Protestants; and all these six benefices were, at the present moment, without either a church, glebe-house, or resident minister in one of them. But the appointment of clerks to the remaining seven benefices in this diocese would not be affected, the income of four of them would remain whole and untouched by the Bill, although that of the remaining three might be modified in part, inasmuch as they consisted of unions of parishes, in some of which it did not appear that there were any Protestants. He would next refer to the Lismore diocese. Out of forty-two benefices at present existing in this diocese, consisting of seventy-four parishes, as appeared by the Report of the Instruction Commissioners, only ten benefices would be left without a separate and individual minister, in consequence of these benefices being, at the present time, without either a church, glebe-house, or resident minister in any of these benefices, except two, in which a minister resided, to attend to the occasional duties, although there was neither church nor glebe-house in these two benefices. And what was the state of these ten benefices in regard to their Protestants congregations? One benefice was without any Protestants; four benefices with less than ten; two benefices with twelve in each; and three benefices with Protestant congregations, varying from twenty-two in the lowest, to thirty-one in the highest. It was true that the appointment of clerks to fifteen more benefices would be suspended; 1024 but then in each of these benefices a separate curate must be established (as there was either a church or glebe-house in each of them) at an income, if the Commissioners see fit, of 100l. in tithes, 25l. in glebe, and the use of the glebe-house, if the curate will only keep it in repair; and what was the state of the Protestant congregation in these fifteen benefices, some of them consisting of an union of two or three parishes? In three of these benefices the Protestant congregation was less than twenty persons; in three more, less than thirty; in three more, less than forty; in one less than fifty; in one, less than sixty; in two, less than seventy; in one, less than eighty; and in the last, which is an union of three parishes, the Protestant congregation consisted only of ninety-four persons. So that in three benefices, which contained less than twenty persons, the curate, if he were assigned 100l., would be paid at the rate of 5l. a-piece for each Protestant; at the rate of 25l. for each family, there being only four Protestant families resident in those benefices. The last was Cloyne diocese. Out of eighty-three benefices in this diocese, consisting of 120 parishes, only twenty-one benefices would be left without a separate and individual clergyman; the state of the Protestant congregations in which, was as follows: eight of these twenty-one benefices were without any Protestants; eleven more were without, at this moment, either a church, glebe-house, or resident minister, and in not one of these eleven did the Protestant congregation exceed twenty-seven persons; in many of them it did not amount to anything like twenty-seven persons; one of these benefices contained only one Protestant; and although the appointment of clerks to thirteen other benefices in the diocese might be suspended, yet in each of these cases a separate curate must be appointed, as there was in each of them either a church or glebe-house, although in six of these benefices the Protestant congregation did not exceed twenty persons; in two, not more than thirty; in three, not more than forty; in one, sixty; and in another it was seventy-eight: leaving forty-nine benefices in this diocese, in which no suspension of the appointment of a clerk would take place; and that too in a diocese which will be as much affected by the Bill as almost any other. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had dwelt the other night at considerable length on this part of the Question; but 1025 he did not hesitate to follow his example, for it was only by the different Members of the Government addressing themselves to the immense mass of details by which this Question was surrounded, that the case could be fairly and adequately presented to the House. In this diocese of Cloyne to which he had last referred, he found that in itself the following was the number of the Protestants and the amount of tithe composition, in the following parishes of that diocese:—
First Union Members of Ch. Estab. Tithe Comp. Knoctopher 99 £175 Anghavilla 61 200 Dunnemaggin 10 200 Kilkeasy 12 185 Derryraberry 14 325 Killana 0 34 Killcreddy 0 0 Killkervill 0 25 Protestants 196 1,044 The whole population 7,507 Second Union. Paleroan 4 150 Portnascully 0 75 Illud 0 45 Protestants 4 270 Population 2,913 The value of tithe composition in the diocese of Cloyne of sixty-eight parishes, with less than fifty Protestants, was 15,263l. and the total of the tithe composition in the same diocese was 43,369l. For the cure of a flock (said the noble Lord) commend me to the pastorship of Cloyne. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth calculated, in the speech in which he introduced his Motion to the House, the number of benefices in Ireland to be 1,385. Now he admitted, that there were, in strict legal terms, 1,385 benefices in Ireland; but what was the state of many of these benefices? There were of sinecure benefices about sixty, others of them consisted of prebends or dignities of, or belonging to, cathedral Churches, with no other duties annexed but that of preaching five or six times in the year in the Cathedral Churches, as would appear by the second Report of the Revenue Commissioners relating to Deans and Chapters. But the number of parochial benefices in Ireland could not be reckoned at more than 1,250. And of the total number of 1,385, there were 264 benefices, in which the appointment of clerk would be suspended by this Bill, and in every instance where there was a Church or glebe-house, a separate curate would be appointed for each individual benefice, at an income, it may be, from tithes and glebe of 125l. with the use of the glebe-house, if he only kept it in repair. Now this reduced the existing number of parochial benefices from 1,250, to 1,000; and as there were about 500 benefices in Ireland, consisting of unions of 1026 two, three, or more parishes, it certainly would he competent to inquire into and ascertain the number of Members of the Established Church in each parish of any such union, with a view to a different distribution of Church-property. Some of these unions were of very great extent; Ballinakill in Tuam diocese, consisting of nine parishes, appeared by the Report of the Instruction Commissioners, to have its extreme points fifty miles distant from one another, and certainly nothing could be more inconvenient to the Members of the Established Church resident therein, than to allow such an union to continue; and it would become the duty of the Commissioners to assign each parish in which there were less than fifty Protestants, to the Ministers of the Church most conveniently situated to them. It might be said, however, that if a sum of 125l. were allowed to a curate for one of these benefices, it would reduce the amount of that surplus which it was intended should be available for the purposes of national education. He thought, that a large surplus would still remain if the principle on which the measure was founded, were adhered to, and which was, that where superfluous income existed, the wants of the clerical members of the Church who lived on the soil, or possessed the requisite number of parishioners, and performed the duties of their office, should be amply provided for. It had been argued, too, that in the first statement which he made of the funds which would be applicable to the purposes of national education, he had not calculated on the effects which would be produced by those Clauses in the Bill which provided for the reduction of the amount to be paid to the rector of certain benefices in which there might not be the prescribed number of Protestants; and it was added, that he had in all such cases provided that the sum should not sink below 300l. a-year. Now he had not by the Bill limited the amount to 300l. a-year; but he contended that the amount of income should be proportioned to the extent of ecclesiastical duty. That he had, however, ample ground for calculating on the funds which he thought might be applied to purposes of education, from the operation of the Clauses contained in this measure, he felt satisfied he should be able to prove by the Returns which he held in his hand, and to which he would call the attention of the House. The noble Lord read the following statement:— 1027
Members of Ch. Estab. Tithe Comp. Killatty 13 £400 Ballybea 15 400 Templeracarigy 27 498 Ballyvourney 30 500 Ardagh 14 600 Whitechurch 20 784 Moogeesla 19 809 Clonfriest 35 869
- 1. Templemore, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 3,240l.; tithe composition, 3,235l.; value of glebes, 5l.; Protestant population, 3,314 (nearly 1l. per head for religious instruction).
- 2. Mullabrack, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 2,055l.; tithe composition, 851l.; value of glebes, 1,204l.; Protestant population, 3,382 (being 12s. 1d. per head.)
- 3. Kilmore, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 2,078l.; tithe composition, 1,213l.; value of glebes, 865l.: Protestant population, 3,914 (being 10s. 7d. per head.)
- 4. Donoughmore, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 2,115l.; tithe composition, 1,440l.; value of glebes, 675l.; Protestant population 1,677 (being about 1l. 5s. per head).
- 5. Louth, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 2,048l.; tithe composition, 1,988l.; value of glebes, 60l.; Protestant population, 261 (being nearly 8l. per head).
- The Second Class consists of Clergymen's Incomes, as above, exceeding 1,500l. compared with the Members of the Established Church in those benefices.
- 1. Cappagh, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 1,600/.; tithe composition, 1,000l.; value of glebes, 600l.; Protestant population, 2,720 (being 11s. 9d. per head.)
- 2. Clonenagh, diocese of Leighlin—Gross value, 1,500l.; tithe composition, 1,500l.; value of glebes, nil; Protestant population 2,409 (being 12s. 5d. per head.)
- 3. Donagheady, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 1,902l.; tithe composition, 1,350l.; value of glebes, 552l.; Protestant population 1,683 (being nearly 1l. 3s. per head.)
- 4. Maghera, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 1,665l.; tithe composition, 1,015l.; value of glebes, 650l.; Protestant population, 1,142 (being 1l. 9s. per head.)
- 5. Saughboyne, diocese of Raphoe—Gross value, 1,849l.; tithe composition, 1,700l.; value of glebes; 149l.; Protestant population, 790 (being 2l. 6s. per head.)
- The Third Class consists of Clergymen's Incomes, as before, exceeding 1,000l. per annum, as compared with the Members of the Established Church in their benefices.
- 1. Termannaguirh, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 1,483l.; tithe composition, 803l. value of glebes, 680l.; Protestant population, 1,722 (being 17s. per head.)
- 2. Loughgilly, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 1,393l.; tithe composition, 808l.; value of glebes, 585l.; Protestant population, 737 (being 1l. 7s. 9d. per head.)
- 3. Clonleigh, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 1,190l.; tithe composition, 840l.; value of glebes, 350; Protestant population, 806 (being 1l. 9s. 6d. per head.)
- 4. Tamlaghfinlagan, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 1,235l.; tithe composition, 1,000l.; value of glebes, 235l.Protestant population, 877 (being 1l. 10s. 5d. per head.)
- 5. Creggan, diocese of Armagh—Gross
1028 value, 1,350l.; tithe composition, 1,050l.; value of glebes, 300l.; Protestant population 686 (being nearly 2l. per head.) - The Fourth Class consists of Clergymen's Incomes, as before, exceeding 500l. per annum as compared with the Members of the Established Church in their benefices.
So that he did not despair—by reducing, under that Clause, the superfluous income of the clergymen in those parishes, where it exceeded 300l., of obtaining some avail-able income for the purposes of general education. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, was pleased, the other night, to refer to the case of an individual clergyman, the Bishop of Limerick, and in the justice of the tribute of respectful homage, then paid to him by the hon. Baronet, no one more entirely and cordially coincided than himself. A man of more learning, refinement, liberality, and piety, could not be found to contribute to the benefit of all with whom he might come in contact, and it was impossible for any one to entertain a doubt that his talents must be highly appreciated, and that his labours must have their legitimate and extended influence, in the diocese in which he resided; but in reading the letters which that right reverend Prelate had lately given to the world, he must own it struck him that the anomalies of the Irish Church, stated most unsuspiciously by him, presented themselves in a far stronger light than if they had been submitted in a more formal manner. The Bishop of Limerick was promoted from being a curate in Cashel to the living of Abingdon, in the diocese of Emly; and one of his letters contains this expression. "It is worth, I believe, l,000l.a-year,with an incomparable House." The very next letter stated, "I am con- 1029 fined to a parish in which, Sundays excepted, there is nothing to do, and even then I have but a congregation of twenty, old and young." He had no doubt the residence of the Bishop of Limerick in that "incomparable House" contributed greatly to the successful result of those philological studies in which he had rendered himself so eminent; but it would be somewhat difficult to persuade him, that such an object was one of those for which parochial tithes originally were instituted. The present state of Abingdon was a confirmation of the Bishop's statement; for, on referring to the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, he found the same system still prevailing in that parish. The Bishop of Limerick did not state how many Protestants resided in his parish, he only stated that his Church was attended by between twenty and thirty. The average number, however, appeared now to be only between ten and fifteen, who were diminishing, notwithstanding the "incomparable House," although the revenues were computed at 1,000l. for the two clergymen; yet the rector (who was the Dean of Emly) and the vicar were not resident, and the assistants resided in the adjoining parish; and while from ten to fifteen Members attended Divine service in the Church, the attendance on the Roman Catholic chapels in that diocese amounted to 3,800. He had, no doubt, that, through the residence of such a man as the Bishop of Limerick, the attendance on the Church would be improved, and the Protestant religion would gain credit and respectability; but it would be no more fair to take this as an apology for the present system, than it would be to attribute the outrages at Rathcormac to the state of the Established Church in Ireland. The noble Lord proceeded:—"It has been stated in the course of the debate, that there is no authority to be found in the Gospel for removing a religion which is once established. I have heard the Gospel quoted on both sides of the question, and in support of each view of it. In my humble judgment, there is no authority to be found in the Gospel that should regulate the secular arrangement of benefices, or other matters of a temporal nature connected with a Church; but it does, in my mind, prescribe, that feelings of true religion and good will to all men should universally prevail, as a debt which is due from man to God. But according to the Conservative reading, the Gospel must be differently interpreted; for they maintain 1030 that we have no right to alienate Ecclesiastical revenues, and do not hesitate to avow that the State ought to prescribe what should be the true religion. Thus they are for rendering to Cæsar what is God's, and to God what is Cæsar's. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, at the conclusion of his speech—and I assure the House, to whose indulgence I am so deeply indebted, that I am drawing to that of mine—said, that of the two alternatives before us, it would be more manly and independent to establish the Roman Catholic religion alone in Ireland; and I remember the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, also stated, that rather than consent to this Bill, he would agree to the total demolition of the Church Establishment. Now, for that alternative we are not prepared; we do intend to maintain the Church: we hope to improve it: but of this we are sure, that if you leave it in its present state—costly, cumbrous, and disliked, you will have no chance of saving it. So intimately persuaded am I, though I know no one of those opposed to me, will be in the slightest degree disposed to concur in the opinion, and though I am aware, that the state of things and parties in this country is such that the expression of it in this House will be scouted and derided; but I am, I repeat, persuaded, notwithstanding, that those who sit on this side of the House are fighting the real battle of the Church. And why should I not say this? Parliament was elected under an appeal to the people almost on this very point, and that Parliament has distinctly resolved that they will connect and couple the settlement of the property of tithe with the assertion of, and the working out of, the principle of appropriation. With that principle of appropriation the Members on the opposite side of the House have determined not to meddle; and it follows logically, I think, that in this House at least they cannot settle the question of tithes. Will you, then, leave the question unsettled? This House may—the other House of Parliament will—throw out the proposed measure; but when they have done so, and the present outcry ceases, and the excitement is subdued, and the angry invectives are stilled, then, when the arithmetic of this Report of the Commissioners, backed now by the recommendations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), works its sure and steady progress in the minds of the people of this country, and when they 1031 have leisure and opportunity to weigh the proportions, and to digest the facts which it contains. I very much doubt whether, when we meet at the commencement of another Session, that the prospects of the Established Church will be found to have brightened in the interval; and whether we shall not find that the real, though less exciteable well-wishers to the Church, will discover their means of supporting and strengthening it, materially curtailed by the ruinous success of her misjudging friends and suicidal allies.
- 1. Borevagh, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 630l.; tithe composition, 580; value of glebes, 50l.; Protestant population, 546 (being 1l. 3s. per head.)
- 2. Clencha, diocese of Derry—Gross value 703l., tithe composition, 555; value of glebes, 148l; Protestant population, 423 (being 1l., 13s. per head.)
- Dunleer, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 637l.; tithe composition, 568l.; value of glebes, 69l.; Protestant population, 289 (being 2l. 4s. per head.)
- 4. Sermonfeckan, diocese of Armagh—Gross value, 673l.; tithe composition, 620l.; value of glebes, 53l.; Protestant population, 165 (being 4l. per head.)
- 5. Clonmany, diocese of Derry—Gross value, 505; tithe composition, 410l.; value of glebe, 95l.; Protestant population, 505 (being 1l. per head.)
Lord Stanleysaid, that he should perhaps better consult the feelings and wishes of the House, by abstaining from addressing it on that occasion after a discussion of three nights, and after the subject had been so fully, so ably, and so zealously discussed on a former occasion during seven nights, for at that time the principle under consideration was, he thought, nearly similar to the present, though the evils to be apprehended were certainly not of that imposing and exciting nature which the present Bill was well qualified to produce. Yet, notwithstanding the discussions that had taken place, and the complete development of the tendency, character, and object of the Bill, he, holding such opinions as he did, and was known to hold, and identifying himself so anxiously with the question of the Church Establishment, should consider it unfair to his own character, and not perhaps be in accordance with the expectation of many Members of the House, if he should give a silent vote on the proposition submitted by the right hon. Baronet, because although there were many schemes propounded, many suggestions thrown out for reform in the Church, he considered that proposition was the only safe and practicable proposition for allaying, in the first place, whatever discontent and animosity was entertained against the Established Church, whether that discontent and animosity were the result of the abuses and imperfections of the Establishment, or were created by the instrumentality of designing, adventurous, and selfish enemies to it; and, in the second place, for placing it on that high and stable ground of utility and permanency that was at once conducive to the cause of religion, morality, and good order. That proposition he, for one, would cordially support, because it was a wise, a beneficial, a statesmanlike proposition—it was a proposition of peace and of public benefit, and because he was resolved to resist at all hazards what 1032 was dangerous and ill-judged in the Bill, while he would be satisfied to adopt whatever was sensible, salutary, or useful in it. It was not triumph, it was justice—it was truth—it was the public good, he looked to; this was what he sought for, not the petty victory of a party for a season. He heard it stated on the other side of the House, particularly by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we understood), and he heard it with surprise almost amounting to incredulity, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet evaded the real question—that the question was not fairly dealt with—and that the speech aimed at carrying the audience to a conclusion different from what its words and bearing would warrant—that it meant one thing and stated another. He lamented to witness either this obliquity of intellectual vision, which could not see a distinct proposition in its proper light and form, or the sinister tendency of party, that would distort and misrepresent it. If ever there was a speech delivered within that House or without it, bringing home the force of demonstration to the mind of even the most sceptical; beating down every, even the remotest, attempt at refutation; combining mathematical calculation in its most enlarged scope, yet descending to the minutest particulars, with the most consummate logical skill and power of ratiocination, it was that speech—a speech that travelled in a chain of the most even, consecutive, and best regulated induction—in a category of undoubted facts—step by step, to the conclusion, not merely winning, but forcing, conviction, upon the most reluctant mind, whose invincible obduracy did not close every opening to conviction, and carrying conscience and judgment along with it, where conscience and judgment were to be found—a speech that at once showed the mind of a master, throwing off the exuberance of his knowledge, and quelling incredulity itself into reluctant, but tacit—he regretted it was tacit—acquiescence in his details and his inference, his premises and his deduction. It was a speech worthy of the best and brightest days of our senatorial oratory, and was one that showed that statesmanship in its most philosophical, and, at the same time, in its most practical, shape, was not yet extinct amongst us. To that speech where was the answer? There was none, for there could be none. It was founded on the rock of truth, and by it the eddies of party acrimony would sweep without harm. It laid down premises 1033 which were truisms, and not desired by those whose jaundiced vision saw everything through a discoloured medium, or whose passions, or prejudices, or, it might be interest, would lead them to misrepresent, or doubt, or deny—that speech, if there was sincerity or honesty in the House should decide the question of appropriation; for its premises were no less unquestionable than were its conclusions just and true. If he were disposed to argue this question on technical grounds, he might refer to very high authority, which not only on the present, but on many former occasions, had pressed the duty, the paramount necessity, of Parliament not suffering the two questions mixed up in this Bill to be introduced in one and the same discussion. His noble Friend (Lord Spencer), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those very colleagues of his noble Friend now opposite, with whom he (Lord Stanley) had then the honour of acting, stated, in submitting the matter to the consideration of Parliament, that the two questions were so broadly distinct from each other—the one relating to the vindication of the law and the security of property as established by law—the other to a prospective alteration in that law with reference to the future state of the Church, that it was not only inexpedient but absurd to connect the two. When his noble Friend also (Lord Morpeth) brought in the Bill which they were now discussing, how did he commence his speech? Why, by stating that the Bill necessarily divided itself into two subjects distinct and clearly separate from each other; the one relating to the arrangements with regard to tithe property, the other as to its appropriation, and the future state of the Church. But he would take no technical ground whatever; he stood on this great principle: he did not bring forward the question for the purpose solely of a separate discussion of two questions which were, in his view, of equal importance, but with the distinct and avowed object of enabling the House to reject altogether the principle of alienating to other than strictly Ecclesiastical purposes the revenues of the Protestant Establishment. His right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated, that the right hon. Baronet who opened the debate had omitted to state any arguments in favour of his own proposition, and had altogether confined himself to proving that there would be no surplus. He thought that he knew what the proposition was 1034 which was carried in April last by a majority, a small majority it was true, but still a majority. The resolution which was moved and carried by a Committee of the whole House, on the 3rd of April, was, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that any surplus which may remain, after fully providing for the spiritual instruction of the members of the Established Church in Ireland, ought to be applied locally to the general education of all classes of Christians." Now, if any one proposition could be more distinct than another—if it were possible for any one to grapple more firmly with a principle than another—the proposition which had been stated, and the principle which had been grappled with by the right hon. Member for Tamworth were in that predicament. But the right hon. Baronet, with a success that could not be surpassed, had shown a surplus to be impossible, and therefore did he (Lord Stanley) call upon the promoters of the present measure to separate it into two distinct Bills. He thought that he not only understood the principle which the resolution was intended to embody, but that he had heard and understood the speeches of his noble Friend opposite (the Member for Northumberland), and that he also had heard and understood the speech of the hon. Gentleman (the Member for Middlesex). Would any one who had heard those speeches tell him what that noble Lord and that hon. Gentleman considered the principle of the Bill to be in accordance with that of the resolution? If the resolution meant anything, it meant this—that a real surplus, and that alone, was to be applied to the purposes of general education. When the subject was before them on the former occasion, some attempts had been made to elicit from hon. Members a definition of the word "surplus"—at least according to their acceptation of the term. The only attempt to explain it that he had heard was made by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, who only explained it by putting another word in its stead; he called it a superplus; but be it surplus, or be it superplus, it must at least be considered as over and above something, and according to the terms of the resolution it was to be over and above what might be required for the purposes of the Established Church in Ireland. Were they or were they not to proceed upon that distinct understanding? Was he to assume that there would be no application of the funds of the Established Church to the purposes of public 1035 education, if it turned out that there were no real surplus? [" No."] No! he hoped that that reply came from some hon. Member whose mind yet remained open to conviction, who yet indulged the amiable delusion that a surplus might eventually be found. His (Lord Stanley's) impression was, and he entertained no doubt that the general impression of the House was, that an extended application of Ecclesiastical revenues would be made to purposes of general education, whether there was a surplus or not. It could easily be collected, indeed it was distinctly stated, by his noble Friend on the other side of the House, that whether there was a surplus or not, there would be an application of the revenues of the Church to promote the purposes of popular education; it was therefore that he resisted then, and was prepared to resist to the utmost, the measure which had been introduced by his Majesty's Government. The promoters of that measure did not deny that there were strictly Ecclesiastical uses demanding much greater funds than they anticipated any surplus could ever amount to; there were even, upon their own showing, churches in ruins, benefices without glebe-houses, a number of parishes without any provision whatever for a cure of souls, and scattered throughout Ireland there were as many as 3,500 Protestants without the benefit of pastoral care in any shape or form. Would his noble Friend agree to leave one single case unprovided for? and yet he talked of dealing with a surplus when it had been proved that by no possibility could any surplus accrue. And thus his noble Friend was compelled to say—that a surplus must be made in order to carry the Bill into effect. [Viscount Morpeth: "No."] He wished to repeat the precise words used by his noble Friend, and he had the speech in which his noble Friend introduced the present Bill, which had been printed under his own sanction; and in that speech his noble Friend observed, that, "It may be said that according to the Resolutions of my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the spiritual wants of the members of the Established Church are first to be provided for, and that the funds at present in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are confessedly very defective. Will it be maintained that we are not at liberty to apply the funds that will arise under the operation of this Bill, to the general purposes of religious and moral education, the fund for Ecclesiastical pur- 1036 poses being still inadequate? I have no hesitation in saying that it appears to me we are clearly so entitled." But once more, he should meet any argument and explanation of that sort by saying that there was not, and there could not be, any such thing as a surplus. If, so far from there being a surplus, there proved to be a deficiency,—if it turned out that there were not funds to meet the admitted and undeniable spiritual wants of the Protestant population of Ireland, then he would beg to ask, did they still hold themselves at liberty to apply the revenues of the Church to the purpose of general education? It was, as the House already knew, his opinion that they were not entitled to make any such application, because, at the expiration of twenty years after 1853, the Ecclesiastical fund created under the recent Act would not have cleared off all its incumbrances, and yet, under such circumstances, they were called upon, as it were, to create a surplus out of the revenues for purposes not connected with Ecclesiastical objects. Were Members on the other side of the House prepared to tell the people of England that he and those who thought with him, in asking the House to separate principles so evidently distinct wished the House to rescind the resolution in the face of "a clear and acknowledged surplus?" What! would they persevere in calling it a surplus, when, by means of demonstration the most positive and indisputable, it had been shown that a surplus was impossible—nay, that even without the application of a single shilling to the building of glebe-houses or churches, there would be nothing to spare? Were they not then acting in perfect conformity with the resolution itself when they resisted a measure founded upon the mere pretence of a surplus? Would any man in the country believe that a true carrying out of the resolution was equivalent to rescinding it? He would not go over the whole case which had been so admirably stated by the right hon. Member for Tamworth; he would merely state enough to remind the House of the deduction which that right hon. Gentleman had drawn from the facts to show that there was no existing surplus to be appropriated to any purpose whatever. To the statements of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that he would not give any answer. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some time ago declared that his Ma- 1037 jesty's Ministers knew on what ground to fight their battle. "And so," continued Lord Stanley, "do we." The opponents of the measure had been asked why they had not opposed the second reading? They did not oppose the second reading because there were portions of the Bill which they were not desirous of throwing out. The Bill contained two distinct classes of provisions; the one liable to comment, and probably susceptible of improvement; the other, which no alteration that might be made by the Committee could render endurable. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the other evening, "that if he had thought that the Bill was liable to all the objections which had been urged against it by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, he would have died rather than have acquiesced in the second reading." Now, that might be brave doctrine for his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the opponents of the Bill thought differently. They were of opinion that "discretion was the better part of valour." They thought that, as they approved the principle of one portion of the Bill, and disapproved the principle of the other portion of the Bill, it would be better to agree to the second reading, and then to propose a separation of that part of the Bill the principle of which they approved, from that part of the Bill, the principle of which they disapproved; to assent to the one, and to repudiate the other. "But then," said his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "why not let the Bill go into the Committee?" Because it was not desirable to discuss the details of a principle which was altogether vicious. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had stated in the opening of his speech, that the total revenue of the tithes of the parochial clergy of Ireland, after the necessary deductions, was only 288,162l.; and, that the total revenue, including the ministers' money, was only 375,000l. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared, that he would not grapple with the statements of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. When pressed for his reason, the right hon. Gentleman exclaimed, with the Jolly Knight, "Give you a reason on compulsion! If reasons were as plenty as blackberries, I would not give you a reason on compulsion." Going through the statement of the right hon. Baronet, it appeared, excluding all benefices in which there are less than fifty Protestants, there were 1,121 bene- 1038 fices, the ministers of which would receive an average income of 257l. a-year each; and, according to the provisions of the Bill, if all the benefices in which there were not more than fifty Protestants were suppressed, and their revenues otherwise appropriated, (a proposition to which he could never accede) the average value of the benefices in Ireland would be about 186l. a-year. Now, his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, had stated a variety of facts which proved that, by Lord Grey's Administration, the average rate of 300l. a-year was considered not too large a sum for the remuneration of a clergyman who performed parochial duties in Ireland. He (Lord Stanley) was happy to have a confirmation of that proof in a speech which had been made last year by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman, in answer to some observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned Recorder of Dublin, said, "The question is as to the right of Parliament to deal with the surplus of the Church revenue in Ireland, if it shall be proved that that revenue is above what the necessities of the Church require. But supposing that every incumbent in England has on the average only 263l. a-year, and that every incumbent in Ireland has on the average above 200l. a-year more than that sum, I ask if that is a state of things which can be allowed to continue? Is the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin prepared, under such circumstances, to say, that the Church of Ireland is not possessed of excessive wealth? Let it be proved to me that the Church of Ireland is not endowed with superfluous wealth; let it be proved to me that the incumbents have not on an average more than 253l. a-year; and the question of surplus falls to the ground." Now, what was the fact? That according to one calculation the average value was 253l. a-year; and according to another 186l. But his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contended that they did not want so many ministers, and that if the number were reduced, the average amount of their emoluments would be so exorbitant, that they must be reduced. Now, he assumed that the annual sum of 130l. would, on the average, not be considered too much for the discharge of the duties of a parochial church or chapel. Would his noble Friend admit that? [Lord Morpeth: "No!"] No? He had heard a great deal of lamentation from the 1039 opposite side of the House on the impoverished state of the working clergy in Ireland as contrasted with the pampered and bloated non-resident clergy; and now, when he asked them if they were prepared to sanction such an allotment of Ecclesiastical emolument, as would give to every minister serving a Protestant Church or Chapel the annual sum, on an average, of 130l., their answer was "No!" His noble Friend opposite had said, that they should find abundant funds applicable to the purpose of general instruction. Certainly they would so, if they took those which were destined to provide for the spiritual wants of the members of the Established Church and left them no provision. There were in Ireland 1,383 churches, and 3,534 chapels, and other places of worship, served by Protestant ministers. If even only one minister did duty in each, that would be an average of 195l. He would select a few cases for the purpose of showing that there were a vast number of livings included in this average, of less than 200l. per annum, which, if the spiritual wants of the members of the Protestant Church were attended to, ought to be divided into two, three, or four. In the diocese of Armagh there was the parish of Granard, the gross income of which amounted to 1,360l. tithes; under the reduction it would only amount to 700l.; but Granard was a union, one of the parishes of which contained 655 Protestants, another 338, a third 265, a fourth 301, a fifth 692, making a total of 2,231; and accordingly there were five parish churches, with separate curates, all to be paid out of 700l. a-year; in all, six clergymen and their families maintained out of the produce of one union. In the diocese of Meath there was another union containing a population as follows:—211, 204, 368, 127, 200, 179, making a total of 1,289, the extent of the union being twenty-two miles by seven, containing five churches, served by six clergymen, who, with their families, were to be maintained at an expense of 385l. a-year, which, reduced, would be only 256l. under the proposed act. In the diocese of Clogher there was a union of twenty-two miles long by three miles broad. In that union there were one church and three chapels, and four clergymen were maintained on an income which, after the reduction proposed by the Bill, would be 250l. The noble Lord then gave the names of three other parishes, which were severally twenty miles by thirteen, twenty by fourteen, and 1040 twenty-eight by six, each with a number of Protestants, and each of which would be deprived of a portion of income by the present Bill. He might confidently ask the House if they thought, that by the operation of such a measure, the spiritual wants of the members of the Established Church in Ireland would be adequately provided for? Then in the diocese of Galway there was a benefice which occupied the greater part of Connemara. The extreme points of that benefice were fifty miles from one another; it included several islands lying off the coast, and it was well known to be the wildest part of Ireland. It contained three separate parishes and 582 Protestants. The gross income of that benefice, previous to the proposed reduction, was 205l. Now, really it was impossible that such a case as that should be permitted to continue if his Majesty's Government were really anxious to provide for the wants of the members of the Church Establishment. It was far from his wish that such allowances should be made as might pamper the clergy. But on the other hand, he maintained that every member of the Established Church ought to have that to which he had an indefeasible claim, and that if the real object of the Bill which his Majesty's Government had brought forward was to improve the condition of the Established Church in Ireland, they would have augmented the incomes which were deficient as well as have reduced those which they deemed too large. Would the House do him the favour to attend to one or two more instances? There was the parish of Kilgarry, with 198 Protestants, and tithes to the nominal amount of 215l., which would be reduced to 120l., and to that there were to be added two adjoining benefices, one containing eight Protestants, and another twenty-seven Protestants, the gross income being 450l. net, 260l. to 270l. for the four parishes. Then he would entreat the attention of the House to a parish, which being called a union, was to be split, although it was only six miles by one, while there was another twenty-four miles by seven to undergo no alteration. Was he not, then, warranted in saying, that the Bill then before them was a most one-sided measure? Would it not be infinitely better to meet at once the real difficulties of the case, than to disappoint the country, and to defeat the purposes of sound religion by appropriating a mock surplus? Adverting to another benefice, his noble Friend said, that the right hon. Member for Tam- 1041 worth had stated, that there were two incumbents, whereas there was only one. Now he (Lord Stanley) had examined the Returns, and he found that there were actually three incumbents, two of whom were resident [Lord Morpeth: "hear!"] The noble Lord cheered, and a more extraordinary cheer he had never heard. The noble Lord at first contradicted a statement of the right hon. Member for Tamworth; it now appeared that the statement of that right hon. Gentleman had actually fallen short of the truth, and yet the noble Lord cheered as if he had achieved a triumph. He should not then delay the House by going through the details of the various benefices which ought to be separated, or which ought to be united; but would content himself with affirming that there should be fair experiment tried, and the state of the Church revenues distinctly proved and ascertained before they proceeded to legislate upon an assumed surplus. Great as had been his astonishment upon various matters connected with the present measure, his astonishment was still greater at finding his own humble authority quoted in favour of the Bill, and reference made to the manner in which the Ecclesiastical Commission had proposed to deal with the livings of Collon and Dundalk. His noble Friend had contended that the course approved of with reference to those parishes was in accordance with the Church Temporalities' Bill, but opposed to the measure then before the House. The Church Temporalities' Bill, as the House must recollect, provided that when there was no service in a church during the three years next preceding, it was competent to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Bishop of the Diocese being one, and five laymen of the Church of England being of the Commission, to suspend the receipt of the revenues, a stipend being allowed to a neighbouring clergyman for the performance of occasional duties, and where necessary, sufficient funds being provided for the building of glebe-houses and churches; for it formed no part of the provision of the Temporalities' Bill to alienate the revenues of the Church, but, on the contrary, a main feature of it was the application of all revenues scrupulously and strictly to Ecclesiastical purposes. Now, he asked, was that the principle of the Bill introduced by his noble Friend? If so, he should withdraw his opposition at once to that which he regarded as a measure for making a deduction from the revenues of the Church, directly and evidently for pur- 1042 poses not Ecclesiastical. To his mind it appeared that the Church Temporalities' Bill and that then before them were as different as light and darkness; however, at the risk of fatiguing the House, he would advert to one or two additional cases. There was in the diocese of Ferns a union of three parishes, in one of which there were 36 Protestants, in another 48, and in a third 99. The curate might be called a pluralist, but his total income in the reduced form would be only 24l. per annum. Another case, in which there were four parishes, one with 17 Protestants and an income of 80l. another with three Protestants and 76l. a third 25 Protestants and 39l. making a total of 160l. Two of these benefices bore the ominous names of Castle Ellis and Chapel Russell. When they were cutting down the revenues and benefices of Ireland, let him claim the attention of the House to the unfortunate cases of Castle Ellis and Chapel Russel. When they were cutting down the superfluities of the Church in one direction, were they supplying its deficiencies in another? No such thing. That was no part of the principle on which his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) proceeded. On the other hand his noble Friend said, "where there is great duty to perform, and small compensation, there we will leave things as they are, with this trifling exception, that we will deduct about 45 per cent, from the income at present received by the incumbent; but where we find little to do and much pay, there we will take the pay and leave the clergyman to discharge his duty as he may." He must say, that there was one point connected with the manner in which the Bill proceeded, which struck him on the face of it with not being—(he would not use a harsh term)—with not being exactly fair. He meant the mode in which his noble Friend dealt with the benefices, and the way in which he had made a confusion—he could not suppose an intentional confusion—between benefices and parishes. English gentlemen listening to the noble Lord's proposal were disposed to say, "Nothing can be more monstrous: here are so many parishes, having so few Protestants; can any one object to diminish the incomes of the clergy in those parishes in which there are not 50 Protestants? All that was plausible enough, and admirably calculated to deceive those who knew nothing of the real facts of the case, beyond what they heard stated in that House. What was the real fact? In Ireland every parish was not 1043 a benefice—in many instances many parishes were united to form one benefice; and though it might be true that in each of those parishes separately, there were not more than fifty Protestants, yet in the benefice of which those parishes formed only a part, there might be 200, 300, or even 500 or 1,000 Protestants. In this Bill, however, the two words "parish," and "benefice," were completely confounded from beginning to end, but in every instance confounded in such a way as to give the advantage against the benefice. What were the instructions given to the Commissioners upon the point, and what was the sense in which the Commissioners received those instructions? They were to state the number and rank of the Ministers belonging to or officiating in each benefice, and whether there was a church or glebe-house therein. But the question which the present Bill would make necessary was, not whether there was a church or a glebe-house in the benefice, but whether there was or was not a church or glebe-house in each of those parishes which from time immemorial had been permanently united into one benefice. These united parishes in Ireland were to all intents and purposes as much one benefice, as legitimately and as well understood to constitute but one benefice, as several parishes covered with houses in England constituted one town. In Ireland it was not the church of the parish, but the church of the benefice; it was not the clergyman of the parish, but the clergyman of the benefice; in the days when vestry-cess was raised it was levied not on the parish but on the benefice; the churchwardens were the churchwardens not of the parish but of the benefice. The House would at once perceive the distinction between the two. But while on the one hand his noble Friend was ready, wherever he found the income of a benefice to be large, to pare it down to his notion of what was proper and sufficient, yet wherever the amount of duty was to be considered, he invariably measured it by the amount of the population in the parish. Again, when they came to look at the Report, the Report set forth an account of the number of benefices which contained less than 10, 20, 50, 100, or any other number of Protestants, and the Commissioners in presenting that Report distinctly stated that the Ecclesiastical parishes in benefices were not conterminous with parishes as existing for lay purposes. But in the face of that statement, his noble Friend took not the limit of the Ecclesiastical cure, but the 1044 bounds of each separate parish, of which that cure was composed, and that was the mode in which he sought to obtain a surplus. His noble Friend told the House that there were 860 parishes in Ireland, in each of which the Protestant population was under fifty. If his noble Friend had taken benefices instead of parishes, what would have been the result? There were just forty-one benefices in Ireland, which did not contain a single Protestant. And what was the total income derived from those forty-one benefices? The total income was 2,235l. After all that had been said of the Church of Ireland—of its neglect of duty—of its sinecure clergy—it appeared that 2,235l. was the whole amount paid to parochial ministers who within their benefice had not a single Protestant. Now it appeared to him that ample means might have been found for applying that 2,235l. beneficially to the Church in those districts in which at present no provision, or if any, very inadequate provision, was made for the wants of a Protestant population. It appeared to him that that sum, even though its amount was small, might have been beneficially applied in the augmentation of small livings; in diminishing enormous and unwieldy unions, and in providing for the proper and convenient performance of divine public worship in districts where there was a large and scattered flock. The proper way to test the incomes of the Protestant Clergy was not to take the income of each, but to strike an average of the whole. There were at the present moment 1,545 places of Protestant worship in Ireland, 1,383 beneficed clergymen, and 752 curates. Making an allowance for the curates, the income of each of the beneficed clergymen did not average more than 200l. each, whilst the average amount of the flock of each was not less than 616 souls. He knew that in the case of the Church of Scotland it was deemed, according to the wisdom of the venerable fathers by whom that Church was founded, that under any circumstances no clergyman could minister to the spiritual wants of more than 1,000 souls. He (Lord Stanley) did not say that under certain circumstances a man might not minister to the wants of 2,000, or even a greater number; but he said that there were districts in Ireland where the super-intendance of twenty, or thirty, or forty Protestants was a duty which no single individual could undertake; and that when they were proposing a remedy for the supposed defects of the Protestant Establish- 1045 ment in Ireland, they should measure the labours of the Protestant Minister, in many instances, not by the amount of his flock, not by the numerical strength of his congregation, but by the length and breadth of his living, and by the extent of territory over which he had to travel. Yet by the proposition now under consideration a large extent of country was to be added to districts already too large, and one clergyman was required to perform duties which required the power not only of any one man, but of any ten men. He said, then, that the Government were not dealing fairly by the question—that they were not coming fairly at the surplus which they were determined to obtain. A surplus by some means or other they were resolved to obtain, and therefore they took up one side of the question only; they deducted where they found a superfluity, but they added nothing where they found a deficiency; they cared not about providing for the Church—they thought only of obtaining a fund, that they might place it at their own disposal. The object was placed broadly and plainly before them; there was no equivocation or doubt about it: a surplus was resolved upon, and a surplus would be had. His noble Friend said something to this effect, "I admit the necessity of a national establishment; I admit the immense importance of religion; I admit that religion cannot be obtained without human means; I admit that the best human means are to be found in a national establishment; but if I find that a small proportion only of the population are attached to that national establishment, I will diminish its income, and apply the surplus to the purposes of education, and to the teaching of the people in the great truths of Christianity." But surely the object of a great national establishment must be, to see that there was no spot of the empire beyond the reach of the national religion: that there was not in the empire a single individual who might not have the benefit of that religion; that the services of that religion might be administered, and its tenets taught in every parish, and in every part of every parish, without the admission of error, and to every class of the community who might choose to avail themselves of it. He dissented altogether, therefore, from the doctrine of his noble Friend. But if his noble Friend's doctrine were good for anything, he would tell him and the House, and the people of England, what it was to which his noble Friend's argument irresistibly led; to the appropria- 1046 tion of Protestant revenues to the purposes, not of the Protestant, but of the Roman Catholic Church. "And sweeping and dangerous," exclaimed the Noble Lord, "as in my conscience I believe such a step would be—would be, I say, because the feeling of this country never will allow you to carry it into effect. Dangerous as the principle and the practice would be, still in my mind it would be infinitely less dangerous, and infinitely less liable to objection, infinitely more safe as a ground on which you could stand, and not be removed, than the half-and-half mode adopted in this Bill. The hon. Member for Middlesex tells you, and tells you fairly and manfully, that upon your own principles and your own theories even if you obtain all you now claim, you cannot stand where you are. I agree with the hon. Member for Middlesex, I agree with him that this step once taken, must immediately be followed by others." He continued, the noble Lord would deal with the surplus revenue of the Church in such a way as to make it supply deficiencies in the establishment wherever deficiencies were found to exist. That, in his opinion, was the only proper use to which a surplus could be applied. If his noble Friend protested against that doctrine, he would ask his noble Friend what security there was in that Bill for the local appropriation of any surplus fund for the advantage of that part of the country in which the surplus was found to exist? How was the surplus to be applied? God knew how. The manner of its appropriation was left to the discretion of the Lord-lieutenant. He had no doubt but that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had lately gone over to Ireland in an official capacity, would mark out with great precision the bounds of each benefice, and each district from which certain funds were derived; but he maintained, that there was no security whatever in the Bill, that the funds raised in one parish or district, would be appropriated in that parish or district. Out of this dilemma it was impossible for the Government to escape—if they applied the surplus in each instance only in the parish or district in which it was obtained, in that particular parish or district they would have a surfeit of education—if they applied it out of the parish or district it would not matter to that parish or district, whether it were applied to the purposes of education in a part of the country twenty miles off, or a 100 miles off. Many other points presented themselves to his mind; 1047 but at that time of night he was reluctant to detain the House by dwelling, or even touching upon them. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would ask his noble Friend himself, whether he seriously and in his conscience believed, after the warning he had received from the hon. Member for Middlesex, whether he believed, that this measure could, by possibility, afford a final or peaceable settlement of the Church question in Ireland? His noble Friend had been told by fifty of his friends, that the measure could not by possibility be regarded as a final measure. If his noble Friend were disposed to dispute that point, let him take only the votes of those who believed it would be a final measure—if his noble Friend would consent to pursue that course, he believed he need be under no anxiety as to any collision between this House and another branch of the Legislature. He imagined, that the supporters of the Bill, as a final, peaceable, and satisfactory measure, would dwindle down to a very miserable minority. "My noble Friend," continued the noble Lord, "has asked us, why it is, and how it is, that we can justify to ourselves the proposition for separating this Bill into two parts? I have told my noble Friend how and why I feel myself justified in supporting such a proposition. I have told him that it is because I conceive, as I have often stated, that all the elements of discord and confusion—all the occasions of strife and bloodshed—all the unfortunate collisions which have taken place—will be effectually terminated, and put a stop to by the first part of the Bill alone. If my noble Friend asks whether this will be satisfactory to those who are altogether anxious to obtain the whole of the revenues of the Established Church? I answer, No. As long as the Church exists, as long as it has 100l. of income, never will there be any satisfaction on the part of those whose object it is to make their own, and not the Protestant the dominant religion of the country. If you wish to secure a peaceable collection of the revenue of the Church, and afterwards to discuss a practicable and proper alteration of the law, with respect to the appropriation of that revenue, the course you have to take is, first to deal with those principles of the Bill, which affect the security of the property, and next to deal with those by which you propose to carry your principle into practice. But I ask my noble Friend, 1048 on the other hand, how it is that, under all the circumstances of the case, they, the King's Ministers, charged with the peace of Ireland—charged with the defence of property—charged with the maintenance of the law—charged with the support of the Irish Church—refuse to separate into two parts a Bill, one portion of which they know they have not the power to pass, because it embodies principles so objectionable in themselves, so utterly repugnant to the feelings of gentlemen—not of course intending to cast any imputation on those whose judgment differs from my own—that no prospect of political advantage, or expediency, can induce them to sacrifice their honest convictions, and to conform to them. 'I do not,' says my noble Friend, 'call upon you to repudiate or to deny your own principles. This I call upon you to do,' and it is the first time I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown make such a declaration:—'Here we have two measures which we ourselves have declared to be independent and separate' ["No, no!"] I am not referring to this, but to the last measure—'Two measures which we have declared to be independent and separate, both of which tend to the promotion of peace and tranquility in Ireland—both of which we desire to connect together, and either or both of which we hold it to be essential to pass; and yet, because we have not the power to carry our views into effect in both cases, we will knowingly, and with our eyes open, refuse one great positive good, and endeavour to link ourselves with those who are seeking to starve out the clergy of Ireland, ["No, no!"] who are seeking to starve out the clergy of Ireland, by the withholding of their legal rights. And unless an alteration in the appropriation of Church property shall take place, we will take advantage of the feeling which may be produced in the clergy by the distress to which they may be driven—we will take advantage of the feeling of compassion which may be excited for their destitute situation elsewhere, and because we will not separate these two Bills, we will join in those unions which have been established for the purpose of starving out the clergy.'" He was well aware of the distress of the clergy of Ireland; and he earnestly desired to see passed so much of this Bill as would put a stop to that distress, by terminating that species of passive resistance which had so long withheld the rights of the Irish clergy. His noble 1049 Friend (Lord John Russell) knew well that so much of the Bill he had the power to carry with very little, if with any opposition; but because his Majesty's Government could not pass the whole measure, they refused to pass any part of it. They were determined to wait another year, aye, or three or four years, until they could pass it; and that till then they were resolved that Ireland should not be pacified, nor her clergy rescued from starvation. But he would tell those Ministers that they would not succeed. He would tell them, moreover, that great as were the privations suffered by the clergy, he believed that one and all of them were prepared to suffer those, and greater privations—that they were prepared to trust even to the miserable resource of private charity to supply their wants, rather than see a principle carried into effect, which they knew to he destructive of the interests of that religion of which they were the faithful ministers. If he wanted a confirmation of this, he had it in what he held in his hand. It was an address presented to his Majesty by the clergy of the diocese of Tuam. They stated, that with regard to their being deprived by this Bill of three-tenths of their income, although they might consider such a deduction as a heavy penalty to be inflicted upon them, for discharging faithfully their duties as Christian ministers; yet, they would most willingly, for peace-sake, submit to it. When, however, they considered that the Bill also contained clauses, calculated not merely to effect the overthrow of the Established Church, but the ultimate extermination of his Majesty's poor, but always loyal Protestant subjects in Ireland, they felt that it would be a barter—that it would be a barter unworthy of their character as Christian ministers, to purchase freedom from persecution for themselves, at the expense as well of their successors as of those among whom they had so long lived. With grief, therefore, but at the same time with respectful earnestness, "they implored his Majesty, that no feeling for their sufferings should ever induce his Majesty to give his assent to a measure fraught with such ruin to his Majesty's faithful Protestant subjects." In accordance with these views, he trusted, that under no consideration would a Protestant Parliament be induced to give their sanction to a measure like the present, which, with those memorialists, he did believe to be fraught with danger to the interests of the Protestant religion, not only in 1050 Ireland, but by immediate induction in many parts of England also; yet he was equally desirous, on the other hand, that so much of this Bill might pass, as might remove the causes of outrage against the ministers of the Established religion, which had so long subsisted in Ireland. The settlement of one part of this measure would mainly contribute to the peace of Ireland, while the passing of the other part of the measure would bear within itself not only the cause of present confusion, but the seeds of eternal dissension, and such as would probably postpone the practical settlement that might otherwise be effected by the passing of the first part of this Bill. He therefore earnestly implored the House to reconsider the question before them, and divide this Bill into two parts.
§ Lord John Russellwas sure, after the length to which the discussion had been carried during a debate of three days, that the House must be anxious to come to a decision, and manifest its opinion respecting the question before it. He should therefore, state his view of it in as brief a compass as he could. It was not his intention to follow his noble Friend through all the details of his speech; and parts of it which, for the present at least, he should not touch, though, perhaps, he might advert to them hereafter, he alluded more particularly to the latter part, in which, his noble Friend trenched on the Orders of the House, and used language which certainly was not parliamentary. In justice to the King's Government, of which he had the honour to he a Member, he must say, that they had brought forward this question soberly, calmly, and after long and serious deliberation; considering that it was necessary for the settlement of a long-disputed question—considering that it was a measure necessary for the peace of Ireland—considering that it was necessary for the security of the Established Church in that country, and for the advancement of religion itself. Acting upon these views, and entertaining these opinions of the measure, it was not for his Majesty's Ministers to say, whether there might be in that, or in the other House, such a number of Members adverse to the measure, as might be able to defeat it. If Ministers believed the measure to be required for those great objects which it was their duty to consult, if they entertained an honest and a conscientious opinion of its propriety, it was not for them to shrink from the assertion of their opinion, 1051 on being told that some persons in another House of Parliament were of a different opinion, and that the Bill would not be allowed to pass elsewhere. Was he to be told, that in either House of Parliament, there was a body of men so determined in their opposition to this measure, that no force of evidence, no power of argument, no consideration of prudence, no regard for the welfare of the kingdom, would induce them to listen to any terms, or to come to any compromise; but that, before the question had gone through a Committee of the House of Commons, it had been pre-determined that the King's Ministers should not have the power to pass the measure? If there were no other objection to such language, it was at least not decorous towards the House of Commons; it was a libel on the other House to state that it would not listen calmly to every thing which was said on the question. He would assert, that if the other House rejected the Bill, it would not be rejected without due examination. He could not believe that the other House, before the Bill had gone through its preliminary stages in that House, had made up its mind to reject it, without examination, without entering into any of its provisions, without looking into the Report of the Commissioners which had been laid before them; or that they were pre-determined to reject it, so that to them, at least as far as this Bill was concerned, should not belong the character of a deliberative body. He could not believe the other House would be induced to take such a course, though such was the import of what his noble Friend had had the condescension to declare to the House, as a reason to induce them to forego any further consideration of this measure. It was not his intention at that late hour to enter into those parts of the subject which several hon. Members had already gone into, and it was the less necessary, as, with the exception of one hon. Member, who made a speech upon the Poor-laws, which had no relation to the Question before the House, the whole of the discussion had been conducted, on both sides, with great ability and research. There was one thing, however, which fell from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, that hardly seemed to come properly into the discussion—he meant the Address which his right hon. Friend read from the Synod of Dumfries; an address in which the addressers thought fit to menace the Sovereign with a defection of their allegiance, if the Legislature 1052 adopted this measure. Why, if any Roman Catholic agitator had presumed to say, that if this Bill did not pass, the allegiance of the Roman Catholics would be dissolved, with what invective would not the right hon. Baronet have denounced the presumption, the boldness—nay, the treason of those by whom such an assertion was made? However, with regard to these good, well-nominated, and well-subsisted members of this Presbyterian Synod, he thought their words might be turned aside as a mere empty menace. Now, the main Question at issue, or, at least, one of the main Questions, was that to which, he thought, nearly every Member on the other side of the House had paid little attention; that Question was as to the state in which we stood with respect to the collection of tithes in Ireland. This had been a frequent subject of discussion, and was peculiarly so when his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) introduced his Bill on the subject. The object of that Bill was to make composition of tithes compulsory. It was his noble Friend's, and his own opinion, that by passing that Bill they should secure the collection of tithes. At the end of the discussion of that measure, his noble Friend and himself stated their opinions upon the Question of Appropriation—his noble Friend stating, that he never would consent to alienate any part of the Church property, and he stating, on the other hand, that he thought the property of the Protestant Church was too great for the spiritual care of its members, and too great for its own stability. In the following year further attempts were made to collect tithe. But instead of persevering in those attempts, it was thought necessary by the Government of which his noble Friend was then the organ, to make a proposal to this House to give a million to the Irish clergy. From that time there had been no regular collection of tithe; and a Bill was introduced last year for the purpose of still effecting that object. But did that Bill, separated from the Question of Appropriation, succeed? The sum to be paid to the clergy was diminished—diminished, as he thought, too greatly—by a division in that House, in which the Government were in a minority. The majority of the House said, "that without a very great sacrifice—that of 40 per cent.—they would not pass a Bill for the collection of tithe." That Bill was thrown out in the House of Lords; and he thought it must now be a matter of regret to many that it was so 1053 thrown out. But did the Government succeed afterwards in collecting the tithes. A right hon. and gallant Officer just now in the House (Sir H. Hardinge) said, there was nothing so much to be deprecated as the use of military force in the collection of tithes; and that he himself did not believe that the House would give its sanction to it. That right hon Gentleman then introduced a Bill not containing any provision respecting the appropriation. Upon the introduction of that Bill, he had moved the Resolution to which so much reference had been made, "that any surplus not required for the purposes of the Church should be applied to the religious and moral education of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." The House adopted that Resolution, and another Resolution which followed, in which it was stated, that no measure on the subject of tithes in Ireland could be final or satisfactory without embodying the principle contained in the first Resolution. It was necessary to advert to these Resolutions, because it would be seen at once that the proposition now before the House was to undo that vote, and to induce the House to separate the two measures, and to say that the one measure approved of by the right hon. Baronet should pass, and that the other should be totally rejected. His belief was, that if they attempted to collect tithes without adopting the Clauses respecting appropriation, they would have to encounter greater obstacles than ever. The collection of tithes by law had not succeeded; and the attempt to collect tithes by military force had led to lamentable results. Looking, then, at the Question which his noble Friend put at the end of his speech, he would ask if they did not adopt this Bill but adopt a separate Bill for the collection of tithes, would his noble Friend be able to make that collection with peace? Did he believe that, if he or any other man were now in the Government, after the Resolution of this House, after the strong opinion it had pronounced, it would be easy or practicable to collect tithes in Ireland without an immense augmentation of the military force, and without coming down to that House for increased supplies, an further measures of coercion? Nobody could believe that after the Resolution the House had passed, it would be read) to enter into any such contest, or that it would declare that for the sake of that principle which his noble Friend had stated and which his right hon. Friend (Sir J. 1054 Graham) had also advocated, but on which they had received little support from the right hon. Member for Tamworth, Parliament would go into such a contest? and provided they could see the tithes collected, and the Protestant Church in safety, they would carry on the present system for the sake of the principle, that no part of the Church revenue should be appropriated to other than what they termed Ecclesiastical purposes. His noble Friend, and his right hon. Friend, thought the present revenues were not more than sufficient for those purposes, and that the object of an Established Church was to propagate that faith which they believed to be true, and that it was not the duty of the State to countenance the distribution of those revenues to other purposes? Now, he confessed that he took the view which his noble Friend (Lord Howick) had so ably advocated as to the duty of the State with regard to a Church Establishment. A Church Establishment was a means to an end, and he considered that end to be the promotion of good government, and the religious benefit of the whole community. On the Question he could not leave out of sight the fact that there were 6,500,000 Roman Catholics in Ireland. He could not talk of providing for the religious wants of the community without considering that there was that large body of people, being a great majority of the people of Ireland, separated from the Established religion. If the House meant to reach them, and to inculcate religious instruction into their minds, and teach them those parts of the Christian faith common to all, they could not do this by preaching in the Established Church, and, therefore, they must appropriate some part of the means to instruct them in that way alone in which they could participate of the benefits it was intended to confer. This was the calm and proper view to be taken of the subject by a statesman. When, therefore, he saw 3,250,000 Catholics, and only 150,000 Protestants in one province, he could not consent that the revenues derived from that province should be exclusively devoted to the religious instruction of the 150,000 Protestants, and that nothing should be contributed towards the religious and moral instruction of the three millions and a quarter of Catholics. But in making provision for the instruction of Catholics, he would do it in such a manner as would leave an ample fund to supply all the spiritual wants required by the Protestant Church. The Protestant Establish- 1055 ment in Ireland was sanctioned by the Act of Union, and was connected in a great degree with the property of the country; he therefore wished it to remain an Established Church. He did not enter into the views of those who said that there ought to be a Roman Catholic Church established in Ireland. He should think it a great misfortune to this country, and a source of deep regret, if there were such an establishment. He believed the great majority of the Catholics in Ireland did not seek for any such measure. He believed that the great body in this country, not only members of the Church, but all the Protestant Dissenters, would be opposed to any such measure. He was bound, therefore, by his views of policy, not to attempt to introduce the Roman Catholic Church into Ireland. But this he might do; he might provide for the Protestant Establishment what was sufficient for her wants; and he might then have a surplus revenue applicable to other purposes, among which he regarded as the most important, the providing moral and religious instruction for the Roman Catholics in Ireland, by which they might become better Christians, and better members of a civilized community. There was a great fallacy, he contended in the argument of the right hon. Baronet, which he derived from his calculation of the number of benefices and Protestants throughout Ireland generally. He had a different calculation in his hand which he had reason to believe was much more correct than those to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. He found, that the in come of the archbishops and bishops amounted to 128,800l. in round numbers, that of the deans and chapters to 10,900l., the tithes belonging to the parochial clergy 470,500l. after deducting five per cent, on benefices. There was then the value of glebe-lands, which, with ministers' money, might be taken at 85,000l. If they fixed the income of 627 benefices at 200l. a-year, of 229 at 300l. a-year, and of 259 at 400l. a-year, there would be, after all deductions, a much larger surplus than even that on which they had calculated. But his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, said, "I cannot conceive that we can have a Church Establishment, unless the means of religious worship are brought to every man's door." If that were correct, then he must say that we had not had what the right hon. Baronet would call "a Church Establishment" in Ireland for many years, for most certainly it had not had the effect 1056 which his right hon. Friend thought essential, of carrying the means of religious instruction home to every man's door. He could show his right hon. Friend unions of parishes, in which the church was distant from its communicants, ten, fifteen, and twenty-five miles. There were fifty benefices in Ireland, in which the whole number of Protestants was 526; in these benefices there were seventy-nine clergymen, sixty-nine of whom were non-resident, and in forty-two of them there was no church at all; yet the total amount of their tithe-revenues was not less than 13,889l. Making out this calculation to the utmost extent, he found that the amount of revenue derived from these benefices was in the proportion of 125l. for every Protestant inhabitant. In another union of parishes, the number of Protestants was seventy-three, and the income 3,700l. Which, he asked, were the truest Mends to the Church, those who would build places of worship, and provide instruction where Protestants were resident, or those who would continue the present system with all its anomalies? But they were told that they ought to build churches, even where there were no Protestants now, and that congregations would come to them. That might have been wise some thirty, or forty, or fifty years ago, but that opportunity was let go by unheeded; and, like the man who could have passed the sands while the waters were low, but who delayed till they rose, there was now only the waters on one side, or a precipice on the other. But his noble Friend said, that no deduction of revenue should be made where there was now a church and a clergyman. He would take the case of Rathfriland, where there were a church and a clergyman; but there was not one Protestant inhabitant, though there were 1,400 Catholics. Was that a case in which they ought to keep up an Establishment and a resident clergyman? His noble Friend had referred to the cases of Collon and Dundalk, and pointed out the evils which would result from separations of some of the unions; but these separations had been recommended by the Commissioners, who were all members of the Established Church. It was said, however, that if they adopted this Bill, they must go further. He asked those who urged that argument, "If we do not sanction the principle of this Bill, can we continue as we now are?" For his part, after the best consideration which he could give to the subject, he had no hesitation in saying, and 1057 he believed that in this he spoke the sense of the great majority of the House, that the time for applying the remedy to these evils had arrived. That remedy his Majesty's Government had proposed, and to it they now asked the sanction of Parliament. If they passed this measure, they would render the collection of tithe practicable in Ireland, and give the Established Church in that country a degree of permanent security and stability which it never before possessed. The Roman Catholic inhabitants of Ireland would at length consider that their interests, their wishes, and their feelings, were not wholly neglected by the Legislature of the United Kingdom. They would at length believe that they were objects of some care and consideration with the Imperial Parliament. That the measure was not perfect he admitted; but did his noble Friend think they could rest as they were, without some such Bill? Did he think it possible, without some such measure, to support the Established Church in any form whatever? If this measure were refused, it would be utterly impossible to continue the tithe system, a system which, as now carried on in Ireland, was so repugnant to the principles of justice, and so opposed to the feelings of the great majority of their fellow-subjects in that country. Without going the full length of the principles of this Bill, it would be utterly impossible to collect tithe in Ireland in any shape, and the attempt would be productive of such scenes as the right hon. and gallant Officer, the late Secretary for Ireland, so strongly deprecated. They who said, that the collection of tithes would be practicable without this Bill, must also say, that "the sword which was hitherto glued to the scabbard, is now withdrawn." Could they look calmly at the consequences? If this Bill were rejected, those who refused it would probably have another Bill pressed on them at a future time, which would perhaps go much further; and then there would be unavailing regrets that the present measure was not adopted in good time. Let him, in conclusion, impress upon the House, that after the events which have recently occurred, there was no returning to the old system; and even if they could return to it, the growing discontent of the Irish people would render such a proceeding inefficacious. If the House passed this Bill, they would settle the question of tithe, and secure to the Church a certain amount of revenue. These were some of the results which he confidently expected would flow 1058 from the measure, which had the additional advantage of having received the support of those who had hitherto been adverse to all propositions of a similar description. That circumstance, he trusted, would render its reception and success in Ireland a matter of certainty. He confidently anticipated, that it would be considered a work of peace, and a testimony of the disposition of the House not to forget the real claims of the Irish people, nor to be backward in redressing the grievances of which they had so loudly and so justly complained. These were the grounds on which he urged the House to lend its sanction to the measure, and resist the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. These were the grounds on which he founded his hopes of its practical success.
Mr. O Connellrose amidst loud cries of "Question," and "Go on." He said, if hon. Gentlemen would listen to him for a few minutes, he promised to sit down the moment they expressed their disinclination to hear him further. He should not go into any details on the question, for these were already fully before the House; but he said at once that one of the worst things which they could do for Ireland was to reject this measure. What was the real question before them? The House, which had been called together under the auspices of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who had declared himself hostile to the great principle of the measure, the House had resolved that the Irish nation should participate in the advantages of that which was national property. That declaration had raised the hopes of the people of Ireland. He implored the House then to pause and consider the fatal consequences which must inevitably result from the rejection of the measure, not only to the empire generally, but to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, on whose actions and on whose course of proceeding alone, the consequences of that rejection must rest. The hopes of the Irish people had been raised; anticipations of the redress of long existing and heavy wrongs had been excited in their bosoms; they were taught, for the first time, to feel that their brethren in England had awakened to a sense of the demand they possessed on their sympathies and kindly feelings. He entreated the House not to cast lightly away the good effects which this impression had already produced. Tranquillity and peace had even now been in a great measure restored. The Judges in the southern and western parts of the country had compli- 1059 merited the Grand Juries on the tranquillity of their respective districts; the only disturbances that had been committed had taken place in the north of Ireland, and they had originated with the extreme loyalists, who had so misconducted themselves that it became necessary for the soldiers to fire upon them. He implored the House, in the strongest and most emphatic terms he could possibly make use of, not to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, the more especially after what had taken place in the course of the Debate; in which, although great interest was expressed as to the number of Protestants in different places—now stated to be 120 here and 50 there, and again 20 elsewhere—no allusion had been made to the number of Catholics in the different benefices. And yet, what was the real state of the case? In the diocese of Armagh the total number of Protestants was 783,000, of which 517.782 were Episcopalians, while the number of Catholics was no less than 1,437,401—1,437,401 Roman Catholics in the diocese of Armagh alone. In Dublin the number of Protestants was 177,930, and that of the Catholics 1,630,681. In the diocese of Cashel the number of Protestants was 112,434, the number of Roman Catholics 2,220,000 and upwards. In Connaught the number of Protestants was 444,900, the number of Catholics, 1,188,500. Could the Established Church in Ireland, under any circumstances whatever, be called a National Church? "Can you presume," continued the hon. and learned Gentleman, "can you presume, I ask you, to call the Established Church of Ireland a National Church? Turn Ireland into a Province, if you please; call it a Provincial Church, and then I will discuss with you the point, whether its extent is sufficiently commensurate with its utility to justify the appellation; but the mere act of calling an establishment like this a National Church is as gross a violation of every principle of Nationality as can be conceived." The Catholics of Ireland, continued the hon. and learned Member, were six millions and a-half; the total number of Protestants was one million and a-half. Count them, take them man for man, and what was the result? A balance of five millions in favour of the Catholics. What did they find else? That there were two Catholics for every Protestant, and a surplus of three millions and a half of Catholics into the bargain. Why, was this Church Establishment, this Nati- 1060 onal Church, to be endured. An hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the town of Dundalk, and had stated that the members of the Church were increasing in that neighbourhood. The town and parish contained 1,433 members of the Establishment, and when reminded that that included the fourteen Protestant inhabitants of Castletown, the hon. Member asked what that had to do with the case? But do not let it be forgotten that the rector of these united parishes was also rector of Louth. Where, then, was the anxious attention to the wants of the few Protestants in the parish of Castletown? Of course the rector of these united parishes does full justice to the 261 members of the Church in his parish of Louth. Where, then, was the anxiety to provide each clergyman with his 175l. The rector of Louth was resident, and had only his 261 Protestant parishioners to take care of. Why not then give up his 2,000l. a year surplus for other purposes. He would take the dioceses of Raphoe and Ardagh as to the number of the members of the Church and the Catholics, and even the most bigotted must admit that he had not taken an unfair case, but that it was unexceptionable. In the first of these dioceses, then, take the 33,500 members of the Establishment to the 145,000 Catholic inhabitants of it, and in the latter the 17,000 Protestants against the 195,000 Catholics. The revenues of the Church should be for the religious instruction of the entire 400,000 inhabitants of these dioceses. Every parish paid tithes—there was a glebe house, or land, in almost every one of the parishes of those dioceses. But take on the other hand, the diocese of Tuam, with its 467,000 Catholics, against its 9,000 members of the Establishment. The Establishment was intended for both the 9,000 Protestants and the 467,000 Catholics. He was told, however, in the vulgar language of authority, that Protestant worship must be maintained in every parish. Here, then, was the 467,000 Catholics and the 9,000 members of the Church. They were told, that the means of religious instruction must be maintained for the latter; but who was to provide for the religious instruction of the 467,000 Catholics? Was it not themselves? They were taxed for the maintenance of the Protestant Church, and they supported their own Churches, and they had their own Archbishops, and Bishops, and Deans, and Priests, and Curates, without coming to the treasury of Protestants, or taking money from 1061 their pockets. They did not require Protestants to contribute to their Church, but there were many liberal Protestants, and they received the blessings of thousands for it, who did largely contribute to the building Catholic places of divine worship. Was not the Protestant Church as good as that of the Catholics, that it required this adventitious aid? had it not a powerful influence on the human mind? It was said, that the Catholic religion was founded in ignorance, and could be dispelled by education; how then could those who advanced such an opinion refuse to Catholics the chance of education out of the funds which they mainly contributed to? But there was an objection to educate the Catholics. It was said, that they were a benighted set, and buried in ignorance, and that the only remedy was in education. By this means it was said, that they would be made Protestants; then why not adopt the course, if such was the result that was expected? The truth was, they charged the Catholics with ignorance, and refused the means which they alleged would dispel it. The hon. Member for Cumberland had done him the honour of noticing him in a pointed manner—a notice which he (Mr. O'Connell) had not provoked in any manner; the right hon. Baronet had touched on topics which had not previously been alluded to; he then went on to sneer at the Catholics, and to heap his praise on the Protestant Dissenters of England; the deductions from his speech were very different from the facts he had stated, for he had drawn out of his pocket a passage of Clarendon, respecting the turning the Bishops out of the House of Lords, but instead of endeavouring to excite unnecessary fears, he should rather have deplored the circumstances which had brought matters to that point. He should have deplored their conduct, and remembered that the Bishops occupied themselves in hunting out where the Dissenters had last been at prayers, and pursued such a course of persecution as excited the indignation of the people of England. He should not have forgotten that they had lent themselves in every instance to palliate the crimes of the court. When the right hon. Gentleman sneered at the Catholics and praised the Protestant Dissenters of England—and endeavoured to excite alarm by alluding to the expulsion of the Bishops from the other House, he might have remembered, that this was done by the provocations heaped upon the Protestant 1062 Dissenters, and there was not a single Catholic then in Parliament who voted for the Bishops retaining their seats in the Upper House. They then pursued a consistent and zealous, but a mistaken course of policy. Was this then a topic for the right hon. Member to sneer at the Catholics for? But what had the Church gained by the rejection of the Bill of last year? By that Bill the Protestant clergyman was to receive 77l. 10s. per cent, from the treasury, and to be exempted from all the trouble and anxiety of collecting his tithes. Had the Irish clergy then gained by the rejection of the Bill of last year as compared with either of the measures that had been introduced in the present Session? The right hon. and gallant officer proposed in his Bill to give the Irish clergyman. 2l. 10s. per cent, less than he would have received by that rejected by the House of Lords last year. A. further reduction was to be made in this measure; so that if this measure had passed, 5l. 10s. percent would be lost to the clergy in every 100l. more than would have been the case if the Bill of last year had not been delayed. But if this measure were rejected what would be the Bill of next year? The Bill of last year was rejected, which the noble Lord had opposed in consequence of so much being taken from the Church; but he hinted that that part of the Bill of this year which was to reduce the income of the clergy to 73l. 5s. per cent, should have his approval. So, then, this year, those were ready to accept 73l. 5s. who rejected the Bill of last year, which was to give the clergy 77l. 10s. per cent. The right hon. Baronet might despise the Catholics of Ireland, and might call upon the House to throw out this measure; but what did his Church gain by the rejection of the Bill of last year? Had the Church gained by the massacres that had taken place because that Bill did not pass? How had it gained—was it by the slaughter of the men at Rathcormac, whose lives would have been spared if this Bill had passed. Had the Church gained by the rejection of that Bill? He would appeal to the wailings of the widows and the screams of the children, and the moaning of the parents—for the husbands', and fathers' and offspring's blood that had been shed at Rathcormac. Were more Rathcormacs desired? The Catholics of Ireland were not only treated with disregard, but with contempt. In passing through Connemara, ten Protestants would hardly be met with in the district, which was equal to 1063 one to a square mile, and yet a Protestant Establishment must be kept up in that part of the country; "You are strong," observed the lion and learned Gentleman, and you will tell the Catholics of Ireland that their feelings and judgments shall be outraged, and that they shall still be exposed to every injustice? Will you tell them, that although they are upwards of 7,000,000, their feelings shall be wounded and insulted, and their interests sacrificed, for the gratification of 800,000 persons. It might be proper that the 800,000 should have provision made for their religious instruction; but would they not allow the overwhelming majority of the Irish nation to receive any share of education, the funds for which were mainly furnished by themselves, lest they should be improved? And who pursued such policy—what Statesman forsooth? He could not help smiling at the pious Sergeant (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) saying, that the numbers of the Irish Church had not increased because it had been so poor for such a series of years. He thought that he saw the tears flowing down the learned Sergeant's cheeks when he uttered such a pious lamentation. These receivers of tithes then were so poor that they could not propagate their religion in Ireland, and yet it might be thought that the Catholic priest would be poorer who received no tithes. The lamentation was, that there was no corn in Egypt, but how just was the remark. Allusion had been made to the Island Achlin, the Protestant incumbent of which received 900l. a-year. A person had been sent over to that Island from Exeter-hall to convert the Catholics. He took out with him a capital of 2,500l., and took a number of Protestants with him, which were daily increasing. As the Island at the time was overflowing with population, the people were dissatisfied and drove the settlers elsewhere, and yet this had been the ground of attack on the Catholic Church. The same circumstances would certainly have taken place elsewhere. He could not refrain from laughing at the importance attached to the increase of the number of Protestants in some parishes. Any person who carefully looked at the two columns in the Report—the one taken in 1830, and the other in 1834—would see that the latter was rather a correction of the former; he, however, did not place the slightest reliance on such Returns. In one parish, near his own residence, it had been stated, that there had been a great 1064 increase in the Protestant inhabitants in the course of three years—namely, from thirty-two to forty-nine. Now it so happened that sixteen Protestants had been transferred from one parish to another. The keeper of the water-guard and his family had been moved from one side of the river to the other. So much for the increase of Protestants in that quarter. If there had been an increase in one parish, there had been an accompanying diminution in another. In another case an apparent increase had taken place, by a Protestant relative of his own and his family coming to reside in a parish. This, however, was miserable special pleading, with an important Question. He would not follow the right hon. Member for Cumberland through the length of his speech. He had amongst other things alluded to the Church of Scotland. But how did the Scots acquire their Church? Were there no Grahams or Græmes—no knights of the bright sword in those days. The Grahams seemed fallen from their former chivalry. They were become prudent country gentlemen, anxious to risk nothing? Those who conquered for the religion of their country, risked everything for it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would risk nothing. They had also received a lecture on charity by one of the Members for Berkshire, whom he did not then see. Oh! he perceived that the right hon. Member had moved over the way; he congratulated him on his change of place—he was in his proper hemisphere—he was now in his proper element. The hon. Member reminded him of
The last rose of summerLeft blooming alone;All its lovely companionsWere faded and gone!The hon. Gentleman had shown a great deal of cunning, he appeared to be mighty charitable and kind on those points which did not hurt him in the slightest degree. He was willing to give Poor laws to Ireland, forsooth, which could not affect him in the slightest degree. The hon. Gentleman reminded him of the man who gave a stone when asked for bread. The hon. Gentleman said, that he would not consent to dispense with any portion of the revenues of the Protestant Church in Ireland. Would England give anything for the maintenance of the Catholic clergy? Were the people of Ireland to continue to pay the Protestant clergy if this measure did not pass? They regarded it as the earnest of the future peace and tranquillity of Ire- 1065 land, and were their hopes to be disappointed, and the cup of expectation again to he dashed from their lips? By the Bill of last year the 1,000,000l. advanced to the Irish clergy was to be repaid to the English Treasury; but what was the right hon. and gallant Officer's proposed Amendment to this? The 1,000,000l. was to he allowed to the clergy, and no portion of that sum was to be repaid. The plan of the present Ministry was to give up the 1,000,000l. to the clergy, and by doing so to endeavour to make a purchase of the peace of Ireland! Twenty millions were freely given to remove the stain of slavery from the British colonies, and was the House unwilling to give 1,000,000l. to relieve the Catholics from the oppression of that grinding faction which had crushed the country to the dust—which had deeply imbued its hands in the blood of the people of Ireland, and was now as anxious as ever to pursue a similar course? The passing this measure would produce a great, an electric effect throughout Ireland. It would proclaim to the people of that country the downfall of those who had tyrannized over them—the dismissal of that faction which had ever exerted itself to oppress and crush them to the earth. Even now the toast was drunk of "Protestant ascendancy;" that was, that there should not be equality, but that one party should domineer over another. The law, however, had put Catholics on a footing of equality with Protestants, and if the attempt were made to put them down, they would reply, "We are 7,000,000, and will not be oppressed by a miserable minority." Was the House proud of putting its hands into the pockets of the Irish people for the purpose of taking tithes for the maintenance of the Protestant clergy? He thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) for the sneers he had indulged in at the Catholics. He was a man of nice conscience: corn and currency was formerly his maxim; now it must be conscience and candour. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted him about the bloody head and bones. The sneer came extremely well from such a quarter: half Reformer, half Tory, pallid with fear on one side, insolent with temerity on the other. He would keep up the apparition before the right hon. Gentleman and set up the bloody head and bones for a coat of arms for him. The great object of the people of Ireland was to procure peace and tranquillity from the British empire. All that they demanded was 1066 justice; it had been long withheld from them, and then they demanded an independent legislature. The demand was made, and the proposition was met with au overwhelming majority of that House, and the unanimous vote of the other House; but then the two branches of the legislature solemnly promised to adopt immediate steps to get rid of the grievances of Ireland. He asked were they or were they not prepared to fulfil their promises? The right hon. Baronet opposite and his friends had never in their whole career benefited Ireland by more than a single measure, and that was invariably disfigured by their pointing to one individual and stigmatising him. He remembered the origin of the career of the hon. Member for Cambridge, and it furnished a melancholy story; but he certainly, with most beautiful consistency, held out to the last, and in the end pronounced his own eulogium. On what ground could they object to the present Bill? It provided for the spiritual wants of the Protestants, and it gave to the Catholics nothing more than just as much education as could be provided for them by the surplus. They were told that Ecclesiastical property was inalienable. Was it so? Did it not originally belong to the Roman Catholics, and was it not wrested from them? Was it inalienable? If so, he claimed it. The power which gave it to them, had the power to take it away. He put it to the hon. Member for Cumberland if a few Roman Catholics found their way to Cockermouth, and insisted on taxing the Protestants, what would he say? Would he not resort to his bright sword to resist the innovation? He would resist to the death, and he would have a right to do so. The people of Ireland did not resist. To be sure they had got a habit of not paying. Though perhaps the jocose speech of the noble Lord on the subject of his own religion might coax them into doing so. This was their time to introduce the principle contained in this Bill. They did wrong last year in rejecting it. Why was it rejected? Why because a noble Duke—no, he begged his pardon; he believed that noble Duke strove against the Opposition, seeing what the probable effect would be to the clergy; but he was overwhelmed, and acquiesced in the violence of those whose violence and bigotry were allowed to prevail. He hoped they would see no more religion stained with blood: he hoped they would sec no more of the piety which, while it raised its eyes in 1067 devotion, found a musket with the bayonet fixed. Let them not be swayed at such a time as this by considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence; but let them rather, in the noble spirit of benevolence, endeavour to infuse peace and tranquillity into Ireland.
§ The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 282; Noes 319; Majority 31.
| List of the AYES. | |
| MEMBERS FOR ENGLAND. | |
| Alford, Lord | Dottin, A. R. |
| Alsager, Captain | Dowdeswell, William |
| Ashley, Lord | Duffield, T. |
| Ashley, Hon. H. | Dugdale, W. |
| Attwood, M. | Duncombe, Hon. W. |
| Bagot, Hon. W. | Duncombe, Hon. A. |
| Bailey, J. | Durham, Sir P. C. |
| Baillie, Col. H. | East, J. B. |
| Barclay, C. | Eastnor, Lord |
| Baring, T. | Eaton, R. J. |
| Baring, H. | Egerton, W. T. |
| Baring, W. B. | Egerton, Sir P., Bart. |
| Baring, F. | Egerton, Lord F. |
| Barneby, J. | Entwistle, J. |
| Beckett, Sir J. | Estcourt, T. G. B. |
| Bell, M. | Elley, Sir J. |
| Benett, J. | Elwes, J. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Fancourt, Major |
| Beresford, Sir J. | Fector, J. M. |
| Bethell, R. | Fielden, W. |
| Blackburne, J. J. | Finch, G. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Fleetwood, P. H. |
| Boldero, Capt. H. G. | Fleming, J. |
| Boiling, W. | Foley, E. T. |
| Bonham, F. R. | Follett, Sir W. |
| Borthwick, P. | Forrester, Hn. G.C.W. |
| Bradshaw, J. | Forster, C. S. |
| Bramston, J. | Freshfield, J. W. |
| Brownrigg, J. S. | Gaskell, J. Milnes |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Gladstone, T. |
| Brudenell, Lord | Gladstone, W. E. |
| Buller, Sir J. Y. | Glynne, Sir S. R. |
| Burrell, Sir C. | Goodricke, Sir F. H. |
| Calcraft, J. | Gore, W. O. |
| Canning, Rt. Hn. Sir S. | Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H. |
| Cartwright, W. R. | Graham, Sir, J. |
| Chandos, Marquess of | Greene, T. |
| Chaplin, T. | Greisley, Sir R. |
| Chapman, A. | Greville, Sir C. |
| Charlton, L. | Grimston, Viscount |
| Chichester, A. | Grimston, Hon. E. H. |
| Clive, Viscount | Halford, H. |
| Clive, Hon. R. H. | Halse, J. |
| Codrington, C. W. | Hanmer, Sir J. |
| Compton, H. C. | Hanmer, Col. H. |
| Corbett, T. | Harcourt, G. V. |
| Crewe, Sir G. | Hardinge, Sir H. |
| Cripps, J. | Hardy, J |
| Dalbiac, Sir C. | Hawkes, T. |
| Dare, R. W. H. | Heathcote, G. J. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Henniker, Lord |
| Davenport, J. | Herbert, Hon. S. |
| Dick, Quintin | Herries. Rt. Hn. J. C. |
| Hill, Sir R. Bart. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Hogg, J. W. | Polhill, Captain F. |
| Hope, H. T. | Pollen, Sir J., Bart. |
| Hotham, Lord | Pollington, Viscount |
| Houldsworth, T. | Pollock, Sir F. |
| Hoy, J. B. | Powell, Col. W. E. |
| Hughes, W. Hughes | Praed, W. M. |
| Ingham, R. | Praed, J. B. |
| Inglis, Sir R. H. Bt. | Price, S. G. |
| Irton, S. | Price, R. |
| Jermyn, Earl of | Reid, Sir J. R. |
| Johnstone, Sir J. V. B. | Richards, J. |
| Jones, W. | Rickford, W. |
| Kearsley, J. H. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Kerrison, Sir E. | Ross, C. |
| Knatchbull, Rt. Hon. Sir E. | Rushbrooke, R. |
| Russell, C. | |
| Knightley, Sir C. | Ryle, J. |
| Knight, H. G. | Saunderson, R. |
| Lawson, A. | Sandon, Viscount |
| Law, Hon. C. B. | Scarlett, Hon. R. |
| Lees, J. F. | Scott, Sir E. D. |
| Lemon, Sir C. Bart. | Sheppard, T. |
| Lennox, Lord J. G. | Sibthorpe, Colonel |
| Lennox, Lord A. | Smith, A. |
| Lewis, W. | Smyth, Sir G. H. |
| Lewis, D. | Somerset, Lord E. H. |
| Lincoln, Earl of | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Lopes, Sir B., Bart. | Spry, Sir S. T. |
| Lowther, Lord | Stanley, Lord |
| Lowther, J. H. | Stewart, J. |
| Lowther, Hon. Col. | Stormont, Viscount |
| Lushington,S. R. | Sturt, H.C. |
| Lygon,Hn. Col. H. B. | Thompson, W. |
| Mackinnon, W. A. | Tollemache, Hon. A. |
| Mahon, Lord | Towneley, R. G. |
| Mandeville, Lord | Townshend, Lord J. |
| Marsland, T. | Trench, Sir F. |
| Miles, W. | Trevor, Hon. R. G. |
| Miles, P. J. | Trevor, Hon. A. |
| Miller, W. H. | Twiss, H. |
| Mordaunt, Sir J. Bart. | Tyrell, Sir J. T. |
| Morgan, C. M. R. | Vere, Sir C. |
| Mosley, Sir O., Bart, | Vernon, G. H. |
| Neeld, J. | Vivian, J. E. |
| Neeld, Joseph | Vyvyan, Sir R. |
| Nicholl, J. | Wall, C. B. |
| Norreys, Visct. | Walpole, Lord |
| North, F. | Walter, J. |
| Ossulston, Viscount | Welby, G. E. |
| Owen, Hugh O. | Weyland, R. |
| Owen, Sir J. Bart. | Witmore, T. C. |
| Palmer, R. | Wilbraham. Hn. R.B. |
| Parker, M. E. N. | Williams, R. |
| Parry, Colonel L. P. | Williams, T. P. |
| Patten, J. W. | Wilmot, Sir J. E. |
| Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. | Wodehouse, Hon. E. |
| Peel, Colonel, | Wood, T. |
| Peel, Rt. Hn. W. Y. | Worcester, Marq. of |
| Peel, E. | Wyndham, W. |
| Pelham, J. C. | Wynn, Rt. Hn. C.W. |
| Pemburton, T. | Yorke, E.T. |
| Penruddocke, J. H. | Young, J |
| Pigot, R. |
| MEMBERS FOR SCOTLAND | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Arbuthnot, Hon. H. |
| Balfour, T. | Hay, Sir J. |
| Bruce, C. L. | Hope, Hon. J. |
| Campbell, Sir H., Bt. | Johnstone, J. J. H. |
| Chisholm, A. | Pringle, A. |
| Ferguson, Captain | Rae, Sir W. |
| Forbes, W. | Sinclair, G. |
| Gordon. Hon. W. | Stewart, Sir M.S. Bt. |
| MEMBERS FOR IRELAND. | |
| Archdall, M. | Perceval, Colone |
| Bateson, Sir R. Bart. | Plunkett, Hon. R. |
| Bruen, F. | Tennent, J. E. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Thomas, Colonel |
| Cole, Lord | Verner, W. |
| Cole, Hon. A. | Vesey, Hon. T. |
| Cooper, E. J. | Young, Sir W. L. |
| Coote, Sir C. | TELLERS. |
| Copeland, W. T. | |
| Corry, Hon. H. T. L. | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Damer, G. L. D. | Clerke, Sir G., Bart. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. A. | PAIRED OFF. |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | |
| Hayes, Sir E. S. Bart. | Bulkeley, Sir R. |
| Hill, Lord A. | Forbes, Viscount |
| Jackson, J. D. | Geary, Sir W. |
| Jones,Capt. T. | Grant Hon. F. |
| Kerr, D. | Maclean, D. |
| Kirk, P. | Martin, J. |
| Lefroy, A. | Manners, Lord R. |
| Lefroy, Rt. Hn. T. | Schofield, W. H. |
| Lucas, E. | Shaw, Rt. Hn. F. |
| Longfield, R. | Smith, T. A. |
| Mathew, Captain | Stanley, A. |
| Maxwell, H. | Vaughan, Sir W. |
| Meynell, Captain | Wynn, Sir W. |
| O'Neill. Hon. Gen. | Wortley, Hon. J. |
| List of the NOES | |
| MEMBERS FOR ENGLAND. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Brodie, W. B. |
| Ainsworth, P. | Brotherton, J. |
| Alston, Rowland | Buckingham, J. S. |
| Angerstein, J. | Buller, Charles |
| Anson, Sir G. | Buller, E. |
| Astley, Sir J. | Bulwer, E. L. |
| Attwood, T. | Bulwer, H. L. |
| Bagshaw, J. | Burdon, W. |
| Baines, E. | Burton, H. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Buxton, T. F. |
| Barclay, D. | Byng, George |
| Barham, John | Byng, Hon. G. |
| Baring, F. T. | Carter, J.B. |
| Barnard, H. G. | Cavendish, Hon. C. C. |
| Beauclerk, Major | Cayley, E. S. |
| Beaumont, T. W. | Chichester, J. P. B. |
| Berkeley, C. | Clay, W. |
| Berkeley, Hon. C. | Clayton, Sir W. |
| Berkeley, Hon. G. | Clive, E. B. |
| Bernal, R. | Cockerell, Sir C. |
| Bewes, T. | Codrington, Sir E. |
| Biddulph, Robert | Colborne, N. W. R. |
| Bish, T. | Collier, J. |
| Blamire, W. | Conyngham, Lord A. |
| Blount, Sir C. | Cookes, T. H. |
| Bowes, John | Cowper, Hon. W. F. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Crawford, W. |
| Crompton, S. | Lushington, Dr. |
| Curteis, H. B. | Mangles, James |
| Curteis, E. B. | Marjoribanks, Stuart |
| Denison, J. E. | Marshall, W. |
| Denison, W. | Marsland, H. |
| Divett, E | Methuen, P. |
| Donkin, Sir R. S. | Milton, Lord |
| Duncombe, T. S. | Molesworth, Sir W. |
| Dundas, Hon. J. | Moreton, Hon. A. |
| Dundas, Hon. T. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Dykes, F. L. | Mostyn, Hn. E. M. L. |
| Ebrington, Viscount | Morrison, J. |
| Ellice, Right Hon. E. | Ord, W. H. |
| Elphinstone, H. | Paget, Capt. F. |
| Etwall, R. | Palmer, General |
| Euston, Lord | Palmerston, Viscount |
| Evans, Col. De Lacy | Parrott, J. |
| Ewart, Wm. | Pattison, J. |
| Fazakerley, J. N. | Pease, J. |
| Fellowes, Hon. N. | Pechell, Captain |
| Ferguson, Sir R. C. | Pelham, Hon. C. A. |
| Fitzry, Lord C. | Pendarves E. W. |
| Folkes, Sir W. | Pepys, Sir C. |
| Fort, J. | Phillips, G. R. |
| Gaskell, D. | Philips, M. |
| Gordon, R. | Phillipps, C. M. |
| Goring, H. D. | Pinney, W. |
| Grey, Hon. C. | Ponsonby, Hon. W. |
| Grey, Sir G. | Ponsonby, Hon. J. |
| Grosvenor, Lord R. | Potter, R. |
| Grote, G. | Poulter, J. |
| Guest, J. J. | Price, Sir R. |
| Gully, J. | Pryme, G. |
| Hall, Benjamin | Pryse, P. |
| Handley, H. | Pusey, P. |
| Harland, W. C. | Ramsbottom, J. |
| Harvey, D. W. | Rice, Right Hon. T.S. |
| Hawes, B. | Rippon, C. |
| Hawkins, J. H. | Robarts, A. W. |
| Heathcoat, John | Robinson, G. R. |
| Heathcote, R. E. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Hector, C. | Rolfe, Sir R. M. |
| Heneage, E, | Rooper, J. B. |
| Hindley, C. | Rundle, J. |
| Hobhouse, Hn. Sir J. | Russell, Lord |
| Hodges, T. T. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Russell, Lord C.F. |
| Holland, E. | Scholefield, J. |
| Hoskins, K. | Scott, J. W. |
| Howard, Right Hn. E. | Scrope, G. P. |
| Howard, Philip H. | Seale, Lieut.-Col. |
| Howick, Viscount | Seymour, Lord |
| Hume, J. | Sheldon, E. R. |
| Humphrey, J. | Simeon, Sir R. Bart. |
| Hurst, R. H. | Smith, B. |
| Hutt, W. | Smith, R. V. |
| Kemp, T. R. | Smith, Hon. R. S. |
| Kerry, Earl of | Spiers, A. G. |
| King, E. B. | Stanley, Hon. H.T. |
| Labouchere, Henry | Stewart, P. M. |
| Lampton, H. | Strutt, Ed. |
| Langton, Col. G. | Stuart, Lord D. |
| Leader, J. T. | Surrey, Earl of |
| Lefevre, C. S. | Talbot, C. R. M. |
| Lennard, T. B. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Lister, E. C. | Tennyson, C. |
| Lushington, C. | Thomson,Rt. Hn. C.P. |
| Thomson, Col. | Wason, R. |
| Thornley, T. | Whalley, Sir S. S. B. |
| Tooke, W. | Wigney, I. N. |
| Tracy, H. | Wilbraham, G. |
| Trelawney, Sir S. | Wilde, Sergeant |
| Troubridge, Sir T. | Wilkins, W. |
| Tulk, C. A. | Wilks, J. |
| Turner, W. | Williams, W. |
| Tynte, Col. K. K. | Williams, Sir J. |
| Tynte, C. J. K. | Williams, W. A. |
| Verney, Sir H. | Williamson, Sir H. |
| Villiers, C. P. | Wilson, H. |
| Vivian, J. H. | Wilmington, Sir T. |
| Vivian, Major | Winnington, H. J. |
| Wakley, T. | Wood, M. |
| Walker, R. | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Warburton, H. | Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt |
| Ward, H. G. | Young G. F. |
| MEMBERS FOR SCOTLAND | |
| Adam, Admiral | Johnson, A. |
| Bannerman, Alex. | Loch, J. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Mackenzie, J. A. S. |
| Campbell, W. F. | M'Leod, R. |
| Campbell, Sir J. | M'Taggart, J. |
| Chalmers, P. | Maule, Hon. F. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Murray, J. A. |
| Denistoun, A. | Oliphant, L. |
| Dunlop, Captain J. | Oswald, J. |
| Dunlop, C. | Parnell, Sir H. |
| Fergus, John | Sharpe, General |
| Ferguson, R. | Stuart, A |
| Fergusson, Right Hon. R. C. | Stuart, R. |
| Stuart, Lord J. | |
| Gillon, W. D. | Wallace, R. |
| Hallyburton, Hon. D. | Wemyss, Captain |
| Hay, Colonel L. |
| MEMBERS FOR IRELAND | |
| Acheson Viscount | Macnamara, Major |
| Baldwin, Dr. | M'Cance, J. |
| Barron, H. W. | Maher, J. |
| Barry, S. | Martin, T. |
| Bellew, R. | Mullins, F. W. |
| Bellew, Sir P. | Musgrave, Sir R. |
| Blake, Martin Jos. | Nagle, Sir R. |
| Bodkin, J. | O'Brien, Sir S. |
| Brabazon, Sir W. J. | O'Brien C. |
| Brady, D. C. | O'Connor, Don |
| Bridgman, H. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Browne, D. | O'Connell, D. |
| Butler, hon. Pierce | O'Connell, M. |
| Callaghan, D. | O'Connell, J. |
| Chapman, M. L. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Clements, Viscount | O'Loghlen, Sergeant |
| Crawford, W. S. | Perrin, L. |
| Dobbin, L. | Power, P. |
| Evans, G. | Power, J. |
| Finn, W. F. | Raphael, A. |
| Fitzgibbon, Hon. R. | Roche, W. |
| Fitzsimon, C. | Roche, D. |
| Fitzsimon, N. | Ronayne, D. |
| French, F. | Ruthven, E. S. |
| Grattan, J. | Ruthven, E. |
| Grattan, H. | Shell, R. L. |
| Jephson, C. D. O. | Sullivan, R. |
| Lynch, A. H. | Talbot, J. H. |
| Vigors, N. A | |
| Walker, C. A. | ABSENT. |
| Westenra, Hon. H. R. | Belfast, Earl of |
| Westenra, Hon. J. C. | Burdett, Sir F. |
| White, S. | Cave, R. O. |
| Wyse, T. | Chetwynd, Captain |
| Churchill, Lord C. | |
| TELLERS. | Conolly, Col. |
| Stanley, E. J. | Dilwyn, L. W. |
| Wood, C. | Goulburn, E. |
| Heathcoat, Sir G. | |
| PAIRED OFF. | Knox, Hon. Col. |
| Andover, Lord | Lee, J.L. |
| Blackburne, J. | Locke, W. |
| Cavendish, Hon. G. | Long, W. |
| Crawford, S. | Maxwell, J. |
| Edwardes, Colonel | Noel, Sir G. |
| Fielden, John | Ord, W. |
| Gisborne, T. | Poyntz, W. S. |
| Heron, Sir R | Sanford, E. A. |
| Howard, R. | Scott, Lord, J. |
| Jarvis, J. | Strickland Sir G. |
| Parker, J. | Tapps, Sir G. W. |
| Ramsden, J. C. | Thompson, R. B. |
| Smith, J. A. | Turner, T. F. |
| Talfourd, Sergeant |
| ANALYSIS. | ||
| For the Motion. | Against. | |
| English | 232 | 224 |
| Scotch | 16 | 32 |
| Irish | 34 | 63 |
| 282 | 319 |
§ Amendment lost.
§ The House went into Committee pro formâ—and resumed.—Committee to sit again.