HC Deb 02 August 1836 vol 35 cc760-855

The Order of the Day for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments on the Church of Ireland Bill, having, on the motion of Lord John Russell, been read,

Lord John Russell

said, in rising to propose a motion on the subject of the amendments made by the House of Lords in the Bill, which was fixed for consideration this day, I feel it incumbent upon me, in the situation I have the honour to hold here, to call the attention of the House for a few minutes to a question relating to its privileges. When the Bill which had relation to the Municipal Corporations of Ireland was before us, returned from the other House, I took the liberty of stating, that I thought there were only three courses to be pursued: to reject the amendments—to reject them in part, to agree to them in part—and to reject them for the purpose of introducing a new Bill. My observation was not followed up in the course of the debate which ensued, either on the opposite side of the House or on this. I feel it, therefore, the more incumbent upon me to take notice of the alterations in the Bill now upon the table, because I am of opinion with one of the early authorities of this House—I mean Mr. Pym—that our privileges are not matters of form or of light import, but of great weight and value. I should, therefore, be sorry that the House should take into consideration the nature of the amendments of the Lords—my observation upon the former Bill not having, as I said, been matter of debate—without pointing out in what manner they might be looked upon as affecting our privileges, and without giving some warning to the House (I should think myself unpardonable if I did not offer it) that those privileges with respect to the alterations made in bills, more especially in bills concern- ing grants, are matters of the gravest import for the preservation of the character and power of the House of Commons. As they are matters of grave import to the House, so likewise are they matters of great consequence to the welfare of the people by whom we are sent here as representatives and trustees. In the present Bill the chief alterations may be considered under four heads. 1. An alteration in the amount of rent-charge from seven-tenths to three-fourths. 2. An alteration of the distribution of the incomes of the parochial clergy in Ireland, increasing the amount to be so distributed. 3. An alteration taking away part of the clause which gave a surplus to the Consolidated Fund. 4. An alteration omitting that clause which provided for the grant of 50,000l. a year out of that Consolidated Fund, for the improvement of religious and moral instruction in Ireland. As a consequence, a necessary consequence, of the last amendment, half the title of the Bill has been left out, namely, the words, "and for the promotion of religious and moral instruction." About half the preamble, both in bulk and substance, has also been erased by the Lords. These alterations might be contemplated as affecting the consideration of the Bill in the first instance, as they are alterations entirely of the general scope and object of the measure as sent from this branch of the Legislature—that being a Bill uniting two objects, which we declare, in order to produce a satisfactory measure, ought to be united. They are of vast importance in the next place as altering a grant to his Majesty under the name of the Consolidated Fund, and as providing for an issue to be made out of that fund. There have been Bills not more affecting the privileges of this House than that now before me, and there have been alterations in them of somewhat a similar nature, which have caused them to be rejected at once on their return to this House. I might quote an instance of a Bill on f. e subject of the corn-laws in the year 1772— a question which was, no doubt, as much in the competence of the House of Lords as of the House of Commons—and yet, because the House of Lords left out the provision that a bounty should be paid on the exportation of corn, and thereby, as it were, rather diminished the burthens of the people, this House, generally, from all sides declared that the measure could no longer be admitted; and in the manner in which Bills had been often treated in those days, though we are seldom so uncivil in ours, the Speaker said that he would perform his part, and tossing it over the table, it was kicked out by the Members of different parties. That was done by general consent of the House, no one at that time saying a word in favour of the consideration of the amendments; and if I were to confine myself to mere matter of privilege, I know not why I should not argue that this is a Bill like that on the subject of the Corn-laws, which admits of no alteration in any part which relates to the Consolidated Fund. But I hope I shall stand excused of the House (and if I am not excusable, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will interrupt me and set me right) if I propose—not to give up—not to renounce any right or privilege we have, by proposing, as I shall do, that we should take into consideration the amendments of the Lords as bearing upon our privileges, but pass by the question of privilege, in order to arrive at the merits of the question. I do this upon two grounds; the one, that I think that as a question of substance I am obliged to admit that this is a Bill which had not for its scope any intention to add anything to the Consolidated Fund or to furnish anything in the way of supply to his Majesty. It is a Bill having for object to regulate the ecclesiastical revenues and religious instruction in Ireland, dealing for that purpose with tithes and compositions for tithes in that country, and therefore as much within the province and open to the deliberation of the House of Lords as any other measure of general legislation. That part of it which relates to the Consolidated Fund was a way of carrying into effect a portion of the measure, but the mention of the Consolidated Fund was not primary but incidental to the general scope of the Bill. In the second place, I should be very sorry, by interposing a question of this kind, to prevent the House from coming now, as they have done before, to a decision upon the great question on which the Houses of Lords and Commons are at issue, and which I wish to see decided, as truth and justice require, with reference to the real merits, and not upon any question connected with the privileges of this House. The House will understand that, in so doing, I give up nothing, and I am the more anxious to give up nothing, because I do say, if we were going into a consideration of the clauses of this Bill, that this is a time when it does not behove us to be forward in surrendering those privileges, with respect to supply, which properly belong to us. Upon the due assertion of those privileges, upon the careful and watchful jealousy of this House in guarding them, depends the sole hope that it can have of maintaining its station as representing the people of England, and for carrying into effect what the rights and welfare of that people demand. Having thus mentioned what is preliminary to the consideration of this question, as a Bill to be discussed and decided upon its merits, I will now advert—and advert as shortly as I can— to the four points in which, as I have said, the chief alterations have been made. And in so doing, I am glad to remark that it will not be necessary for me to go again over the subject, which has been frequently debated here; and still less will it be necessary for me to do what would be not only irksome but painful—namely, to detain the House by the statement of any peculiar opinion or personal conduct of my own. The first main alteration in the Bill is raising the amount to be paid by the landowners of Ireland from seven-tenths to three-fourths. I know not upon what grounds that amendment was introduced. The Bill appears to me to impose a burthen upon landlords to which they have not hitherto been liable, for which the arrangement of seven-tenths was fair and equitable, and from that I should not be disposed to depart. With that observation I may dismiss this part of the Bill, ignorant as I am of any reasons by which the change can be justified, unless it be upon some expectation that the revenues of the clergy are better collected now than formerly. I pass therefore to the second portion of the Bill, in which an alteration of great importance has been made—an alteration by which the income of the clergy is totally changed. We proposed what I considered a very adequate income for the clergy of Ireland: my noble Friend has explained—has frequently explained—the principles upon which that proposal was made. There was undoubtedly in that arrangement a defect which was little remarked by this House, but which certainly is made very prominent in the amendment of the Lords. We proposed that where there were very few Protestants the income should not rise above a certain amount, and that where there was a large number of Protestants it should be proportionably increased. The effect of that no doubt would be, that the tithes paid in the south of Ireland would have been in some degree transferred to pay the income of the clergy in the north; but there was a compensation in that provision of the Bill which gave 50,000l. a year for the religious and moral instruction of the people—benefit was conferred by that part of the Bill which flowed back to the districts and parishes in the south; but as this Bill has been altered, the main object of it almost seems to be to transfer sums of money from parishes where there are few Protestants to parishes consisting of a larger number of Protestants, situated in another and a distant part of the country. Our proposal was, that where there were few Protestants, only a certain income should be retained; that income has been increased by the Bill as returned from the Lords, and I must say unnecessarily increased, to the sum of 300l. a year. Power is given where a benefice exceeds 500l. a year and where there are not more than 100 Protestants, of reducing the amount by the distribution of the benefice; but afterwards a limitation of the power is inserted, stating that no benefice shall be reduced lower than 300l. a year. Therefore, in parishes where there are scarcely any Protestants, where perhaps, there is only one Protestant, it is still provided that the clergyman shall have 300l. a year. This seems introduced for the purpose, and we can have no doubt that it would answer the purpose, of preventing the accumulation of any surplus. If you say that you will carefully provide that, though there may be no duty to be performed, though the church may be empty, and though the parish be utterly void of members of the Establishment, yet that the clergyman shall have not less than 300l. a year, you do something (and the House will see that a great deal more is done afterwards) to prevent the accumulation of a surplus, and to establish the fact of your own denial that there is a surplus. But what happens with respect to these benefices of more than 300l. a year, of 500l., 600l., or 700l. a year? I hold in my hand a list of nine parishes in which the smallest number of Protestants is fourteen, and the largest seventy-two, while the incomes of the clergymen vary from 400l. to 975l. a year. In the whole there are 247 Protestants, and 5,796l. is the sum paid for their religious instruction. It is proposed by the Lords that, deducting twenty-five per cent., the income shall in future be 2,700l., or about 11l. per head for each Protestant. But what is to become of the surplus money? The House of Lords tells the Roman Catholics of these parishes—"We will reform the Establishment; you complain of the exorbitancy of the dues you have to pay, and we will alter the income; and how have they altered it? By declaring that the clergymen of the parish with the smallest number of Protestants shall not have less than 300l. a year, and by giving the surplus (at least I must suppose we must infer it from what is said) to the clergymen of parishes containing more than 1,000 Protestants. There are two cases stated calling loudly for reform, and for the interposition of somelaw; the one is Belfast, where there are 17,942 members of the Established Church, and the other the archdeaconry of Dublin, with 15,599 Protestants. By this Bill as amended, whenever there are more than 1,000 Protestants in a parish, power is given to the Commissioners to divide the parishes, so that the surplus which might be obtained in parishes with few Protestants is to be transferred to places like Belfast and Dublin. Let me ask, then, is this any satisfaction to the persons who now pay tithes in Ireland? It was once set up as a defence for the Church of Ireland—a defence repeated within these few years, originating with Dean Swift and lasting for a whole century afterwards—that, after all by this income, you only pay a country gentleman for wearing a black coat. This was urged at a time when the question was not very soberly or seriously considered, and when many people did not see so clearly the necessity of spiritual instruction, even for Protestants. That defence had at least this merit, that although the clergy man might not attend very closely to his spiritual duties, if he had any, he was considered in the light of a landholder or resident gentleman who spent his money among them, and on this account his neighbours were less disposed to grumble; but, according to the Bill upon the table, the parishioners are to derive no benefit from these payments: it tells the poor farmer, impoverished by his contributions to a Church to which he does not belong, "We will take from you and your neighbours two or three thousand pounds a year, and we will give it to Belfast or Dublin where there are clergymen who want an increase of revenue." I must say that a plan of this kind never can, and never ought, to give satisfaction. A Roman Catholic might reasonably be discontented at having to pay a clergyman resident in the parish, to whose faith he does not subscribe; but when you tell him that he must pay another clergyman still of a dissimilar faith, who is and can be of no use to him, and who resides in a large town a great way off, you will scarcely reconcile him to the charge. Will that make him pay his tithes cheerfully? Will that make him come forward readily and heartily to do that to which he has hitherto made such strong objections, and shown such determined resistance? I will not detain the House by dwelling on the various anomalies with which this new plan in the amended Bill is fraught. I know that when my noble Friend brought forward his measure on tithes, both in the last and the present year, dealing as it did with a question of so much difficulty, and endeavouring to remedy some of the grievances of which the people generally complained, it must necessarily be exposed to a great deal of criticism and remark. I know that it had defects and contained anomalies, but none like those in the amended Bill, which are ten times more gross and glaring. It contains every thing objectionable, every thing contradictory, every thing irritating and vexatious, and omits every thing soothing and conciliatory. In this list are a number of cases of parishes containing little more than 100 Protestants, and the clergymen of which are paid little less than 500l. In all these no alteration is made. In one parish there are 115 Protestants, and 498l. is paid; and in another there are 106 Protestants, and 479l. is paid. In these and other instances there is no proportion between the duty and the emolument, although, after the professed arrangement and remodelling of the Church of Ireland, some proportion was surely to be expected. I now come to that question which I have already noticed—what is to be done with that which under the former Bill unamended was the surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland? We had provided, and I think most amply (I will run the risk of contradiction by a smile or otherwise) for the Protestant Church of Ireland. We left to it two archbishops and ten bishops, with a provision for each, at the lowest, of 5,000l. a year. Wherever there was anything like a large congregation, we allowed 400l. or 500l. a year to the rector; and even curates in Ireland, underline provisions of our Bill, were better provided for than curates of the Church of England. Having done all this, and fully complied with the terms of the resolution of last year, we provided that the surplus should be devoted to the moral and religious instruction of the people. That object has been altogether omitted in the Bill as it has come back to us. I will not now go into the arguments upon which that provision was originally rested, and upon which it was repeatedly rested in subsequent debates, but I will refer merely to the various divisions we have had upon it after long discussions. On the 2nd of April last year, after three days' contest, it was carried by a majority of 33; on the 3rd of April, in the Committee, the number was increased to 38; on the 6th of April it was 25; and on the 7th of April, 27. The same principle was again debated in the present year, and upon two occasions it was again affirmed. Until I have heard some arguments to the contrary, it will not surely be necessary for me to do more now than to say that the decision of the House upon this question has been such as truth and justice required. I think it was necessary to embody that principle in the Bill, in order to render it effectual; and I will now take the liberty of contrasting what would have been the state of things had the House of Lords agreed to our Bill, and what will be the state of things if we adopt the measure as it has been altered. Had it been passed in its original shape, the situation of the different parties would have been this:—You would have had a Government pledged to maintain the Church of Ireland—pledged to collect tithes and rent-charges, as a composition for tithes, and to take care that the revenues secured by the Bill were duly paid to the clergy of the Church of Ireland. You would have had the Government bound by that measure, which they had themselves brought forward, and in behalf of the principles of which they had repeatedly spoken and voted. The clergy would have been in this situation: they would have had to receive a certain income, 70 per cent. upon the whole legal income derived from tithes, and they would have been disembarrassed from the danger and from the pain of collision with those from whom tithes had been collected. They would have received their incomes from Government, and, like standers by, they would have been in a situation of ease and security, while everything was done for them, and without risk of new contests between the collectors and the payers of tithes. The situation of the people of Ireland would have been this:—that if their petitions had not been altogether granted, they had been received and attentively listened to by Parliament, and they would have seen that they were not forgotten in the general settlement of the great question. Whatever there was of anomaly in our Bill might have been smoothed down and made palatable by the just and mild influence of a Government in Ireland feeling a sympathy with the people; and such I believe to be the disposition of the people, that far from insisting upon extreme demands, far from wishing to push every thing to the utmost, which might be required in their behalf—they were so pleased and so satisfied with the testimonies of sympathy they had witnessed on the part of the Government, that they would have been anxious and willing to accept the measure offered to them. All these benefits, however, have been thrown aside; the Lords have sent the Bill back, rejecting that which the House of Commons had declared to be an inseparable part of it; they have sent back the Bill, having increased the amount to be paid for tithes, while, at the same time, they make the collection of the Church revenues, if possible, more obnoxious than before. How, then, are we to deal with such a Bill? I content myself with referring to the debates of last year, and the resolutions then passed; and with declaring, that I and those with whom I act are satisfied of the justice and truth of the principles of those resolutions, and that from those principles we are not ready to depart. It may be a question for the House to consider, whether, having solemnly affirmed those principles, it is now prepared, because the House of Lords has rejected them, to yield them up, important as they are, and to endeavour to agree with the Lords upon this subject, either by assenting to the Bill before it, or to any new Bill which might be introduced. If the Members of the House of Commons were to go to the Bar of the House of Lords in that humble guise—recanting their former resolutions—agreeing to the reduction of the principles of their Bill—submitting that they had been in error, and that the wisdom of the House of Lords had taught them a lesson of policy which they had not before learned —I must say, that I would not accompany the Members of the House of Commons on that message. We, Sir, are prepared to stand by the principles which we have professed. We maintained those principles as an essential part of the final settlement of this question when we were out of office. With the affirmation of opposite principles—with the denial of the principles which we have professed—of course it would be our duty to resign; of course it would be our duty to pretend no longer to govern the councils of this country. I ask the Members of the House of Commons to consider at what settlement we can arrive on this subject? I have heard some persons say, that by agreeing to the Bill as it stands, we might make a settlement of the tithe question. I think that no notion could be more wild and more extravagant. I feel convinced, that if we were to send back the Bill, concurring in its principles, so far from settling the question, we should be at the beginning of a fresh contest, and should occasion the rise of a fresh agitation. Those who have opposed the payment of tithes hitherto, would continue their opposition; they would say, and say truly, that the terms on which they had agreed to a settlement had not been accepted, and they would point out to the people of Ireland the injuries which they suffer. Let me put it to the House, what would be the consequence of such an agitation? Let me put it to the House, what have been the consequences of a former agitation on a question not more exciting than this — a question, in which religious rights were concerned, undoubtedly, but which was not more animating than this—nor, indeed, did it come so near to the immediate interests of the peasantry of Ireland, as the provisions of this Bill. I mean, the agitation which took place in regard to the question of Catholic emancipation. The authority of a noble and learned Lord, for whom I shall always entertain the greatest regard, has been quoted with a respect in which I sincerely participate —I mean Lord Brougham. Now, I will take the liberty of reading from a speech of that noble Baron—as eloquent a passage as was ever uttered by his lips, eloquent as he is. It was delivered in speaking on the Reform Bill, when he touched on the concession made regarding Catholic emancipation. Lord Brougham observed:— The burthen of the cry was, 'It is no time for concession, the people are turbulent, and the Association dangerous.' That summer passed, and the ferment subsided not. Autumn came, but brought not the blessed fruit of peace; on the contrary, all Ireland was convulsed with the unprecedented conflict which returned the great chief of the Catholics to sit in a Protestant Parliament. Winter bound the earth in chains, but it controlled not the popular fury, whose surges, more deafening than the tempests, lashed the frail bulwarks of law founded upon injustice. Spring came, but no 'ethereal mildness' was its harbinger, or followed in its train; the Catholics became stronger by every month's delay, displayed a deadlier resolution, and proclaimed their wrongs in a tone of louder defiance than before. And what course did you, at this moment of greatest excitement, and peril, and menace, deem it most fitting to pursue? Eight months before, you had been told how unworthy it would be to yield when men clamoured and threatened. No change had happened in the interval, save that the clamours were far more deafening, and the threats beyond comparison more overbearing. What, nevertheless, did your Lordships do? Your duty; for you despised the cuckoo-note of the season 'not to be intimidated.' You granted all that the Irish demanded, and you saved your country. Was there in April a single argument advanced which had not held good in July? None, absolutely none, except the new height to which the dangers of longer delay had risen, and the increased vehemence with which justice was demanded; and yet the appeal to your pride which had prevailed in July, was made in vain in April, and you wisely and patriotically granted what was asked, and ran the risk of being supposed to yield through fear."* Such were the words of Lord Brougham respecting an event of which the experience was still fresh in the memories of all. There was at that time—let it not be forgotten, because I think that it was that circumstance which most materially tended to a tranquil settlement at that appalling crisis in Ireland—there was, at that time, at the head of the Government of this country, a man who, by the practice of war, had learned humanity—and by the use and enjoyment of victory had been inspired with magnanimity. To that man there appeared nothing pusillanimous, nothing base, nothing disgraceful, in yielding on that great question; and brilliant as has been the public course of that noble person, it may be said, without hesitation, that by that concession he conferred more benefit on his country than by all the vic- * Hansard, vol. viii, (third series) p, 270, 271. tories which he has achieved. But, if the House were to agree that it would attempt to contest with the Irish people this question of tithe, had it any hope—is there any probability—that the question would come to a similar settlement? I am afraid to say it—but I think it the truth—that there is no person who could now so control the opponents of the Irish claims as the Duke of Wellington then could. I have not that same faith, I have not that same confidence, in the magnanimity of those who know not the dangers and calamities of war, that they would yield in a similar manner. There would be—but in a very different spirit — a resistance carried on against the claims of the Irish; that resistance would be provoked and excited by every means, where it might be least expected, and where it might be most hoped that it would not exist. The courts of justice might become places whence mandates would issue, from which grave outrages would arise; the people of this country might be excited against the people of Ireland—now by declamation against their religion — now by imputations against their country — and now by reflections against their race;—all for the purpose of creating a national feeling on the part of the people of England that they were bound to resist the claims of the Irish, while a national and a hostile feeling would arise on the part of the Irish, that they were not to meet with justice from England. And I think that I am not hazarding any extravagant prophecy when I venture to say, that no means would be spared to excite those religious dissensions; for already has forgery itself been resorted to for the purpose of provoking the Protestant people of this country. Doubtless, too, there would be found persons to excuse those means, whatever they might be, as merely "an ingenious device." It may be said, that all these things would happen if the course which I am about to propose were adopted. But there is not so much danger of that. If we reject the Bill, and leave the question of tithes unsettled, there is still a feeling on the part of the people of Ireland that, although the whole Legislature is not favourable to their claims, yet from the King's representative in Ireland they will receive the benefit of a fair and impartial administration of the laws. Such has been the influence of that circumstance, that even now, with the late testimonies which we have had from Ireland, with this tithe question unsettled, and with a reform of the Corporations denied, there has been a great improvement, as is made evident at the Sessions and Assizes in Ireland, in the habits of the people, and great increase of tranquillity. But if hatred and contempt towards the people of Ireland are to be abetted and promoted, or supposed to be abetted and promoted, by the Government of this country, what is there in this Tithe Bill which can promote tranquillity as a redress of grievances? I am not afraid of proposing to this House not to agree to these amendments, because a large majority of the other House of Parliament has disagreed to our propositions. I know, full well, that on another subject, now matter of history—on the question of the contest between this country and America—from its beginning, those who contended for justice and conciliation to America were scarcely, at any time, more than a fourth part of that House. I have been told by one, who is a near relation of mine, that he divided with Lord Chatham when there were only four persons in that House who so divided in favour of conciliatory measures. At that time, too, it was, that the Lord Chancellor of the day said, that if we withheld our protection from America, America could be conquered by Genoa or by Sweden. It is not, therefore, because there are large majorities in favour of a system, which is in its nature unjust, that this House ought to yield to those majorities. I am sure that if the House of Commons should, as it did during the American war, concur in acts of oppression and misrule with respect to Ireland, they would, in the end, be compelled to avow, that their measures had been inefficacious, and endeavour again to repair their error by a tardy and, perhaps, ineffectual submission. I trust, however, that such will not be the course which the House is prepared to pursue. I trust that the House, by agreeing to the motion which I am about to make, to defer the consideration of the Lords' amendments till this day three months, will give its decided assent to the proposition that the Bill, as sent down from the House of Lords, cannot form the basis of a settlement with Ireland. By adopting that course, the House will maintain the resolution which they have already adopted — they will be doing that which I think is consistent with justice, and they will still be to the people of Ireland a House of Representatives to which they will look for redress. If the House were to take the other course, it would be preparing the way for great evils; and the agitation which was found so strong in 1828, would prove equally potent and formidable in 1836. What in that case would be done? Would pride allow you to retract? Would your notions of policy and justice permit you any longer to resist? You must adopt one course or the other. You must either enter into a pertinacious struggle against the vast majority of the people of Ireland, accompanied as that must be with a lavish expenditure of blood and treasure—and after having attempted in vain to force unjust measures on that people, be obliged to retract and confess that you wished to do that which was not defensible, but that the difficulties you encountered compelled you to desist from your purpose. You must either do that, or you must make up your minds to act, justly at once. The latter, and not the former course will, I trust, be taken by the House. I am convinced, that if the House continue in the course which it has hitherto pursued, although our progress may be uncertain, although it may be sometimes retarded, we at length shall have our reward in seeing tranquillity and satisfaction established in Ireland. That country will then form the main body of our strength—she will lend us willing assistance in war, and will be an admirable arm of our prosperity and resources in peace; and the House of Commons will not have to regret that it preferred doing what was just and conciliatory to yielding to the temptation of doing what was neither just nor conciliatory. By such a course you will maintain the character which you ought to have as the House of Commons of England; and come what may, finally, the triumph must be your own. I move, "That the Lords' amendments be taken into consideration on this day three months."

Sir Robert Peel

The motion with which the noble Lord has concluded his speech is, of course, tantamount to the total rejection of the amendments made in the Bill by the House of Lords, and necessarily amounts to a postponement, for another year, of the long-agitated question of tithes in Ireland. The noble Lord has rested his opposition to the amendments of the Lords upon a double ground — first, upon his doubts whether the amendments do not interfere with the constitutional privileges of this House; and, secondly, upon the substantial merits of the case. I will follow the example of the noble Lord, and consider each class of objections separately. In the first place, however, I must beg leave to remind the noble Lord, that the objection, rather hinted at than expressly made by him, on the ground of interference with the constitutional privileges of this House, ought to be directly stated, and made a ground for a preliminary refusal to consider the amendments. I submit to you, Sir, that the course uniformly taken when such objections have been urged on former occasions was, that the invasion of privilege was considered a preliminary obstacle to any further proceeding with the measure; and a new Bill was consequently introduced, if it was supposed possible to come to an understanding with the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord said, that he agreed with Mr. Pym in the declaration that the privileges of the House of Commons were not conferred for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the country; and the noble Lord added, that those privileges were not airy and unsubstantial nothings, but that whenever they were trenched upon, they ought to be resolutely defended. I call upon the noble Lord to take that course. If his doubts be valid —if they can be maintained—the noble Lord should urge them openly and boldly. Let him not suppose that I call upon him to take that course for the purpose of evading the discussion of the great principle involved in the question on the measure before us. If the noble Lord will press his objection on the score of invasion of the constitutional privileges of the House, and the House should on that account refuse to take the amendments into consideration, I pledge myself that I will move for leave to bring in a Bill similar to the present in its amended shape. Thus we should attain the double object of supporting our privileges and discussing the question of Irish tithes on its own ground. If, as the noble Lord said, our privileges are not airy and unsubstantial nothings—if, where they are trenched upon, they ought to be vindicated —let me tell the noble Lord that it is not fair for a Member of this House to "hint dislike, and hesitate a doubt" upon such a subject in his speech, when he ought to place upon record the nature of his objections. My view of this question is confirmed by high authority — that of Mr. Hatsell. I agree with the noble Lord, as I said before, that we should be jealous of our privileges, and neither upon this nor any other occasion, permit an infraction of them; but, at the same time, we should be cautious not lightly to advance the pretensions of privilege and then abandon them. Mr. Hatsell says:— From the beginning of the present century, a period of above fourscore years, the claim of the House of Commons to their rights and privileges in matters of supply, have been seldom, or but faintly, controverted by the Lords. The rules which they have from time to time laid down to be observed in Bills of aid, or in Bills imposing charges and burthens upon the people, have been very generally acquiesced in; and the practice of both Houses of Parliament has been uniformly adapted to these rules. It may, perhaps, be difficult to express with precision and correctness the doctrine which is to be collected out of these precedents; but, as far as my observation has gone, I think the following propositions contain pretty nearly everything which has at any time been claimed by the Commons upon this subject;—First, that in Bills of aid and supply, as the Lords cannot begin them, so they cannot make any alterations, either as to the quantum of the rate, or the disposition of it, or, indeed, any amendment whatsoever, except in correcting verbal or literal mistakes; and even these the House of Commons direct to be entered especially in their journals, that the nature of the amendments may appear; and that no argument prejudicial to their privileges may be hereafter drawn from their having agreed to such amendments. Secondly, that in Bills which are not for the special grant of supply, but which, however, impose burthens upon the people, such as Bills for turnpike roads, for navigations, for paving, for managing the poor, &c, for which tolls and rates must be collected. In these, though the Lords may make amendments, these amendments must not make any alteration in the quantum of the toll or rate, in the disposition or duration of it, or in the persons, commissioners, or collectors appointed to manage it. In all the other parts and clauses of these Bills, not relative to any of these matters, the Commons have not objected to the Lords making alterations or amendments. Thirdly, where the Bill, or the amendments made by the Lords, appear to be of a nature which, though not immediately, yet in their consequences, will bring a charge upon the people, the Commons have denied the right of the Lords to make such amendments, and the Lords have acquiesced. And, lastly, the Commons assert that the Lords have no right to insert in a Bill pecuniary penalties or forfeitures, or to alter the pecuniary forfeitures which have been inserted by the Commons. These rules, with respect to the passing or amending of Bills, are clear, distinct, and easy to be understood and applied in all the cases which may occur. It has been sometimes attempted to extend this claim on the part of the Commons still further; or rather so to construe this claim, as to tend very much to embarrass the proceedings of the House of Lords upon Bills sent from the Commons. This has never appeared to me a prudent measure; I think the House of Commons may rest satisfied with the observance of these rules, which they maintain upon the ground of ancient practice and admitted precedents. Their sole and exclusive right of beginning all aids and charges upon the people, and not suffering any alterations to be made by the Lords, is sufficiently guarded by the claims as here expressed; and it does not seem to be either for their honour or advantage to push this matter further; and, by affecting privileges which may be subjects of doubt and discussion, thereby to weaken their claim to those clear and indisputable rights which are vested in them by the Constitution, and have been confirmed to them by the constant and uniform practice of Parliament. I say, that upon the present occasion, it would have been infinitely better to waive any objection to the Bill, on the ground of constitutional privilege, and to approach the consideration of the merits of the question—than, after urging in a speech, a claim to litigate the right of the Lords to make the amendments which they have effected, to reject the measure on its merits, and leave the public hereafter in doubt as to the nature of the course we have pursued. Do I advise acquiescence in any unjust claim urged by the Lords? By no means. I avow my readiness, if you, Sir, declare it to be your opinion, that the amendments do trench upon the privileges of this House, to bow at once to your authority. I will consent, on the ground of privilege, to reject the Lords' amendments, and then proceed to discuss the principle of the measure on its merits; but I say, do not mix up the double objection for the purpose of entrapping votes, by leading hon. Members to suppose that it is necessary, in point of form, to reject the Lords' amendments. The noble Lord, indeed, is furnished with objections suited to the most tender capacity; and he says to his supporters, "choose what you please, but give us the benefit of your doubts." I ask the noble Lord to concur with me in this proposition—that you, Sir, shall determine whether the amendments of the Lords do touch upon the privileges of the House or not? If you be of opinion that they do, let us vindicate our privileges but by a more decisive mode of action than a speech even from a Minister of the Crown. The noble Lord founded his doubts upon the question of the invasion of privilege upon four grounds. [Lord John Russell: No.] I understood the noble Lord to say so. The noble Lord said, in the first place, that his doubts were excited with respect to the alteration of the amount of rent-charge from seven-tenths to three fourths; but in a subsequent part of his speech the noble Lord discussed the policy of that alteration. The main question is, whether the measure is to be considered in the light of a supply Bill?

Lord John Russell

I never wished to raise that question, but I expressed a doubt as to whether the Lords were justified in altering that part of the Bill which contained a grant to the Consolidated Fund.

Sir Robert Peel

I certainly did not understand before, that the single point upon which the noble Lord limited his doubts as to interference with the constitutional privileges of the Commons, was that of the amendments of the Lords affecting the amount of the payment to the Consolidated Fund. That, however, is a single point upon which we ought to have the benefit of your opinion, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed further. It is a matter of indifference to me which course the House may take; but I do not wish the discussion of the main question to be prejudiced by the introduction of another topic. If you, Sir, should be of opinion that the amended Bill does encroach on the privileges of this House, I am ready, following the precedents which I have read, to act on your suggestion, and decide, on that ground, for its rejection. If, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you should be of opinion that no ground for doubt upon that point exists, I agree with Mr. Hatsell that it would not be right for us to urge pretensions which we cannot support, and I will proceed to argue the substantial merits of the question. Before I call upon you, Sir, for your opinion, I will premise, that whatever may be the phraseology of the Bill, I never understood, in the course of the debates which occurred upon it, that the surplus of the Irish Church revenues was to be carried to the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose of diminishing the burthens of the people. I heard it argued—and by no one more strenuously than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the only legitimate application of that surplus was to the purposes of moral and religious instruction, and that he never would consent to appropriate it to a vote for New South Wales, for instance, or any other secular purpose whatever. If you, Sir, should be of opinion, that the grant to the Consolidated Fund was to be applied to the diminution of the public burthens, you will, perhaps, think, that our privileges have been trenched upon; if, on the other hand, you should think that the surplus was to be applied only for the purpose of moral and religious instruction, it is probable you will declare that there has been no violation of privilege. Before I proceed to consider the arguments of the noble Lord, with respect to the substantial merits of the question, I think it would be a great advantage to the House if you, Sir, would favour it with your opinion on the point of privilege.

Lord John Russell

before the Speaker delivers his opinion, I wish to state distinctly what I really did say. I said that that part of the Bill which gave a portion of the tithes to the Consolidated Fund might bring the question formally within the privileges of the House. I stated further, that it was my opinion the Bill was not intended to grant a supply to his Majesty, and I added, that, in my opinion, the question of privilege was not distinctly raised, and that we might proceed to discuss the merits of the question.

Sir Robert Peel

I thought I heard the noble Lord say that there were times in the history of our ancestors, when a measure not differing much in principle from the present, was rejected by this House with indignation, on account of the amendments to which it had been subjected by the Lords. The noble Lord described the manner in which the unlucky Bill had been tossed by the Speaker over the table, and kicked by the Members out of the doors of the House. I thought that the object of a remark of that kind, was to show that if we now were to rest satisfied with the gemilus columbœ of the noble Lord—with a mere whisper of disapprobation of the invasion of our privileges, a not very favourable comparison would be drawn between our constitutional jealousy and that of our ancestors. If the noble Lord did not quote that example, I must have strangely misunderstood him; if he did, I cannot conceive for what purpose he did so, except to gain a vote on account of the supposed improper interference of their Lordships with our privileges.

The Speaker

as my opinion has been called for, I shall endeavour to state it as clearly and briefly as I can, consistently with the importance of the subject. If the Bill had been limited to a new distribution of the existing property of the Irish Church, I am of opinion that a difference between this House and the House of Lords, as to the proportions in which that property should be distributed, would not have been a violation of the privileges of the Commons. If the grant of 50,000l. per annum for education had been left in the Bill, the Lords would not have diminished the amount of the contemplated surplus, because that would have diminished the fund to be applied to the repayment of the Consolidated Fund, and this would have been inconsistent with the privileges of the House, because it would have increased the burthens of the people. The difficulty arises from the insertion of 50,000l. for education. In considering the Bill, I have looked to the privileges of the Lords as well as of the Commons, and I feel that that clause remaining, the Lords could have made no other amendment than to give a little more or less to the clergy, but without altering the total amount. Still it may be said that this House has made a grant on the condition of the Lords agreeing to the whole Bill, and the question is, whether they might not contend that that grant having; been made, the Lords had no right to alter the Bill? This would be a strong assertion of privilege, and it is chiefly from this case being quoted as a precedent, that I think this question important. The House has, therefore, to consider whether they will press their privileges so far, or whether, if they consent to agree with the Lords' amendments, they will not guard against the effects of the precedent, by a special entry on their Journals?

Sir Robert Peel

If the Lords had retained the clause relative to the Consolidated Fund, and altered it, I apprehend the Bill must have been rejected, but the Lords have omitted it altogether. The Bill did contain a money grant which is no longer to be found in it.

The Speaker

all I meant to say was this,—that the House of Commons, having made a grant of money upon the consideration of the Bill being returned to them as it went up to the Lords, and that consideration not having been fulfilled, a question of privilege may thereby arise.

Sir Robert Peel

then I think I may assume that the question is disembarrassed of the point of privilege, and that I am at liberty to address myself to the merits of the question. I now, therefore, approach the second and more important part of the noble Lord's speech—namely, the objections which he urged on principle to the acceptance of the Lords' amendments. The subject has been so repeatedly discussed, and every argument which can be used with reference to it is so trite, that I am sure I shall consult the general wish 'of the House by contracting my observations within as narrow limits as possible. I beg to call the attention of the House to what the amendments made by the Lords will effect. What is the arrangement made by the joint consent of Lords and Commons, which the noble Lord now proposes that we should reject? The Bill brought down from the Lords, would if we acceded to it, make this arrangement on the subject of tithes in Ireland, and the regulation of the Established Church in that country—it would deduct twenty-five per cent, from the amount of tithes composition. The Bill we sent up to the Lords made a deduction of thirty per cent.; and the noble Lord says he can see no reason why that proposition should not have been acceded to. I may make exactly the same observation with respect to the proposed deduction of twenty-five per cent. The matter is one which, from its very nature, will not admit of close logical deduction. We have been told, that by agreeing to make a deduction of twenty-five per cent., we have consented to the alienation of church property for the benefit of the Irish landlords, and that, therefore, it is perfectly absurd in us to object to its alienation for the purposes of general instruction. But we do not consent to the deduction of twenty-five per cent., as an alienation of church property; we consent to it as a just compensation to the landlords for taking upon themselves a new liability; and if the noble Lord can prove that twenty-five per cent. is too much to allow for that purpose, and that twenty per cent. is sufficient, I will vote for a deduction of twenty instead of twenty-five per cent. Doubtless, in individual cases, benefit would result from the arrangement; but, on the other hand, there would be cases of individual hardship. It is impossible to apportion what is exactly just in every case. I think that a deduction of twenty-five per cent. from the amount of tithe composition is sufficient compensation to the landlords for assuming a new liability; and, therefore, I vote for that proposition in preference to that which would give them thirty per cent. The preamble of the Bill which passed this House expressly recited the ground on which the reduction of twenty-five per cent. was made. It was as follows:— Whereas, with a view of rendering the incomes arising from tithes more certain in amount, and more easy of collection, several Acts have been, from time to time, passed for the establishment of compositions for tithes throughout Ireland; but the interposition of Parliament is necessary in reference to various circumstances peculiar to that part of the United Kingdom; and whereas it is expedient to make provision for uniting and dividing benefices, and for the altering the boundaries and regulating the incomes thereof, with a view to the better distribution of ecclesiastical duties and revenues; and, whereas it is just and necessary for the establishment of peace and good order in Ireland, and conducive to religion and morality, that the said compositions for tithes shall be made payable by persons having a perpetual estate or interest in the lands subject thereto, a reasonable deduction being made upon the amount thereof in consideration of the greater facility and security of collection arising out of such transfer of the liability to the payment thereof from the occupying tenantry to the owners of such estates or interests, &c. The Bill, as sent down by the Lords, subjects to the payment of a rent-charge, in lieu of tithes, the landlords of Ireland, and relieves the occupying tenant from any payment on that account. The person possessed of the first estate of inheritance would henceforth be subject to the rent-charge. The Bill altogether removes the chance of any collision between the ministers of the Church and the occupying tenants—nay, more, it removes the clergy from all collision with the landlord, by whom the rent-charge would be paid, because it provides that a public department of the Government shall, until redemption (the only means by which a complete extinction of tithes can be effected) or until Parliament shall otherwise direct, collect the rent-charge. The Bill also provides for the review of all cures of souls in every town and city in Ireland. It further provides that there shall be a review of all the rural parishes in Ireland, in which the income of the clergyman exceeds 500l., and the Protestant population falls short of 100 persons. The Bill subjects the Lord-Lieutenant to these restrictions, which surely cannot be considered unreasonable, that no benefice shall be increased so as to include an area of more than thirty square miles, that no rural benefice shall be increased which has already an income of 300l., and that no benefice shall be reduced below 300l. These are the limitations which the Bill proposes to place upon the power of the Lord-Lieutenant. The Bill further provides that a separate fund shall be created, to be applied to these purposes, after satisfying the claims of the present incumbents; —the surplus is to be applied, not to any secular purpose, but to the building of glebe-houses, and the repairing and enlarging of churches, giving the parishes from which the revenue is derived the first claim upon it. Is it unreasonable to propose that the charge of building glebe-houses should be defrayed out of the surplus of ecclesiastical revenues? The noble Lord, by his Bill, proposes that henceforth there shall be 1,250 benefices in Ireland, of which only 850 have glebe-houses. Thus there are, upon his own showing, 400 livings without glebe-houses in Ireland, The noble Lord takes a power of appropriating glebe in any parish in which none now exists. Can there be a more legitimate application of any surplus than that of building glebe-houses in parishes in which the minister is provided with glebe? The noble Lord, in the course of his observations, depicted what must be the despair of the impoverished farmer and tenant at hearing that a portion of the revenues of his parish was to be appropriated to the endowment of another parish in a distant town. The rule referred to applies only to rural parishes, and therefore the noble Lord's case of Belfast or Dublin is not applicable. I was surprised, however, to hear from the noble Lord, the author of the English Church Bill, this objection to the re-distribution of ecclesiastical revenues. I thought it was universally admitted that in cases of large benefices in Ireland, containing 8,000 or 10,000 Protestants, in which the clergyman's stipend is 150l. or 200l. a-year, it was but reasonable to apply any surplus of ecclesiastical revenue which might arise to the augmentation of the latter. That has been the course pursued with respect to the English Church Bill. I did not expect, at least, from the noble Lord, such a confirmation of the objection urged against himself by the Members for Durham—namely, that the Legislature had no right to apply any part of the ecclesiastical revenues raised in Durham to any but Durham purposes. The noble Lord, upon a former occasion, contended, that we had a right to apply any portion of the surplus of the Durham ecclesiastical revenues to increase a living in Nottingham, or any other great town, and he then felt no alarm on account of the anticipated complaints of the Durham farmers. The noble Lord has referred to the omission of the appropriation clause by their Lordships; but I apprehend that the main ground of that omission was the fear of touching on the privileges of this House. To preclude all doubt upon this point, I will state, for myself at least, that if the noble Lord will prove the necessity for granting a sum of money to any amount for the purposes of education in Ireland, I will support it. It must, however, be distinctly understood, that any such vote will be strictly applied to the purposes of general education, upon the principles established by my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, when Secretary for Ireland. I believe the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, has promised that there shall be strict inquiry into any alleged departure from the principles of that vote, and that the system shall not be perverted to the purposes of education in the peculiar tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. My noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire proposed that education in Ireland should be common; that since we were unable to educate the young in the principles of the Established Church, and unwilling to educate them in those of the Roman Catholic faith, we should resort to the only alternative left—an education founded upon the great principles of Christianity, without attempting to gain converts to any particular persuasion. When that proposition was made, at a time when I was in opposition to the Government of which my noble Friend was a Member, I never hinted an objection. I knew that objections to this scheme of education were felt by many persons, and I am therefore he more anxious that the promises made to them should be rightly fulfilled. If the original purposes of the grant be strictly and inviolably preserved —if the scruples of Protestants be respected as well as those of Roman Catholics— if education be based on the fundamental principles of moral duty and the leading truths of Christianity, in which all concur, then to a vote to any amount that might be required for the purpose, I will not withhold my consent. I, however, object to look for the means of extending education in Ireland to the alienation of the ecclesiastical revenues. It was most unfair of the noble Lord to apply his illustration of the poor farmer and tenant in the way he did. The question is not whether there shall or shall not be education, but from what source money shall be obtained for the diffusion of education? The noble Lord advises us to reject the Bill, because it has not embodied in it, the principle of the resolution adopted by the House of Commons in April, 1835, which, whatever may have been its origin, had the effect, as was intended, of removing the Administration of which I was the head. Is it wise to reject the admitted improvement effected by the Bill for the sake of adhering to that principle? We should obtain by this Bill a reduction of twenty-five per cent. in the amount of the tithe composition; the rent-charge would be imposed upon the Protestant landlord; the occupying tenant would be relieved altogether from any direct payment; we should remove the ministers of the Establishment from any conflict with the tithe-payers, by enabling a department of the Government to collect their revenues; we should provide for the reform of the Church of Ireland; we should ensure the review of every living without exception, the income of which is more than 500l. per annum; we should ensure the review of every living in a town; we should ensure a consideration of the state of the Church and the glebe-houses; and we should have it in our power to take effectual precautions against alleged abuses, against the holding of pluralities, for instance, or of benefices with exorbitant incomes attached. All these beneficial objects we should ensure if we consented to adopt the Bill as it now stands. But the noble Lord says, "No, I will not; and I advise the House not to consent to these improvements—I advise the House to reject the Bill as it now stands, because it does not embody within itself the principle of an alienation of church property." In the first place, the noble Lord says there is a surplus. I will not enter into a calculation upon that point; it has been too frequently, and, as I should have supposed, too convincingly done before; but I deny, even upon the noble Lord's own showing, that there is a surplus. Give me the 1,250 livings into which Ireland is to be divided —give me that to which the noble Lord says the Government is pledged—namely, the Church Temporalities Bill—give me the revenues you have already established for the higher orders in the Church, and I say that the stipends you propose to attach to the lower clergy are totally inadequate to their proper support. But taking your 1,250 livings even with the small amount of income you propose to apportion to each, and I deny, when these have been provided for, that you will have any surplus. But even if there should be a surplus, 1, for one, must protest against the mode in which it would be obtained. The noble Lord says that the other House of Parliament has increased the incomes of the clergy in Ireland to 300l. for the purpose of preventing a surplus; but I tell the noble Lord that the course he proposed to take for the purpose of insuring a surplus was infinitely more objectionable. Of the 1,250 benefices into which Ireland is to be divided, each will contain within itself on an average 16,000 statute acres, and each will require that the labour and exertions of the clergyman should be extended over an area of twenty-five square miles. Can I say, then, that it is reasonable or just, when I allot to a man such duties as are here to be performed, to limit the maximum of his income, supposing him to have 500 Protestant parishioners, to 200l. a-year? That is the maximum assigned by the Government Bill. I do say, comparing the duties to be performed by an educated and intelligent man,—looking at the expenses of his education,—looking at the public advantage which will be derived from his being enabled properly to attend to the spiritual duties of a flock so dispersed, to administer to their wants in time of famine and disease,—looking to the propriety of enabling him to uphold his own station, by the exercise of charities suited to his character and calling,—I do say, when I consider all this, and compare the emoluments derived by persons embarked in any other professional pursuits requiring the same degree of education, and the same devotion of time and talent, a stipend of 200l. a-year is a most inadequate provision for the incumbents of the greater number of livings in Ireland. I might press this argument if I were proposing to found a church establishment de novo; but surely it applies with tenfold force when I am speaking of a Church already established, and out of the proper funds of which its clergy are to be paid. The question is not whether we shall allot to them a new means of subsistence from the Consolidated Fund, but whether for the purpose of creating a surplus, we shall impose on ourselves the painful necessity of allotting a miserable stipend to those who now possess their incomes by as ancient a prescription as any by which the rights of property are guarded? The noble Lord asks, if we reject this Bill, and make ourselves responsible for the non-adjustment and non-settlement of the question, what hope can we entertain of any future satisfactory and peaceful settlement? I will tell the noble Lord that I cannot entertain hopes of satisfaction or of peace, if I acquiesce in the settlement proposed by him. He must see, he must read, the declarations of many hon. Members on his own side of the House; and, after seeing and hearing those declarations, is it, I would ask, rational to believe, that the Roman Catholic occupier or tenant, who is called upon to pay a sum of 5d. as a charge in lieu of tithe, will be perfectly satisfied, after unsettling the question in this manner, to pay 4d. out of the 5d. towards the maintenance of the Established Church? Does the noble Lord believe, that the Roman Catholic will pay this sum with satisfaction and entire accord, because the other penny is to be devoted—to what purpose?—to an immediate provision for education? No, not at all. The claim of all existing incumbents must, in the first place, be provided for. Then, is education necessarily provided for at all? Not in the least. It is from the Consolidated Fund we are to provide for education. The Bill enacts that the penny shall be devoted, to repay to the Consoli- dated Fund what we may have advanced for the purposes of education. The question is, are the rights of property, which rest upon ancient prescription, to be held secure—and is it to be believed that, if we acquiesce in the principle that the Church has not a right to the property, there will not be a similar unwillingness to pay the four-fifths of the demand after the other fifth has been given up? I cannot conceive upon what ground, after having conceded this principle, we can expect such an acquiescence; it is not the amount of the sum taken from the Church which I consider; that is not the chief ground of my objection; it is this—I object to any alienation on account of the objects proposed by this Bill, as I conceive such an alienation to be pregnant with danger. My objections are infinitely greater to the principle of alienation, and to the mode in which it is meant to be applied, than to the amount of it. I can conceive that in some great national calamity, we might be justified in taking from men part of their property, against the usual course of law. In time of war there have been forced contributions—the inhabitants of a town may have been required to pay a specific portion of their property; that may be a hardship and an injustice; but when the demand is limited and definite, and the remainder is left clearly and unquestionably the property of its owner, then we have at least this protection, that the tyrant's plea—an overruling necessity, has been the only justification which could be offered for the alienation, and that until such a necessity again occur, there will be no repetition of such an act. But here no necessity is pleaded; the sum of 50,000l. which is required may be taken from some other source. Here, contrary to the case of a forced contribution, no specific demand is made; you do not say to the Church, we require from you a sum of 50,000l. or 100,000l. a-year, and the occupier shall still continue to regulate his own concerns and possess the remainder of his property, but you lay it down as a principle that, after providing for the spiritual wants of the Protestant population of Ireland, the whole of the remainder shall be delivered up to the people of Ireland. In what position do you then place that portion of these revenues which is to provide for the spiritual wants of the Protestant population of Ireland? Who is to estimate the amount that will be required to provide for these spiritual wants? The amount will vary with every Administration. It may vary with every majority. The present Administration consider 300,000l. sufficient for this purpose, and that the remaining 60,000l. or 75,000l. ought to be devoted to purposes of education. The moment that the rights of property are disturbed there is no knowing where we can stop. I contend not against the amount proposed to be alienated, so much as I do against the principle its alienation establishes, which affects, as I think, the independence of the Church of Ireland, by subjecting it to the control of a Committee of the Privy Council, who are indefinite in number, and holding office at the will of the Lord-Lieutenant. I will say, that my main objection is to the principle involved in the Bill, to the nature of the dependence which it establishes, and to the perfectly undefined nature of the demand it authorises. The noble Lord (John Russell) says, that he relies much on the force of popular opinion in support of this measure. As far as we have had any means of ascertaining the bias of public opinion, since the question was discussed in 1835, it is not in confirmation of the noble Lord's assertion. The Government is in office, and whatever influence office confers is in favour of the principle. There has been several vacancies in the Representation, and I will ask, have the constituencies decided in favour of this principle? We have had attempts at the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, supported by vast majorities in the House of Lords. We have had the same attempts supported by a powerful minority in the House of Commons, approaching, within twenty-six, on the last occasion, to the majority which decided in favour of this principle. The opinions of the two branches of the Legislature are therefore divided, and the opinions of the two parties in the House of Commons very nearly approximate. We have had since that principle has been embodied in the resolution adopted by the House, independent of vacancies on account of office—we have had thirty-one vacancies in this House. When that resolution was voted in April, 1835, the occupiers of those thirty-one seats, if my recollection be correct, voted in favour of the principle in the proportion of twenty-one to ten, being more than a clear double. If I mistake not, the Representatives of these thirty-one seats having been changed, did, on the last, or would on the present occasion, vote in the proportion of sixteen to fifteen. Thus, they are, as nearly as possible, equal, instead of remaining more than double. I do not think, therefore, considering these indications of public opinion, by the intervening elections—considering that this Bill, which we all must admit to be a great improvement of the present system, is sent down to us from the House of Lords—and considering that it is in consonance with the opinions of a very powerful minority in this House, a minority approaching in point of number, within twenty-six of the number which voted for the settlement of this question on another basis, I cannot see the full force of the exultation of the noble Lord that we are bound in honour, —that the majority is bound in honour to an adherence to the former principle embodied in the resolution, and to reject this attempt at a settlement, because it does not contain all that that majority voted for. Is there anything embodied in this Bill which calls upon hon. Members opposite to express opinions in direct contradiction to the principle of their own resolution? Are we called upon to retract those principles? This Bill does much good—as much as is found to be possible. Are we, then, prepared to reject it because it does not go further? The noble Lord does not in general act in conformity with a doctrine so prejudicial; he considers it compatible with sound policy, not being able to effect all the good he desires, to grasp at what is offered, and to leave for future discussion what he cannot now obtain. Why, then, do not hon. Members opposite take the same course? If they do not think that there will be a clear surplus,—if they doubt that any surplus will exist for many years,— why should they insist upon the practical enforcement of the principle of appropriation? They should rather consent to attain a great degree of practical good, not assenting to the abandonment of the principle of appropriation, but reserving the practical enforcement of that principle to a future occasion, when the necessity of settling the question may arrive. If there be not any surplus, and if the occasion for the practical enforcement of the principle have not arrived, is it, I would ask, consistent with the policy of prudent and wise statesmen to reject attainable good, because the shadow of some future good cannot be obtained? I object to come to such a resolution. But it is said, that the House is pledged to reject this measure, as it does not embody the principle of the resolution which it has adopted, unless we are at the same time prepared to reject that resolution. We have had many warnings of the danger of establishing abstract principles before the time comes for their practical enforcement. But hon. Gentlemen will make their vote on this question not one of practical consideration, but the consideration of a point of honour! I know that amongst honorable men this is a point sometimes much more insuperable and difficult than the consideration of what is right. I protested against the resolution at the time, as shutting out the means of retreat, as depriving us of an opportunity of considering what, under present circumstances, is the best course to be pursued; and I must say, that my subsequent experience has only confirmed the truth of the objections I then took. The noble Lord (John Russell) contends that the settlement of the question, as provided for by this Bill, will be for the benefit of the Church of Ireland, and I consider that in passing this Bill we shall be giving a security for the collection of the revenue of the Church. The noble Lord has also reminded us of the American war, and of the concessions, consequent thereon, then made to the inhabitants of the United States; but the question to be considered is, whether the same principle which dictated these concessions, applies in the present instance? Either the demand is in itself reasonable and just, and ought to be conceded—or, if not reasonable and just, then the analogy from former concessions does not arise. When the noble Lord (Russell) was asked to consent to repeal the Union, he was told that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of that repeal—that the cause of Catholic emancipation had been carried by public opinion,—and that the repeal of the Union would be effected in the same way. The noble Lord considered whether or not the demand was reasonable and just, and whether, unless he acquiesced in the demand, the same system of agitation would be again pursued. The noble Lord found that this concession was not demanded by the people, and he resisted it. But the noble Lord says that this Bill is for the benefit of the Church. The noble Lord's opinions do not meet with the concurrence of the high authorities who are combined with him in the Administration. Last year, when this Bill was brought forward in the House of Lords by the chief of the Government, that noble Lord did not urge the acquiescence of the House of Lords in that Bill, on the ground that it gave additional security to the Church. My noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), has quoted a passage from the speech of the noble Viscount (Melbourne), of which the noble Lord opposite (John Russell) seemed to doubt the correctness, but that speech was revised and corrected. It has never been denied; but in juxta position with the opinion of the noble Lord (John Russell) as to the security which this measure added to the Church of Ireland, and partially in vindication of the grounds he had taken;—I will repeat this passage from the speech of the noble Viscount (Melbourne). It is as follows:— I am deeply sensible and much concerned at the impression which I feel this measure is likely to make. I cannot conceal from myself that it will, in the first instance, and for a certain time, be a heavy blow and a great discouragement to Protestantism in Ireland, and that also it will be a great triumph to the adverse party. I admit that for an interval of time there must be great alarm and danger, which must necessarily attend and accompany such mighty and fundamental changes, and that shocks and convulsions must occur, which may render doubtful the safety not only of the Established Church, but of the Constitution itself. And seeing the soreness which the Bill caused with respect to the Protestant Church—seeing that the removal of the civil disabilities, so far from rooting up prejudices, has not increased the security of the Church,—I greatly doubt the justice or the policy of giving this "heavy blow to Protestantism in Ireland." If that blow be inevitable, this I know, that we shall be much more likely to take some security against its prejudicial effect by resisting the cause of it, and standing erect to meet it, than by giving it vigour with our own arms. If that heavy blow must be given, my hand at least shall not impel it. If the cheer of adverse triumph must be raised, our voices shall not swell the shout. If the pillars of the Church and the stability of the Constitution itself must be shaken and convulsed, then, seeing no necessity for this injustice, I protest against the policy of it, and refuse to be a party to it. I move, as an amendment, "That the Lords' Amendments be now taken into consideration."

The question was put, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question.

Mr. E. Denison

If the proposition of the noble Lord were, as it was stated to be by the right hon. Baronet, that the House should reject all the substantial good of its own measure, because it could not attain a visionary benefit, I, for one, would vote against its adoption; but if the truth be, that the benefits of the Bill were damaged in their most vital parts—if the majority, who, up to this time, had asserted the great principles embodied in the original Bill, had done so from a sincere conviction of their propriety and justice, he could not conceive how any one could now depart from those principles, and negative the value of all his former votes. The real question involved is no less a one than this: In the settlement of Irish affairs, shall the great body of the Irish people be considered, or not taken into the account? We, on this side, maintain that they ought to be, whether the question relates to civil or ecclesiastical affairs—to corporations or to tithes. There are two great objects to be obtained; first, to maintain the Establishment, which, from its anomalous character, requires a mode of reasoning unsuited to any other case, and peculiarly its own; secondly, to give some satisfaction and contentment to the Irish people. But in this difficult position of affairs, Gentlemen opposite insist on standing on the extreme of principle, and will not admit of a compromise; and yet what has our legislation been for years pa t but a perpetual course of necessary compromises? Look at the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, under which we live as the law. The noble Lord who introduced it, taking a view of the whole state of the Church, at once saw that the head of the Establishment was overcharged, and proposed a reduction of ten Bishops. Was that no compromise? Next, livings where service had not been performed for three years, were to be suspended. Strange sound to the ears of the religious people of this country. No church service performed for three years! A clergyman appointed, tithes regularly paid, but no service performed for three years, or for fifty years for aught any one might know! Then the principle of apportioning, payment according to the population, is broadly laid down in that Bill. But this suspension of livings—was this no compromise? and more, was this no admission that the Church in that country stood in an anomalous position, widely different from anything known in this more fortunate country? In those parishes, the superfluous funds were to be retained for other uses. Did that not bring them to the question immediately before the House, the existence of a local surplus? How were they to deal with the surplus? Would they transfer it to distant parishes, or deal with it, as this Bill proposed, for the general benefit of the people? The case of Durham, retorted by the right hon. Baronet against the noble Lord, would not, on a closer examination, bear out his view of it. In Durham, it was proposed to take the proceeds of Bishops' lands, and transfer them to another diocese; but surely there was a wide difference between the proceeds of land and the abstraction of money paid in parishes as tithes. Let them make the case their own. Could they take the tithes from Devonshire, and transfer them for the maintenance of a clergy in Yorkshire? They had heard, in the course of this Session, that the payment of tithes is not very popular in the county of Devon. Do you think you could improve their popularity by transferring their proceeds to another and a remote county? But this was what they would do in Ireland. The deficiencies and the superabundance would not, as in England, balance each other by being in some degree equally disposed over the face of the country, but would lie in two great districts. The Protestants are congregated in the north; in the south and west the Catholics almost universally prevail. They must take from Cashel and from Tuam, to dispose of in Armagh and in Dublin. Could they do that, and at the same time flatter themselves that they were making a lasting or a satisfactory settlement? What has been said in the course of these discussions? That the Irish peasants or farmers—the great, body of tithe-payers in the country—have no feeling about the disposition of the tithes; all they care about is the more or the less, not the mode of the disposal. This is a most injurious imputation; and how is it substantiated in fact? These same people resist the payment of tithes to the death, and yet out of their destitution and their poverty they provide a sufficient and a decent maintenance for their own clergy. This is worse than the famous declaration, that they are "aliens in blood, in religion, and in language." This makes them aliens from the feelings and sympathies of our common nature. It must be apparent, however, to all who have attended to the course of these discussions, that there are two classes among our opponents. There are some who would resist under any circumstances, any alienation of Church property. There are others, among whom may be numbered the right hon. Member for Tamworth, who said to-night, as he has said before, "I deny the existence of your surplus. Show me a real surplus, and then will come the time for considering it." Anything which falls from the right hon. Baronet is worthy of the most serious consideration of the House, and shall by me be always most carefully attended to; surpassing as he does in liberality, as much as he transcends in talent, all those who sit round him. To meet this class of objectors, and the full justice of the case, I should say, "let the surplus accrue, and as soon as it has accrued, let Parliament dispose of it." At all events we could then no longer be charged with dealing with a visionary fund, with one which had in reality no existence. I am satisfied with the justice of the provision as it stood in the Bill —with the undeniable right of the great question involved, which was no less than this, whether the full benefits of the British Constitution should be extended to Ireland. You have given nominally equal rights, but you deny and withhold their legitimate fruits. There can be no peace in that country, and no security for the empire, till the two countries have been firmly united by those bonds which alone are tolerable to freemen—the bonds of kindred institutions, of just, impartial, and equal laws.

Viscount Sandon

challenged any hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, to point out to him any one practical benefit which the people of Ireland could, by possibility, derive from the passing of the Bill under consideration. Was there any one object to be gained from it but the assertion of a principle to which hon. Gentlemen opposite thought themselves bound in point of honour. They had been told, again and again, that it was a great grievance for the people of one religion to be called upon to pay for the ministers of another. The present Bill, however, instead of removing the grievance, absolutely confirmed it. Another great evil which they were constantly reminded of was, the existence in Ireland of a large Protestant Church. For this grievance, again, the Bill provided no remedy. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had asked how the people of Devonshire would like to have a portion of their tithes subtracted for the use of the inhabitants of Yorkshire? Why, this one principle the hon. Gentleman was himself willing to affirm, because in supporting the Bill, he supported a provision for levying 50,000l. on the whole tithe of Ireland, to reimburse the Consolidated Fund for the expense of establishing schools for the education of the people. What was the object of the present discussion? Merely to allow hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of asserting a principle which, at that moment, they were willing to conceal. Not one of the advocates of that measure, however they might cloak it in public, but would in private admit they supported it, because it would lead to the destruction of Protestantism in Ireland. [No.] He said yes; such was the language of the press, and such was the language of hon. Gentlemen, Members of that House. Again, he defied a single hon. Gentleman opposite, to lay his finger on any one practical benefit of which the Bill would be productive to the Irish people. The truth was, that it was a party question: and that, as a party question only, without any reference to its individual merits, would the Bill now be rejected.

Mr. Hume

The noble Lord had asked a very fair question of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and if they were unable to return any answer to it, they would undoubtedly not be justified in supporting the Bill as it originally stood, and would be bound to vote with the noble Lord. The noble Lord had asked what practical benefit would result from the Bill. He would inform him presently; but before he did so, he would refer to another and more novel observation of the noble Lord's. He had said that this was a party question, brought forward for a party purpose, and not with any reference to the merits of the Bill. Now he would tell the noble Lord, that he and those who were acting with him, were making this a party question. The noble Lord, impressed with a conviction of the feelings which actuated him and his party, had charged those who were opposed to them, with making the present a party question. He threw back upon the noble Lord his own assertion, and the imputation which, feeling he deserved it so well himself, he endeavoured to fasten upon others. He admitted that the House struck out the 147th clause of the Church Temporalities Bill, on the occasion alluded to by the noble Lord; but, in his opinion, they disgraced themselves by doing so. That side of the House had, however, since that time, got rid of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, and such cases were not likely to occur again. If, as the noble Lord said, they were only contending for a shadow, why did not he and his friends give it up, instead of casting blame upon that side of the House, for retaining the principle of appropriation? If he were to state his candid opinion, he would at once admit that neither Bill was sufficient for the purpose. He should be acting dishonestly if he did not candidly declare, that, in his opinion, it did not go far enough. But was there no choice between the two measures? Was not one measure far preferable to the other? And was he not bound to take that which he had no doubt would be productive of much good? In supporting the Bill of the noble Lord (Morpeth) he did not consider that he compromised himself; for by doing so, he did not say that he would not support a further demand, when time and place suited. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that if either of these Bills passed, they should be able to stand still. If he could suppose that this Bill would be looked upon as sufficient, he would vote for its rejection on that ground. The great advantages of the Bill of the noble Lord were, that while it gave a sufficient remuneration to the clergy, who discharged their religious duties, it did much to get rid of sinecure livings and benefices, in which there were no members of the Church; and, above all, it declared the principle of appropriation. The measure of the noble Lord, he repeated, was not, in his opinion, sufficient; but it was a thousand times better than the Bill sent down from the Lords. He was happy to find that the people of Ireland remained peaceable, notwithstanding the treatment they had received elsewhere. The truth was, however, that the people of Ireland had confidence in the majority of that House, and they quietly took what had been done for them, as a guarantee that something further would be done. It was evident from the language used by the noble Lord, that his party had been too long in place; for he, as well as others, said, "I will grant you this; I will give you that; but I will not concede such and such things." But he would reply, that he did not want what the noble Lord would give, for he knew that some of the party opposite would not willingly give any measure calculated in the slightest degree to-satisfy the people of Ireland. He had no doubt that the present Bill would give the people of Ireland confidence in the present Ministry. He did not mean to say that there were not faults in it, but still it contained the seeds of improvement; and here he could not help expressing his satisfaction at the progress of improvement that was observable in that deluded country; and he had such confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Government of Ireland, that he had no doubt, that peace would continue there, and greater benefits and improvements be worked out under the noble Lord's direction. He thought that they had proofs of all kinds from Ireland, that there was a dawn of better government there. He never recollected a period when Ireland was more peaceable than it was now; and certainly this was hardly to be expected after the rejection of the Irish Municipal Bill, and the virtual destruction of the Church Bill by the other House. The people of that country had been treated almost contemptuously by that House, and he did not expect to see such a state of things realized as he was happy to find was the case. If the noble Lord, and those who sat around him, had their wills in the Government, it would be attended with the most disastrous results. Was not the state of improvement manifest in the diminution of crime that was so obvious during the present circuit. The avowal of the principle of appropriation in the Bill of the noble Lord would be attended with immense benefit in Ireland. He believed that the property of the Church in England, as well as that of the Church in Ireland, was public property. If then it was public property, it should be applied in such a manner that it would be productive of the greatest portion of good. They took upon themselves to appropriate the public money to the army and the navy, and he did not see why they should not have equal control in appropriating the public property granted to the Church. He contended, so far from the large revenue of the Church being distributed in a manner calculated to support religion, that the very excess and inequality of if, did more to damage the Church of Ireland, as well as the Church of England, than anything else. It was the duty of the House to distribute the revenue of the Church in a better manner, and to dispense with the payments of salaries to clergymen, where there were no duties to perform. The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his observations, had put a question, but in doing so he turned to hon. Gentlemen behind him, as if he were ashamed to face those on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; he asked whether 200l. was too large an income for a clergyman, who was a man of education, and who was expected to maintain a certain station in society, as well as to support a family. He (Mr. Hume) would, in reply, advise the right hon. Baronet to look to his friends in this country. The right hon. Baronet had been many years in power in this country, yet, if reference were made, to the situation of those who were the most active and intelligent of the clergy—he meant the working curates— it would be found that there were 5,230 curates in this country, who had to live on the average income of 811. a-year. In every parish in England, a large portion of the population belonged to the Church, and yet the right hon. Baronet had not taken any steps to alter the state of things which existed in this country. He admitted that there were many Dissenters in England, but they did not bear anything like the same proportion to the members of the Church, as the Dissenters in Ireland did. It appeared, then, that the right hon. Baronet, in his zeal for the Irish Church, contended that it would be unjust to give less than 200l. a-year to each clergyman, but at the same time had not appeared disposed to exert himself to improve the condition of the 5,230 curates in England, who were only allowed the small pittance he had described. Was not this an inconsistent course of proceeding? For his own part, notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Baronet, he was of opinion, that what had been done by the Peers should be altogether disregarded by the House. The right hon. Baronet was only endeavouring to induce the House to support a Bill which had been, in fact, rejected before this Session. The right hon. Baronet had taken his stand against the principle of appropriation, but he (Mr. Hume) trusted that the House would adhere to that principle. He did not see why the clergy should not be paid as they paid the soldiers and sailors; and it happened that the latter were quite as useful as the former, and not nearly so well paid. The whole of the troubles and dissensions in the Church seemed to arise from an anxiety to partake of the loaves and fishes. It happened, both in the Church of England and in the Church of Ireland, that there was a greater anxiety manifested to see how much could begot of the revenues, than to endeavour to reward those who did their duty best. He was surprised at the conduct pursued, and at the language used, by the noble Lord (Sandon), when he recollected the noble Lord's exertions, both in that House and out of it, in the cause of education. The noble Lord had exhibited the most disinterested and zealous exertions out of the House in support of education; he was, therefore, surprised that the noble Lord could adopt the principles that he had that night advocated in the House; for he refused to take a revenue from useless sinecures; for the education of the Irish people, but recommended that the people of England should be taxed for that purpose. But did the noble Lord really think that the people of England would grant money for the education of the Irish people when there was such enormous funds in the possession of the Church? The noble Lord, however, said that there were no surplus funds—that the appropriation fund was a mere shadow, if this were the case, why did he oppose the motion. He however, called upon the House to support this most important principle of the Bill, namely, the principle of appropriation. If his Majesty's Ministers showed any disposition to give up this principle, they would not only injure themselves, but they would do much to injure the cause of good government and Reform. The right hon. Baronet had pointedly asked, why did Ministers go on with such a small majority as twenty-six. He would refer for an answer to the right hon. Baronet's speeches at the commencement of last year. He begged the right hon. Baronet to recollect what was then the state of his party, and what was the language he then used. At the time he had given the right hon. Gentleman credit for the manner in which he had then expressed himself. He then said, that although he was then in a minority of ten, he did not feel called upon to give way, as he thought that he might convince Members of the justice of his measures; but when he found that the majority amounted to twenty-seven against him, it was a very different thing, and that he could not reasonably expect to get the better of it. It was rather extraordinary, then, for the right hon. Baronet to rise in the House and taunt the Government with continuing in office when they were only supported by a small majority, when he (Sir Robert Peel) continued in office some time, notwithstanding he was in a minority. The truth was, Gentlemen opposite forgot themselves, and like certain animals when they shut their eyes, thought that nobody could see them. The right hon. Baronet apparently quite forgot that others could and were observing him. Such conduct reminded him of the Chinese, who were always talking of their ruler as their Great Eye, which was superior to all others, did the right hon. Baronet suppose he was all eye. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the Lords' being with him and against the majority of that House. That was no reason, in his opinion, why the Commons should give way. He would have the Lords keep to their own chamber, and let that House have less of them. He admitted that a majority of the Lords was against them, but was that a proof that the feeling of the people was against them? Some of the Peers last year stated that the Representatives of the people could not take proper care of the interests of their constituents, and that therefore the Peers would take that trouble upon themselves. The people, however, knew too well what sort of guardianship this would be, and would have nothing to do with it. He admitted also that the right hon. Baronet had a minority voting with him in that House of not less than 300, but he trusted that he would not have this number long. He said this with confidence, because his side of the House acted on fixed principles, and were therefore, likely to get converts, but this was not the case with the other side. The noble Lord never made a more just observation than he did respecting party spirit influencing hon. Members in their conduct on this question, but the observation was only applicable to the other side. Those with whom he voted were in a majority of twenty-six in the last division, when the right hon. Baronet was in office, and notwithstanding all his exertions he had not been able to break it, and certainly he would not be able to do so if they were true to themselves, and to the cause of the people. He would not belong to a party if he did not think that they acted in such a way as to promote the good of the country at large. Could hon. Gentlemen opposite conscientiously declare in that House that in opposing many measures, and in supporting this Bill as sent down from the Lords, that they were advancing the interests of the people. Certainly they might promote the interests of a few, but this was not benefiting the great body of the people. They had, however, been so long accustomed to office, that their hopes led them to believe that the present Government would not last long, but that a change would soon take place by which they would attain power. He begged the right hon. Baronet to recollect that when he was in the citadel with all his troops he could not prevail, did he, then, suppose that he could triumph over his opponents when they were in possession of the fortress? He admitted, that he did not agree with the Government in all points, for he was sorry to say, that they were much more ready to attend to their enemies than they were to their friends. If he and others recommended the adoption of a measure, it did not receive the same support as it would do if it came from the other side. The right hon. Baronet had indulged in all sorts of prognostications of danger, but he (Mr. Hume) was old enough to recollect that similar assertions were made when the Catholic question was brought on, and which were most often answered by the right hon. Gentleman as well as by other Members. He conceived that they would be acting wisely in yielding to the wishes and granting the just demands of the Irish people. It had been said, that by carrying this measure they would inflict a blow on the institutions of the country. He agreed that they would strike a blow, but it would be against exclusive Protestant interest in Ireland; he trusted that it would be the deathblow to Orangeism in Ireland. The six or seven millions of Catholics in that part of the empire had hitherto been regarded as nothing, but now he trusted that such a blow would be levelled at their opponents as to deprive them of their unjust and exclusive privileges. It was because he saw this advantage likely to follow, that he warmly anticipated great good from this measure. He must, however, add, that he thought that by this time his Majesty's Ministers had seen sufficient to prove to them the propriety of giving a much better measure at once than the present was. As this Bill contained the appropriation principle, which he thought was a matter of great importance, he should give it his support and he trusted that on the division, Ministers would have a larger majority than they had when they came into office on this principle.

Mr. Shaw

observed, that the hon. Member for Middlesex, had frequently claimed credit throughout his speech for candour, and he (Mr. Shaw) owned the hon. Member was entitled to it with, however, one exception. The hon. Member should have had the fairness and candour to inform the House what that class of animals was who thought they could see nothing but themselves. He could not but suspect, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) who so loudly cheered, and had so frequently made suggestions to the hon. Member throughout his speech, had given him a hint of the simile. The hon. Member had, indeed, been candid in admitting first, that this was a party question, and surely, to use the expression of the hon. Member himself, he could hardly "brazen it forth," that the party spirit in that respect was on his side of the House, for the hon. Member could not forget that it was in that spirit alone, that his appropriation principle was introduced by those with whom the hon. Member now acted, admittedly for the purpose—and it, served that purpose—of removing the right hon. Baronet from office; and it was the same tie which, for a time, held together the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) and his Majesty's Ministers, without any real bond of union between them. The hon. Member himself indeed admitted, in further proof of his candour, that while his Majesty's Ministers recommended this measure as a final and a permanent one, he only regarded it as a first step in that principle of alienation for which alone the hon. Member, gave this Bill his support. The hon. Member said he regarded it as but a first instalment—as the insertion of the point of the wedge by which he hoped ultimately to break up and destroy the Established Church in Ireland. It was extremely difficult to argue the question with the hon. Gentlemen who composed the majority on the opposite side, their own opinions being so entirely opposed and contradictory to each other. Considering all the circumstances under which the question was again submitted to the House, and how completely every argument upon it had that night and previously been exhausted, he would make as few observations as possible, and they should be directed to the single point upon which he conceived the decision to be come to that night ought to turn. He would not argue with the hon. Member for Middlesex the trite question of whether or not the property of the Church was public property, nor as to the abstract right of appropriation. He was willing even to admit with Mr. Burke, that although the State was not the proprietor for use, yet that it was the guardian and regulator of all the property within it. It was not for the purposes of this argument necessary to decide whether, under any supposable circumstances, if an Established Church was to be maintained, it could be justifiable to appropriate any portion of its revenues to other than ecclesiastical purposes. He thought not, but at all events he could prove that no such circumstances existed in the present case. The question was not, at least it was not professed, though perhaps it ought to be, whether or not we were to have an Established Church in Ireland at all; nor was it whether, that was to be the united Church of England and Ireland, as established by law and confirmed and guaranteed by the most solemn national compact. There was between the Government and those with whom he (Mr. Shaw) acted no present controversy on these points, but the immediate and practical question at issue between them was this—whether, in the existing state and circumstances of the Church in Ireland, there was any portion of its property which it was just and light to divert to any other than its own proper purposes? To that point alone would he apply himself, and he undertook, upon the principles and the showing of the Government themselves, to demonstrate to any reasonable and unbiassed mind, that the surplus for which they contended was perfectly ideal—that it was not only non-existing now, but that they had utterly failed to show, that it ever could exist, and therefore they were but making this question a stalking-horse to carry some other object. They were, in the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Denison), rejecting an available good for a shadowy benefit—practising an unworthy delusion upon the House and the country —striving to legislate vainly and mischievously upon a mere hypothesis; in short, disputing about the shadow of a principle, while they neglected and refused the practical settlement of the important question of Church property and Church improvement, to which they were invited, and in respect of which they would be sincerely and cordially met, with a view to its permanent and liberal adjustment, by the clergy and the friends of the Established Church in Ireland. Ho would not trouble the House with fractional calculations or minute details, but often as he had trespassed upon the House, ho had, from accidental and other causes, troubled them but little on the present question, and he trusted therefore the House would allow him generally and in round numbers, and as shortly as he could, to state to them the present condition and circumstances of the Church in Ireland. First, as to the much exaggerated and misrepresented subject of church property. He particularly claimed the attention of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had frequently stated the property of the Church in Ireland to amount to 3000,000l. What was really the fact? That its whole amount, including tithes, glebes, ministers' money, and the incomes of the bishops and dignitaries of the Church, and also the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was, in round numbers, 600,000l. In this calculation he deducted the twenty-five per cent, allowed by this Bill, and the exact entire amount of the future church property in Ireland would be 613,140l. 10s. 9d. Often as this had been stated and proved, he really believed that prejudice had taken such strong hold of the minds of the hon. Members opposite, that they had scarcely yet brought themselves to believe it. In round numbers the 600,000l. was made up in the following manner — clerical property, 400,000l. bishops and dignitaries, under 100,000l.; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners something more than 100,000l. First take the clerical income; that would be, as he had stated, 400,000l. a-year, and the number of resident clergy doing duty, including curates, was above 2,000, affording an average income of 200leach to a better distribution of which he did not object, and this Bill provided for it. He would then ask was there any hon. Gentleman who, desiring the promotion of the Protestant religion in Ireland, would consider the number of 2,000 clergy too many for that purpose, when they were judiciously placed, and their income better distributed? But, independently of the higher considerations of religion, and notwithstanding the taunt of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) as to country gentlemen in black coats, he (Mr. Shaw) would contend that where there were few or no resident gentlemen in coloured coats, no rational person who wished to see Ireland civilized, peaceful, and happy, would deny the advantage in a civil point of view, of having 2,000 educated gentlemen and their families scattered as residents throughout that country, practising hospitality and charity, fulfilling the various relations of society, and living in friendly and social intercourse among the people? And what was the entire income of those 2,000 gentlemen and their families? A sum not greater than was possessed by some single noblemen in England, nor so great as was drawn away by a few individual absentees from Ireland. The same might be said in regard to the bishops, comparing their incomes with their various important and expensive duties and liabilities. They might be considered as forming a large portion of the few resident noblemen in Ireland, communicating in a much greater degree the advantages of such a residence around them, and having amongst the entire twelve an income of 60,000l. a-year—a sum not equal to what some single absentee nobleman abstracted from that country. Then as to the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Their principal item of expenditure was to supply what had been formerly provided for by the vestry cess, and that in relief of the occupying tenantry in Ireland. That item amounted to 60,000l. a-year; the expenses of the commission, 10,000l.; making, together, 70,000l. Their present income was about 25,000l. a-year; leaving an annual deficiency of 45,000l. In the year 1853, the income, supposing it all to be accurately paid, would equal the expenditure; but, until that year, there would be a constantly increasing debt. After that year the income would continue to increase, and upon an accurate calculation made by Mr. Finlayson, the increase constantly applied to the liquida- tion of the debt would clear the debt off in the year 1873. Then the fund was charged with the augmentation of small livings, the buildings of churches and glebe-houses, which, added to the 70,000l., a-year he had already mentioned, would, according to Lord Grey's calculation, require a yearly expenditure of 146,000l. being 40,000l. a-year more than the entire future income of the ecclesiastical commission—a charge far beyond what the perpetuity purchase fund could ever supply. With regard to the building of churches, the Commissioners of Public Instruction returned 196 places where service was performed in schools and other licensed houses from want of funds to erect churches; and he held a return of twenty-one such places in the diocese of Cork alone. From want of funds the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were obliged to refuse the money for even the payment of the rent of these licensed houses, for the celebration of divine service; and yet they were told of a surplus. Then as to glebe-houses, as his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had already stated, there were only 850 benefices with glebe-houses, while according to the admission of the noble Lord (Morpeth) himself, 400 more were still required, and if residence was the object, was there here no deficiency of funds instead of the boasted surplus? He had undertaken to prove to the noble Lord that, according to the noble Lord's own calculation, no possible surplus ever could exist. The noble Lord had stated the surplus at 97,000l., but he had omitted the following items which were to be deducted from it:—

Tax to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners £20,000
Sinecures and suppressed benefices to go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 22,000
Glebes overcharged 10,000
Loss on revision of compositions 10,000
Supposing the lay patronage to be 50,000l. the loss on purchasing, at twelve years' purchase, would be 25,000
Rent-charge on collection 2½ per cent 9,000
Besides which the noble Lord (Morpeth) proposed to leave 1,250 benefices, and to give to each thirty acres of land, which is to be exclusive of incomes
The glebes being so small must be good land, say worth 20s. per acre; 1,×25030 comes to 37,000
Glebes are of no use without houses—there would be 400 of the above benefices without houses. Suppose them, on an average, to cost 700l., this would amount to 280,000l., which at four per cent, interest, would come annually to, 11,200
These various items making a sum of 144,200l. were to be set against the noble lord's surplus of £97,000
In respect of residence, the facts of the Irish Church had been as much misstated as with regard to its property. There were in round numbers of beneficed clergy and perpetual and impropriate curates, about 1,400 in Ireland. Of these there were resident, and doing duty, notwithstanding the want of glebe-houses, about 1,200; leaving non-resident about 200, of whom there were 100 doing duty, but what were termed pluralists—a class constantly diminishing, and to which there, was no addition now making in Ireland; and this left but 100 really non-resident, for the casualties of illness, want of houses in the parish to reside in, and all other causes. It was said on the opposite side, that until the appropriation question was raised, no attempt had been made by the friends of the Irish Church for her reform. But the statement was completely opposed to the real fact. There was at present in force in Ireland, the Act of the 5th George 4th introduced by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), a most stringent Act for the enforcement of residence, vesting strong powers for the purpose in the bishop of the diocese, and authorising him in case of the incumbent's absence, to allow a salary to the officiating curate up to the sum of 200l. As to unions, the 7th and 8th of Geo. 4th, gave a power to dissolve them, and to disappropriate sinecures and dignities, and to confer them on the vicars and perpetual curates. Under the Church Temporalities Act, every sinecure will be suppressed on the next vacancy, and as regarded pluralities, they were all, as he had before staled, in process of extinction, for two livings could not be held without a faculty from the primate, and he had refused to grant any for many years past. Such, then, was the present condition of the Irish Church Establishment—not bad, he would contend, when the circumstances under which it was placed, and the many difficulties with which it had to contend, were fairly considered. Still he (Mr. Shaw) desired anxiously to render its condition better and to adopt every measure which would conduce to its real improvement. He maintained, however, that the tendency of the measure recently introduced by his Majesty's Government, and passed through that House was not to dissolve unions and pluralities, but to form and increase them—not to promote residence, but to prevent it; and instead of improving the condition of what hon. Gentlemen opposite called the working clergy, to take away the means of their employment and support. He objected to the distribution of parishes proposed by that Bill, as sent up to the House of Lords, its obvious object having been, not the extension of it, but to limit the influence of the Protestant religion in Ireland. So, with regard to the scale of clerical income and the doctrine of proportion recognised by that Bill, he protested against them as hostile to the essential principle of a Church Establishment, and degrading to the clergy as compared with other learned and educated professions. With regard, then, to the much talked of subject of education, there was, he believed, no Member of the House who would refuse to vote any sum necessary for that purpose. He (Mr. Shaw) objected to the particular plan of education pursued by the present national board, but he was the zealous advocate of such a sound and general system as he believed might be advantageously adopted in Ireland. If, however the object were to establish a system of united and harmonious education, he would ask if it was not against every principle of reason, common sense, and human nature, to hope to advance such a system, by holding it out as a condition to the Protestants, on the one hand, that the means must be provided from a fund which they considered sacred to the purposes of their own religion, and by exciting the Roman Catholics on the other, to be satisfied with no other means for their education than such as could be taken from the spoils of the Protestant Church? In short, there was no objection to educate the Roman Catholics, but there was every objection to rob the Protestant clergy for that purpose, if the Government refused the settlement of this question now offered by the friends of the Church, the clergy could not starve—neither could they again appeal to the generous sympathies of the English public. They must, however unwillingly, have recourse to the law, and the law must necessarily be supported. He deprecated as much as any one the unnecessary use of extreme remedies. He did not wish to substitute the medicine of the law for the people's daily food; but if the evil were extensive, and the infection spread far and wide throughout the country, so must he the remedy. He believed, that the present feeling of the majority of the Irish clergy was unfavourable to any further attempt at legislation; for experience had taught them, that every concession they had made, had only led to fresh demands, and every Bill which had been announced as a measure of final settlement and peace, only led to more interminable confusion and hostility. Notwithstanding, however, that very natural result on the minds of a great part of the Irish clergy, he (Mr. Shaw) possessing, as he trusted he did, their confidence, and yet bound at all times freely to deliver and act upon his own opinion, did on their part desire that this long litigated and difficult question should be permanently, justly, and satisfactorily terminated. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had said, that he (the noble Lord) and those with whom he acted were pledged to a principle and could not depart from it. He, however, would ask the noble Lord in the name of common sense not to tack that principle to a measure with which it had no necessary connexion, and thus to prevent the practical settlement of a great and import ant question. Let the noble Lord beware lest, if he set the precedent, it might possibly be hereafter followed, and the noble Lord's authority quoted by some of that party who now gave their hollow support to the noble Lord, by an attempt to tack to some indispensable measure, such as the Mutiny or Appropriation Bill, a declaration in favour of the vote by ballot, universal suffrage, or any other favourite theory of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let the noble Lord, if he pleased, assert his barren principle in some distinct and separate measure: but if the noble Lord made the consent to such a principle, the condition of a bill for the settlement of tithe property, and wholesome church form in Ireland, he could assure the noble Lord, in the language used by the distinguished prelate who presided over the Irish Church, and which was deeply impressed on his recollection, when, in answer to an address presented by the laity of the Irish Church, that eminent individual had used the following words:—"I feel that I am giving utterance to the united sentiments of the Irish clergy, when I declare that they are prepared, one and all, to make a cheerful sacrifice of every earthly possession, and even of life itself, for the maintenance of that Church in which, by God's grace, they have been called upon to minister." He would conclude, as he had commenced, by entreating the noble Lord to abandon his abstract theory of a non-existing surplus, and to unite with the friends of the Irish Church, and all reasonable men, in bringing to a final and satisfactory adjustment, that question which the Government themselves not only admitted, but as the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, earnestly urged, essentially involved the good order, the settled government, the present peace, and permanent prosperity of Ireland.

Mr. O'Loghlen

said, there were two questions under the consideration of the House: the motion of the noble Lord to postpone the consideration of the Lords' amendments upon this Bill, to that day three months, and the amendment of the right hon. Baronet, that those amendments should at. once be taken into consideration. Any one who had heard for the first time the discussion which had that evening taken place upon the subject of Irish tithes, would possibly be led to imagine that, some entirely new proposition was contained in the Bill as sent down from the Lords, and that the measure was one which had never before been discussed and decided upon by that House. The House of Lords proposed, that twenty-five per cent, of tithe composition in Ireland, should be taken from the clergy and given to the landlords, and this proposition was one which hon. Members opposite called upon the House joyfully to accede to as a final and satisfactory settlement of the question. Now, in the year 1834, it happened that a Bill was sent up from that House to the House of Lords, where it was thrown out by a majority of sixty-seven, which Bill contained a proposition conferring upon the Irish landlords a benefit of forty per cent., instead of twenty-live. Comparing the observations which fell from certain hon. Members in opposition to the Bill of 1834, with their support of the present Bill, as it came from the Upper House, both Bills being similar in every respect, except that the present Bill benefitted the landlord only twenty-five per cent., whereas the other gave him forty, he (Mr. O'Loghlen) was certainly somewhat at a loss to understand the principle upon which the hon. Members in question proceeded. The Bill which gave forty per cent, was loudly inveighed against; the present Bill as warmly supported; yet was the difference; simply that the landlords' advantage was reduced to twenty-five per cent.; the application of the remainder of the church property was to remain precisely the same. As an instance of what he had alluded to, on the 4th August, 1834, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) spoke as follows:— "Two-fifths of the tithes are actually to be pocketed by the landlords. It would be a mockery to suppose that a miserable expedient, involving such a gross violation of all principle and justice, can ever succeed in tranquillizing Ireland." Yet the same right hon. Gentleman now called upon the House to adopt a Bill precisely the same, with the exception just stated, because, he said, it would restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland. That was to say, that a bonus of forty per cent, to the landlords in 1334 was nothing at all, while a bonus of only twenty-five per cent., in 1836, would infallibly lead to a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the whole question, The noble Lord asked, what there was in the Ministerial proposition which would render it more palatable to the people of Ireland, than the Bill as sent from the Lords. The answer to the noble Lord simply was, that the Ministerial plan involved the great principle of the diffusion of moral and religious instruction among the whole people of Ireland, and the reflection that so great an object was provided for out of even a portion of the tithe, would give to the people of Ireland, an interest in the payment of tithe, and in some degree reconcile them to it: it would at any rate give them a very different feeling in reference to it than when, as now, they were called upon to pay an impost in which they had not the most remote interest. The noble lord seemed to say that there was a dif- ference between this and the former measure, inasmuch as the landlord here undertook the whole of the payment, and the right hon. Baronet talked about the transfer of liability, in consideration of which the landlord was to pocket twenty-five per cent. Now, as to this said transfer of liability, everybody knew that one-half of the landlords in Ireland at this very moment were liable to the whole of the tithe composition. There was certainly a statement about this same transfer of liability in the preamble of the Bill, but this in no way enforced the argument. The great point in opposition to the desired principle was, that no part of the property of the Church ought to be alienated for other than ecclesiastical purposes. This being the ground upon which hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House took their position, in hostility to the appropriation principle, it was somewhat unaccountable to him how those hon. Members could reconcile it to their conscience to consent to give twenty-five per cent, to the landlords. Why was the principle just stated so warmly adhered to in the one case, while it was with so much facility abandoned in the other? In giving the landlords the twenty-five per cent., hon. Gentlemen opposite at once departed from the principle upon which they affected to set out. In fact the whole alleged principle had been departed from in the Diocesan Schools Bill of 1812. It was said that this Bill would give satisfaction to the Irish people; but he was satisfied that no measure, which did not recognise the principle of appropriation, would give them satisfaction. Even if that principle were not enforced now, it must be necessarily brought forward again and again, until it were conceded. He had not intended to take much part in the present discussion, had he not been compelled in self-defence so to do from a circumstance which had occurred elsewhere. In another House a direct allusion had been made, involving a charge against him, both as to his character as a Member of the House of Commons and his conduct as a Member of the Government. The situation which he held in that Government led to one circumstance —namely, that his name appeared on this Bill as one of the persons by whom it was brought into the House. It so happened, however, though he did not allude to the circumstance from any desire to shrink from any responsibility winch might be attachable to him—but it so happened that until the Bill was given printed into his hands, as a Member of the House, he had not seen it. He mentioned this circumstance simply because the appending of his name to the Bill had been made the foundation for a most unwarrantable and unjust charge against him, both as a Member of the House and as a Member of the Government. He had found in one of the newspapers published in this city an observation attributed, no doubt erroneously, to a right rev. Prelate, in which a charge was directly made against him of having violated his oath, of having committed an act of tremendous perjury in promoting this measure. Such a charge he was sure could not have really proceeded from the right rev. Prelate, for he could not imagine that a minister of the Christian church would take advantage of any situation in which he might be placed to pour out upon one who had never offended him in the slightest degree the overwhelming charge of having violated his oath in the discharge of his duty. He was, therefore, bound to believe that the whole matter must be a fabrication; an unwarrantable liberty taken with the name of the right rev. Prelate. And he was the more disposed to regard it in this light from the circumstance that having looked over the records of the proceedings of the other House, he found that, on the 8th of July, 1834, upon the occasion of a petition being presented, stating, among other things, "that certain individuals of the Roman Catholic religion who had sworn not to use any political power that might be granted to them to disturb or overturn the Protestant religion, had not adhered to that oath;" the right rev. Prelate in question said, "I think that the petition must be rejected on another ground, because, though the passage has not excited or called forth the animadversion of the noble Earl, the petitioners charge certain Members of the Imperial Parliament with perjury. This is the part which, in my opinion, renders the petition unfit to be received by this House." The right rev. Prelate, then, who in 1834 would not allow the statement of a petition to be laid on the table of the House, because it charged Members of Parliament with the violation of their oaths, was said himself, in 1836, to have made a similar charge. But there was another reason for supposing that this statement was incorrectly attributed to the right rev. Prelate. In the third Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland there was an allusion to a pamphlet, purporting to be the report of a speech, which, if it were not the speech of the right rev. Prelate, some person must have been taking a most unwarrantable liberty with his name. From the report it appeared that "the author having formerly predicted that no Scripture extracts would ever be used in our schools, his prediction failed, and it seems he has been told so. As he had declared himself desirous that extracts should be used, it might perhaps have been expected that he would express satisfaction at finding that the fact was as he desired, though not as he predicted; but instead of doing so, he makes it matter of charge against Dr. Murray that the extracts have been sanctioned by him. He says "When I ventured on that prediction, with the falsehood of which the noble and learned Lord reproaches me, I did what he called on your Lordships to do—I believed the declaration of a Roman Catholic archbishop made upon his oath. In doing so I own that I was wrong; I own that I have justly subjected myself to the taunt of the noble and learned Lord, and I promise him that I never again will offend in like manner. But true it is, my Lords, that I said in 1832 that no Scripture extracts could be agreed upon by the different members of the Board. I said this because I was sure that the Protestant Commissioners could not consent wholly to abandon the Protestant version of the Scripture and to adopt the Douay in its place." Now he found, (though in the pamphlet it was attributed to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately, Dr. Carlile, and other members of the Commission of National Education that what they had stated "was not only not true, but contrary to the truth") that it was asserted in the report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland. "A portion of the word of God is daily read from our Scripture extracts; and, at stated times, the Protestant and Roman Catholic parochial clergy attend and give religious instruction. This is our practice; it is the very reverse of what might be inferred from the pamphlet. Perhaps the author was unacquainted with it; we hope he was; but then it should be recollected that he who makes statements against his neighbour, without taking the proper means of ascertaining whether they be true or false, sins greviously. The two great commandments in which our Lord sums up Christian duty are 'To love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to love one's neighbour as one's self;' and it is hardly possible to violate both of them in one act more effectually than by promoting the dishonour of God through the means of a slander of one's neighbour." When he saw the Archbishop of Dublin, a minister of the Protestant Church, Dr. Sadlier, also a minister of the Protetant Church, and Dr. Carlile, a minister of the Presbyterian Church—when he saw them branded with having uttered that which was not true—when he saw the writer of this pamphlet promoting the dishonour of God through the means of a slander, and thus, for factious purposes, violating the two great commandments in which our Lord sums up the Christian duty, "To love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to love one's neighbour as one's self," he thought he was warranted in assuming that the person who had made the charge against him was the same person as had published the pamphlet, and in ascribing it to the right rev. Prelate had made an unwarrantable use of his name. The charge which had been directed against himself he could pronounce to be a foully false calumny. He never would cease to protest against the doctrine that as a Member of this House he was not at liberty to give his opinion on any questions submitted to it for consideration. If such a doctrine were to prevail, he should say that no Roman Catholic ought to be permitted to have a seat in the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite might think that right, and if such was his opinion, he did not blame him for declaring it; but he would say, that if this principle were once admitted, they ought to expel every Roman Catholic Member from Parliament. He knew, and he believed the constitution knew, no such functionary as a person called a representative of the people who was not entitled to give his vote as his conscience dictated. See what it would come to. If any Member of this House were to say that in his opinion any measure proposed to this House would be injurious to the interests of the Protestant Establishment, no Roman Catholic Member could vote on it. How could he act? Was he to go with the minority or the majority? How was he to act if his own judgment were not to guide him; and how was he to be certain that the opinion expressed to-day by hon. Members in the course of their Parliamentary duty, might not undergo a change in the course of a short time? The hon. Member for Dublin's University denounced the measuse of 1834, and called on them now to oppose this measure. He had seen several Gentlemen, all voting that the system of education in Ireland was a mutilation of the Scripture, and saw them all now favourable to it. He put forward these circumstances, not with a view of taunting any person with having changed his view of a particular measure—no such thing, but to show the difficulty of binding the Roman Catholic Members of Parliament, so as not to leave them at liberty to act according to their own judgment, Might he not show that a right rev. Prelate was a violent opposer of a measure in 1827, and yet in 1829 a supporter of it? There might be such a case as that, and he was not saying, that persons had not a right to change their opinions. As regarded the measure before the House, did he not see it approved by persons who were as sincerely anxious for extending the Protestant religion as any that heard him? This clause even had received the sanction of some most anxious supporters of the Protestant religion. If they admitted the Roman Catholics to Parliament, where were they to stop? who should lay down the boundary over which they must not pass? It was impossible to maintain the doctrine that they were to be bound by any obligation other than that of their conscientious opinion. He would read to the House the opinion delivered by an hon. and learned gentleman (Sir Charles Wetherell), on the 30th of March, 1829, being then the Member for Boroughbridge. In the course of the debate on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill he said:— Suppose the hon. Member for Colchester to rise and move the appropriation of Church property to other than their present objects, and the hon. Member for Montrose to second that motion, do you mean to tell me that the Catholic would be acting against his Parliamentary oath if he sanctioned such a measure, so moved and seconded by Protestants, and probably supported too by sixty or seventy other Protestants in this House, would the Catholics be restricted from supporting that vote by the oath in the Bill? Answer that—let the casuists from Oxford or Cambridge answer that if they can. I was asked a question, I answered it; and now, in my turn, I ask, I invite, I challenge any man in the House to stand up in his place and answer my question: I ask 'do you or do you not, when you give the Roman Catholic Legislator power, restrain and restrict him from voting in his legislative capacity as he pleases.* He claimed the benefit of the opinion that had been candidly given by the eminent lawyer he had quoted, in justification of his vote, and in defence of his character. Some of the hon. Members opposite were exceedingly anxious to give the people of Ireland a religious education, and to that purpose was the revenue to be taken from the Church to be devoted. That might be called an ecclesiastical purpose, and the appropriation proposed was to strictly ecclesiastical purposes. He had heard it said, that nine-tenths of the landed property was in the possession of the Protestants. Suppose that to be the case—suppose that amount of property to belong to the Protestants, could they, could he, tell the Catholics that they ought not to object to the payment of Church-rates because the small number who belonged to the Church were in the possession of so large a proportion of the landed property? It appeared to him that it would be a severe satire to affirm, that they who possessed nine-tenths of the property, and who had 613,000l. to support a Church for 800,000 persons, could not spare any portion of that large amount of revenue for the education of the Roman Catholics. Attempts might be made to excite the prejudices of the people of England by raising the cry of "the Church in danger," and by other ingenious devices, but did they believe that they could make a convert of any person who was a Roman Catholic by the terror of the writs of rebellion and the large costs of suits in the Court of Exchequer? Did they imagine they could extend the Protestant religion in that way? It would be a better remedy for the evils of which they complained to give their support to this Bill. He knew that in voting for it he should be denounced as an enemy of the Established Church. He might be called a "tremendous perjurer;" if he were he could not help it. He denied that he ever was an enemy of the Protestant Church, or of the Protestant clergy; many of his best friends were members of the Protestant Church. He would say, that he was indeed an enemy of that Church who in any way tried, whether by political intrigue or otherwise, to raise himself to a Hansard (New Series) vol. xx, p. 1574. station which he ought not to occupy, and who, having attained to it, instead of devoting himself to the promotion of peace and good will among men, mixed in political strife, showed himself the slave of those bad, of those bigotted passions which disfigured human nature, and became the propagators of any calumnies which malice or bigotry might invent.

Sir James Graham

begged, though with reluctance, to trespass on the attention of the House while he offered a few observations on this question. He was unwilling to give a silent vote, but he should detain the House for only a short time. He did not propose to address himself to all the topics which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had adverted to in the course of his speech. A great portion of the address of the hon. and learned Gentleman certainly was not immediately connected with the question before the House; therefore he trusted that the House would pardon him if he did not much dwell upon that portion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had adverted to the circumstance of the oaths taken by Roman Catholics. He was himself a strenuous supporter of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and he begged to say, that if he had not felt that the Roman Catholic Members of this House could be bound by an oath as strictly as the Protestants, he would not have been a supporter of their claims. He remembered that when a motion was made by a right hon. Friend of his (Mr. Wilmot Horton) for the admission of Roman Catholics into Parliament, but denying to them the privilege of voting, he divided against that motion; because he thought, that if they were not bound by their oaths in any matter, whether of detail or otherwise, he must be prepared to withdraw from supporting their admission into Parliament for any purposes. In consenting to admit them, he was not prepared to restrict them in the free exercise of their judgment on such questions as might come before them. He was satisfied it must be left, in any case, to the conscience of the Catholic Members, to determine what course they should pursue. They who framed the oath did so in the belief that it would be observed with peculiar caution in dealing with ecclesiastical subjects. If those hon. Members who, being Catholics, had voted for this measure as it was sent up to the Lords had felt as he did, that it had a tendency to throw the Church of Ireland into the hands of the Catholics, that it would prove injurious to the interests of that Church, that it was inconsistent with the security of property in Ireland—if they had come to that conclusion, he was satisfied that they would have considered themselves bound by their oath to oppose it. But when he saw them vote in favour of it, he was convinced that they entertained an opinion of its merits different from his, and thought it calculated to strengthen the Protestant Church and give security to its property. With this observation he should pass from this subject, and come to the question connected with the present debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked how could the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) reconcile his vote in 1834 with his vote on the present occasion. The measure of 1834 proposed to render 40 per cent. to the Irish landlord. He had no difficulty in answering the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Indeed, the reason had been furnished by Lord Althorp. The Bill of 1834 surrendered 40 per cent to the landlords of Ireland. Lord Althorp deemed 40 per cent. an unreasonable concession to them. In the words of the preamble of this Bill—"It is just and necessary, for the establishment of peace and good order in Ireland, and conducive to religion and morality, that the compositions for tithes should be made payable by persons having a perpetual estate or interest in the lands subject thereto, a reasonable deduction being made upon the amount thereof, in consideration of the greater facility and security of collection arising out of such transfer of the liability of the payment thereof from the occupying tenantry to the owners of such estates or interests." He agreed with Lord Althorp, that 40 per cent, was an unreasonable deduction, but he supported the deduction of 25 per cent. proposed in this Bill, because he considered it on the whole reasonable. He admitted that in some instances it might be too much, and in others somewhat less than was required; but, he repeated, that he thought it on the whole reasonable. That, however, was not his only reason for voting against the Bill of 1834, which was a measure forced on a reluctant Government, and which was so forced on it by the hon. Member for Kilkenny under conditions which he felt to be unjustifiable. Though that Bill proposed a deduction in favour of the Irish landlords of 40 per cent., only 22 per cent. was to be deducted from the Irish clergy, and the difference was to be made up by a charge on the Consolidated Fund, a perpetual annuity, to the amount of 147,l61l., equal to a capital of 3,870,000l. This he thought benefitting to too great an extent the Irish landlords, and imposing an unwarrantable amount of taxation on the country. The hon. and learned Attorney - General for Ireland had said:—"Give the people of Ireland an interest in the appropriation of the Church revenues, by devoting some portion of them to their instruction, and they will soon be reconciled to that payment." Would they be satisfied with the small difference between 25 and 30 per cent., that being the difference between the Bill as it went from that House and the Bill as amended by the Lords? The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to give the amount of surplus revenues of the Church, for the purposes of moral and religious education, the same sum of 50,000l., which the supporters of this amended Bill would give them out of the Consolidated Fund. But, instead of consenting to take 50,000l. out of the Consolidated Fund, Ministers preferred taking the chance of what may be doled out of the scanty surplus fund of the Church. Fortunately I can call witnesses to prove, that such a settlement of this question would not be satisfactory to the people of Ireland; and, first of all, he would ask, had the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the letter which had been recently addressed by the hon. Member for Dundalk to the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny?—had he seen the following paragraph in it?— What signifies to the poor man such a settlement of tithes as the Government Bill offers? 360,000l. a-year is still to be levied from him—a small fraction is to go to the schools, which would otherwise have been paid for out of the national funds. I deliberately assert, that it would be better for the people to pay the tithe under Lord Stanley's Act (especially with an amended valuation on the principle of the English Act), than to accept the compromise offered by the Government. So then it appeared that the question of tithes was not a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, but of conscience, and the writer of the letter went on to observe:— For example, the several Tithe Bills which have been introduced. By these Bills the clergy are to get a share—the landlord a share—the poor nothing. Had the poor no prescriptive right to a portion of the tithes? Were they entitled to no consideration in the settlement of the tithe question? By those Bills the landlord is made the proctor of the clergy; and, therefore, the poor of Ireland— the poor forty-shilling freeholder, that did so much for his country, and the poor landowner of every class, is to be handed over to the tender mercies of landlords and agents, who are invested with a legal right to recover from the poor tenant the amount of the tithes so paid, and this without any counter protecting power of any description—without any claim acknowledged bylaw for subsistence from the land of his birth. Again, by founding the stipend of the clergy on the enumeration system (as to population) in the respective parishes, a fresh stimulant is offered to Protestant landlords to dispossess the Catholic tenants, and to replace them by Protestants, in order to give an apology for claiming an increase of the endowments. When you see the virulence of opposition against any new appropriation of Church property—when you recollect the expressions and acts of the Bores-fords, so often quoted by yourself—do you believe that landlords, stimulated with such feelings, will not resort to these means, and that the miseries of the poor Catholic landholders would not be aggravated in this way? Is it justifiable for you, having the power you possess, to put in no claim for the poor of your country, in connexion with this measure? Again, are you to leave the poor man unprotected under the cruel inflictions of the Court of Exchequer? This Court has taken upon itself the power of commanding the services of the army and police, in despite of the Government, under an antiquated process; and, with reference to the police, in despite of the positive provisions both of the former and present Constabulary Bill. Is this to be permitted to continue? Is no struggle to be made to obviate this monstrous evil? You will say the Lords will not agree to any Bill for that purpose. I care not for the Lords. I ask, Sir, would not a resolution of the House of Commons, instructing the Government that they alone had the control over, and were responsible for, the use of the military power of the country—would not this be sufficient indemnity for holding this power in their hands? It is not too late still to take this step. But if some steps be not taken, tell the poor man to pay his tithes; if he is not to be protected, let him not sacrifice his miserable means, and perhaps his life, in a hopeless and useless struggle. He has been taught it was a matter, not of amount, but of conscience, and of duty to his country, against tyranny, insult, and oppression; if this principle is to be given up, it becomes a fight about straws. I deliberately assert, that it would be better for the people to pay the tithe under Lord Stanley's Act (especially with an amended valuation on the principle of the English Act), than to accept a compromise offered by Government, The hon. Member for Dundalk was, he be- lieved, hostile to this measure, but would probably vote in its favour rather than endanger the interests of his party. This letter showed what the feelings of a certain party in Ireland were with regard to tithes, notwithstanding any Bill which might be passed; and the ultimate effect which the present measure would have on the clergy of the Established Church. The appropriation clause was the principal object in view. Whatever advantages might be conferred by the Bill; though the clergy should be deprived of 30 per cent.; though the arrears of tithes and all the odious modes of collection were got rid of, nothing would be satisfactory, but the appropriation of Church property which was perfectly coincident with the arguments of the hon. Member for St. Alban's. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland said, the Catholics must pay tithes, but he seemed as if he could not divest himself of the idea, that they would not pay them, but that the Protestants alone must and would pay them. The real demonstration of this problem was, that the reduction affected the landlord and not the tenant. He defied the Ministers to show, that Lord Stanley's Act had not effected all that was expected from it. Yet still the question remained in the same state. The appropriation clause was still insisted on. A trial of strength took place on that question; and the result was the upsetting of the Government of his right hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had repeatedly and triumphantly said, the feelings of the country were in favour of the Bill as introduced by the Government. Had not the Ministers of the Crown had sufficient experience of the feeling of the country upon the appropriation clause? In order to judge of the public support of this Bill, let the House look at some late elections in detail. What did they say at Northamptonshire to the appropriation clause? They rejected it. What did they say to the appropriation clause in Merionethshire? They discarded it. What did they say to the appropriation clause in Essex? They despised it. What did they say to the appropriation clause in Warwickshire? They laughed it to scorn. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, perhaps, would tell them, that all the public opinion was concentrated in cities and towns. This brought to his mind a melancholy subject which he would not have adverted to but that it furnished a case in point, and was some season to those who were disposed to treat with contempt the electors in the country, esteeming them as prejudiced and ignorant freeholders. The electors of cities and towns forsooth entertained sounder opinions—they exhibited much greater intelligence—much more knowledge respecting political measures. A lamented and respected friend of his (Sir M. W. Ridley) with whom he always acted and always voted, was menaced as himself with the loss of his seat on account of the part he took on this very subject. He represented the town of Newcastle. That town had the advantage of a visit from the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. The hon. and learned Gentleman was understood to have undertaken that mission as the supporter of the Government—as the apostle of the Ministry. He certainly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, not that he was authorised to proceed on his mission, but that it was a mission which he had undertaken in favour of his Majesty's Government, and to procure justice for Ireland. ["No, no!" "Question," and "Order."]

Mr. Goring

rose to order. He wished to know whether this was the question new before the House?

Sir James Graham

The hon. Member for Middlesex had gone into an inquiry as to what was the popular feeling in England respecting this resolution, and he imagined that he was speaking to the question when he was endeavouring to meet the observations of the hon. Gentleman. It was his wish and the wish of his Friends, to act on this question in the manner most conducive to the interests of this country and Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, who went this mission, would effect that object by means of Catholic ascendancy; he conceived that the means proposed and supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead to the spoliation of the Protestant Church. Now what was said to his lamented friend? He was charged with being an apostate to his principles, he was branded as a renegade, and was pointed out as an individual whom it would be a duty on the first opportunity to deprive of his seat. What had taken place? The opportunity was given recently. Was the question as to the appropriation clause blinked? On the contrary, the issue joined was precisely on that question. The noble Lord had shook his head; but there was a witness present who could testify to the fact. The Gentleman was present who could state that he called for the support and the suffrages of the freemen and electors of Newcastle. ["The freemen?"] Was there any distinction? Were they, who had the franchise granted to them within the last two years, to be held out as a degraded body of men? He repeated, that issue was joined on that question of appropriation, The electors were asked if they would choose a man who, if he had been in Parliament, would not have voted for the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, as framed by his Majesty's Ministers; and who told them, that if they sent him into Parliament, he would vote against the appropriation clause in the Irish Church Bill. [An hon. Member: "Triennial Parliaments?"] Some hon. Gentleman behind the Treasury Bench said, "Try a new Parliament." He thought it was most constitutional and excellent advice. [A Member: "Triennial Parliaments!"] Now to triennial Parliaments he should say, that unless his Majesty's Government had changed greatly their opinions upon that subject, they would not follow any such advice, nor support any such principle. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, complained that on a former occasion he (Sir J. Graham) had, in some way, misrepresented that noble Lord's sentiments; that he had charged him with dissimulation in his conduct with respect to the appropriation clause, and that such a charge was grounded upon his knowledge of that noble Lord's sentiments, when he had the honour to be a colleague of his. Now, nothing could be so far from his intention as to make any such charge, and he did not think, he certainly was not conscious of having ever said, any such thing. Dissimulation was certainly no part of the character of the noble Lord. Upon this point the noble Lord was most explicit, and if he were to state, or could be permitted to state, conversations with that noble Lord, in the Cabinet and out of the Cabinet, he should say, that so far was the noble Lord from being liable to a charge of inconsistency upon this ground, that he was quite consistent in supporting this Bill; or, in fact, a Bill which would go twice as far; he knew not but that the noble Lord would be even consistent in supporting a Bill which might go to supplant the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, How could he charge with dissimulation that noble Lord, whose declaration upon this subject had rung the knell of Earl Grey's Government, and which might be, proceeding as it did from a Minister of the Crown, considered as almost the deathblow to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland? In 1834, that noble Lord declared, that "if ever there was a nation that had a grievance, that nation was Ireland, and that grievance was the Established Church." [Cheers!] Gentlemen opposite adopted that sentiment. [Cheers!] Did they adopt it? [Hear, hear!] He said, then, that there never was a great evil legislated for by so mean and paltry a measure. This an attempt to settle the grievance of a nation! Why, it was a mere atom—a scrap, but in principle it was as monstrous as anything could be. It was not with dissimulation, but with inconsistency, that he charged the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in 1832, said, that "others might be for revolution, but he was for peace. This country could not stand a revolution once a year, and if he did quarrel with the Lords, it would be for some object worthy of a conflict." What was the sum then in dispute? No less a sum than 1,200,000l., the whole amount of the perpetuity fund. For a sum so insignificant as 1,200,000l. a-year, the noble Lord considered that the danger of a conflict with the Lords ought not to be encountered. Now, it was not 1,200,000l., but for 50,000l., to be given in education, that they were to have a conflict; but then there was the principle involved— that was, that this 50,000l. was to be wrung from the Church to be given in education. For this the same noble Lord was willing to risk a conflict in 1836, who had, in 1832, declared, that "others might be for a revolution, but he was for peace." Upon a more recent occasion the noble Lord had used an argument inconsistent with his present declaration. He alluded to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord within the last fortnight upon the Established Church in this country. He took down the words of the noble Lord at the time, as they made a great impression upon him, and he was unable to reconcile the noble Lord's doctrines now with what he propounded upon that occasion, when hon. Members were arguing that the sum of 5,000l. should be taken from the Archbishop of Canterbury, 3,000l. a year from another Prelate, and different sums from various Prelates, making in all 25,000l. a year, half of the sum which was then under discussion. The noble Lord then said (he was quite sure of the words he quoted,) "I would not risk for 25,000l. the success of a real measure of reform. I will not make any such deduction, when, by not making it, I am enabled to carry such a measure with the consent of the heads of the Church." That was the noble Lord's doctrine as to the Established Church in England. It was not, he said, for a paltry sum of 25,000l. a year he would risk the success of a measure of reform in the Church which he could carry with the consent of the heads of the Church. The whole matter here in dispute was 50,000l. —that was the only difference—instead of 25,000l. the sum was 50,000l.; and yet for that sum this question was to be lost. How was he to reconcile the principle which the noble Lord asserted with regard to England when carried into Ireland, and when there was to be a settlement of a great question there; yet he would not waive a point with regard to 50,000l. but insisted upon that sum at the risk of endangering the peace of that unhappy country. But then he was told that the struggle in which they (the Opposition) were engaged was a hopeless one—that they would not succeed. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had met that declaration in a manner that he was rejoiced to hear, and in which he was most disposed to join. The right hon. Baronet, said, if it were hopeless, still let them oppose it to the last —let the responsibility be on the heads of those who thought they were right—but let not those who thought the principle was wrong in any degree partake in it. He wished not to remove the means of resistance to what was bad, and he trusted elsewhere for the result. But if the struggle were a hopeless one, was the prospect of the consequences very promising? Did the House forget that sixteen Irish Members voted against the third reading of this Bill? Did they forget that the hon. Member for Dundalk told them that this Bill, which was to give peace to Ireland, was one that would "make the landlords tithe-proctors; that it mixed tithes with rent-tithes, an unjust payment, with rent, which was a just payment; that it mixed the payment of that for which nothing was received with the payment of that for which value was received?" The hon. Member for Mayo was still more explicit, for he said, ''he cared not whether they called it tithes or rent; but it was a monstrous injustice to call upon the million to pay for the religious instruction of a few thousands." That was intelligent; that was statesman like. He could well understand an argument such as he had mentioned. He could understand it if it applied to the reconstruction of the articles of the Union. He could understand, too, the argument of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, if it were to apply to the religion of the majority—if Ireland were not united to England, and did not form a part of the empire. Then, according to that argument, the Catholic ought to be the established religion; but it was a monstrous fallacy to apply such an argument to Ireland, when it formed a portion of the United Empire. He saw the hon. Member for Tipperary opposite. That hon. Member had, on a former occasion, said, "If they could buy peace with a million it would be a cheap purchase;" but to pay the million, and get additional discord, was most foolish. Peeling, as he did, that the principle involved in the discussion was of the utmost value, it would, he thought, be madness to support a measure of this kind. The learned Doctor, the Member for Cork, declared that "they only waited for the opportunity —he would not beat about the bush—Irishmen were able to light themselves. "This was, he considered, the most deliberate threat ever yet uttered in any assembly. But was this all? A circumstance had transpired within the last few days for which he and his noble Friend, the Member for Lancashire, were long watching— they were not taken by surprise, for they had expected it. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, he thought so late as the 25th June, in observing on the subject of the glebes belonging to the Irish Church, put the matter thus:—"We do not at present," observe, at present, "demand glebe-houses for the residence of the pastors whom the people prefer." Let the House remember that Ministers were asked what was the meaning of the mysterious clauses referring to glebes—what was the meaning of giving a power to Lord Duncannon to alienate the glebes for an indefinite number of years? His noble Friend pointedly asked for what particular design they were so alienated? The hon. Member for Kilkenny, within the last four days, desired these as Catholic endowments. The hon. Member had written a letter, published within the last week, in which were these words:—"Would you tranquillise Ireland, follow up this plan; give the glebes, to the value of 300l. per annum, to the pastors of the great and overwhelming majority of the people of these parishes." It turned out, then, that these endowments were to be taken from the clergymen of the Established Church. This was what was desired by the hon. and learned Member, who represented the great body of the Catholics of Ireland. It was desired to transfer these endowments to the Roman Catholics. Let the people of England understand that. Let the Protestant Dissenters understand it. He said, let the Presbyterians of Scotland understand it. It was not a question of mere Protestant spoliation—it was a question of Catholic endowment. It was a question whether they were to transfer these endowments from the ministers of the established religion, and give them to the ministers of a religion which their forefathers had risked a revolution to overthrow, and in the field, and on the scaffold, rejoiced in denouncing!

Mr. Sheil

The right hon. Baronet, while speaking of Newcastle, was interrupted by cries of" Triennial Parliaments." He did not seem to know the purport of the intimation. I can explain it to him. The new Member, who is represented as a Conservative, pledged himself to vote for Triennial Parliaments. His opponent declined to give any pledge, and had voted against the Reform Bill. The result of the Newcastle contest affords no ground of triumph; it is not on the hustings of Newcastle that the flag of triumphant Toryism ought to be planted. The right hon. Baronet adverted to the state of feeling in Cumberland. I know little of Cumberland, except from the impression produced there in 1831, by the right hon. Baronet himself, and the applauses which attended a very remarkable speech of his, appears to me to furnish evidence of the state of popular feeling in that county. The right hon. Baronet, on that occasion, called Sir J. Scarlett his "once-valued friend," but added, that he had become "a recreant Whig." The right hon. Baronet also expressed himself favourable to the practice of extorting pledges, and advised the people to insist upon Lord Lowther giving a pledge in favour of reform. These are the only indications which I have of the state of public feeling in Cumberland, but this appears to me to be sufficient to form a tolerably correct estimate of that county. The right hon. Ba- ronet is, in one particular, entitled to my thanks; he does not coincide with the Bishop of Exeter in his formidable imputation. He relieves us, on the contrary, from the charge of perjury. It has been the good fortune of the right hon. Baronet to take a very different view from the Bishop of Exeter, on points of theory and practice; in practice so far as his own conduct, or even so far as the conduct of Roman Catholics is concerned. In 1830 the right hon. Baronet gave notice of a motion denouncing the Bishop for holding a living, of Stanhope I think, in commendam, and now he repudiates, as unchristian, that charitable ecclesiastic's imputation of perjury cast upon his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. This does him credit. With respect to the Catholic oath, I do assure the right hon. Baronet that, as far as I am individually concerned, I have no intention to subvert the Church; I wish to curtail it —I wish to reduce it to the dimensions of the Church of Scotland—I wish to proportion the payment to the service performed; where there are no Protestants, I see no pretence for paying a clergyman the exorbitant sum of 300l. a-year. The right hon. Baronet adverted to the speech of the Member for Tamworth, in which that right hon. Gentleman declared, that if the pillars of the Church must at last be shaken, he, at least, would not concur in their concussion, nor be accessory to their prostration. Sir, I do not desire to overthrow the pillars of the Church; I wish to take down the golden dome, in order to prevent it, by its fall, from burying all beneath it under its ruins. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, referred to the subject of education, and declared that he was willing to give out of the Consolidated Fund 50,000l. a-year for the education, under the commission of the Irish people. He is willing to tax England with this sum. He would mulct the English people, and spare the superfluities of the Irish Church. But in a man so religious, it seems to me extraordinary that he is willing to assent to what pious people call the mutilation of the word of God. It is remarkable that this proposition has come from the Tories; and the silence of certain of their Irish Friends is not less deserving of notice. Where is the Recorder of Dublin? Where is the Member for Bandon? What is become of the Member for the University of Dublin? Formerly, when the Tories were in office, and confirmed the mutilation of the word of God, there were reasons, substantial ones, for silence; but now, when their consciences are emancipated, and their interests are no longer concerned, will they stand up and denounce the application of so large a sum to be given from the Consolidated Fund, for the suppression of the Scriptures. There is one point more in the speech of the Member for Cumberland to which I desire for an instant to advert. He charges the Member for Kilkenny with having intimated a wish, that glebe lands should be given to the Catholic clergy. I wish that the right hon. Baronet would tell us whether or not he conceives that a provision should be made for the Catholic clergy. They repudiate it: but does the right hon. Baronet desire to use any gentle violence to induce their compliance on this subject? I know that in common conversation, the Tories constantly lament that in 1825, the terms proposed to Lord Liverpool, including a provision, were not accepted. To this day, the Tories are fond of reverting to this proposition. But why in this House do they never openly refer to it? Why is the Member for Tamworth, why is the Member for Lancashire significantly silent on this point? Will they this night tell us their minds on the question? No, Sir; they are afraid to awaken the religious prejudices of the English people. But how disingenuous it is on the part of the Member for Cumberland, when he suppresses his own opinion, to avail himself of a paragraph in a letter of the hon. Member for Kilkenny in order to ignite with it the inflammable feelings of the English people? This incendiary expedient is scarcely worthy of him. I turn from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cumberland. In the opening of this night's debate, the question of privilege was glanced at. I am glad that on mere matter of form the debate has not turned; but I am also glad that the great prerogatives of the people have been recalled to the public recollection. The time may not be distant when the redress of grievances must precede the supply of the exigencies of the Crown. But although privilege is put aside, let not dignity be forgotten. For once let us follow the example of the Lords. They rejected the amended Municipal Reform Bill, because it was inconsistent with their House to recede from the ground which they had deliberately taken; and shall we, after having passed a resolution declaratory of the policy by which Ireland must be for the future governed—after having with that resolution annihilated and created a Cabinet—after having embodied the principle of that resolution in two successive Bills, in two successive Sessions—shall we, I say, accept a Bill founded on a principle diametrically the reverse of that thus solemnly and repeatedly adopted, and without which we have proclaimed the tranquillity of Ireland to be hopeless? What will be the consequence of accepting the measure of the Lords? The Ministers must resign, and the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, carried by a majority of eighty-six, to which the House is pledged, is lost. The Lords must, if they wish to extend their Conservative habits to their characters, adhere to their destructive Bill. There is only one man who could, without any damage to his character, convert his Alien Act into a Bill for the naturalisation of the Irish people; his associates, although they have availed themselves of his talents, could not venture to act in conformity with his ethics. It must be taken as granted, then, that the fate of the Municipal Bill depends upon that of this Bill, and I call upon every man who has already, by his vote on the Municipal Bill, expressed his determination to extend to Ireland the benefit of British institutions, to remember that on his vote tonight the practical realisation of that policy depends. It may be said that the settlement of the tithe question is of paramount importance to every other. True. But what reasonable man can regard the measure of the Lords as the settlement of the question? The aliens— the seven millions of aliens and of perjurers—will scarcely be reconciled to this measure by the share which Lord Lyndhurst and the Bishop of Exeter have had in its production. The conjunction of this honest lawyer and of this Christian ecclesiastic is not a little curious. I remember a striking speech against Catholic Emancipation, made by Sir John Copley, as Master of the Rolls, which Mr. Canning more than intimated was derived from a notorious pamphlet of the day. Mr. Canning exclaimed— Dear Tom, this brown jug, which foams with mild ale, Out of which I now drink to sweet Kate of the vale, Was once Toby Phillpot's—. Is it not an odd coincidence that Copley and Phillpots—the one metamorphosed into my Lord Lyndhurst—and the other into the most reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Exeter, should be still politically associated—and that the former should denounce us as aliens, and the latter should involve a whole nation in one comprehensive and flagitious imputation? Aliens and perjurers! Is this the Conservative process of conciliation, and is it thus that those passions are to be assuaged which disturb the peace and arrest the prosperity of our unfortunate country? The Lords' Bill a settlement of the question! It will be repudiated with utter scorn by the Irish people, who will regard it is an expedient to turn out the Ministry, to expel a Lord-Lieutenant who has won the affections of the country, and to restore the Orange faction to the plenitude of its domination at the Castle. Does any moderate Conservative conceive that even if this project could be effected, it would be serviceable to the country? What can be more prejudicial to Ireland than these sudden transfers of power, attended with ferocious exultation on one side, and black vindictive resentment on the other? The Green flag to-day—tomorrow the Orange—the next the Green flag, with a darker and deeper dye again. Is this a state of things to be desired? It may be said by a Conservative, that since a triumph must be given, it is better that Orangeism should be selected for the preference. This suggestion might be plausible if there was the least chance of durability in a Conservative Government. But who is there that looks one yard before him in this fog of prejudice and of passion by which we are surrounded— who is there that looks beyond to-day, and has a political to-morrow, who can believe that it is possible that the Conservative policy, with respect to the Irish Church, can be long maintained? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Tam-worth does not think so. His speech tonight was full of intimations of despair. Why did he say that if a blow must be struck, it should not be struck by him? Why did he talk of the prostration of those pillars which he declared that he for one would not contribute to the overthrow? What did his speech mean, but an announcement that he would not play upon this question the same part which upon the Catholic he had been compelled to perform; that he would leave it to others to do that which he saw was inevitable; that he had already made sufficient sacrifices, and would not go through martyrdom again. This appeared to me to be the dominant feeling in the mind of the hon. Member for Tamworth, and any man who looks at the circumstances and events that attend this question, will see that the maintenance of the abuses of the Establishment is utterly impracticable. Let us throw aside all abstractions, and consider not merely the merits of this question, but the relation in which we stand towards each other, what are our comparative resources, and on whose side the victory will, in all likelihood, ultimately be. Forgive me if I put so abrupt a question as this:—Who are you, and who are we? My answer to the first question shall be fair, and you will permit me, in answering the second question, to be frank. Do not imagine that I mean to undervalue the importance of the Conservative party. I am willing to take you at your own price, which is rather a high standard of appreciation. You say, that you have the aristocracy, the gentry, the clergy, the army, the magistracy, and the House of Lords. You have not all the House of Lords; you have not the Cavendishes, nor the Russells; no, nor the Stanleys, in the House of Lords. Some of you say, that you have the King, and that Windsor is only an appurtenance to Apsley-house. I do not agree in this opinion, for I remember that the Duke of Clarence, on the 23d of Feb., 1829, turned to the bench of Bishops and asked them whether they would dare to call themselves the ministers of peace if they contributed to civil war in Ireland. This speech, I beg respectfully to recommend to the episcopal meditations of Dr. Phillpotts, and I trust, that one of the dignitaries of the Church will derive advantage from the truly Christian sentiments expressed by the illustrious personage who is now its head. Having told you who you are, I proceed to communicate some information to you of which you may stand in need, and to tell you who we are. But it is better that before I tell you who we are, I should first tell you what we are. In 1793 we were not half in number what we now are; we had no intelligence, no education, no concert, no property; and yet, even then, we extorted from England the elective franchise. England put into a hand which she did not know to be gigantic, a weapon from the armoury of the Constitution, with which from crest to centre, Toryism has been cloven. I spring with a single bound over an interval of forty-three years, and hurry to the 13th of April, 1829. On that day the great charter of Irish liberty was ratified, and the King uttered those phrases of power, Le Roi le veut. No, he did not use it, nor did you use it, nor the Lords, nor the gentry, nor the clergy, nor the army, nor the magistracy; but we were resolved upon it, and I tell you that to the question before the House we bring the same unconquerable will, and the same indomitable determination; and that, delay this question as you may, excite the fanaticism of England as you may; employ this question to get into Downing-street as you may, still you must yield at last, and to Ireland, at last, justice shall be done. I know that you are in the habit of speaking, and of writing, with derision, upon the phrase, "Justice to Ireland." It is quite natural that you should do so. At Madrid, they laughed at justice to the Creole. At the Hague, they laughed at justice to Belgium. There is an exceedingly good picture by Copley, in the national gallery, of the death of Chatham, and I remember that on the morning on which I read the alien speech, I was struck by that picture, and while I looked upon the fine representation of the expiring statesman, some of the most remarkable words which he had ever uttered came back to my recollection —"Do justice to America; do it to-night —do it before you sleep." Alas! Sir, there were men mad enough to laugh at that admonition, and how can I expect, when my feeble voice is raised to implore you to do justice to Ireland, that you should not treat that melancholy adjuration with the same derision. But it may be said, that I am all this while using the language of vaunt, and that mere vaunt ought to be treated with disregard. I am willing to go into details, and to act like him who took the herald of the evening through his camp, showed him the extent, the discipline, the organisation of his force, exhibited every legion in its panoply, and then sent back the herald to his antagonist and offered battle. But mistake me not. We do not mean to give you an opportunity of re-enacting the scenes upon the Boyne and at Aughrim again. Our power is a moral one. Our field of combat shall be on this floor, and here, where we have again and again discomfited you, again we shall put you to the rout. But to revert to details. What is the slate of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland? Let us take Roman Catholic property first into consideration. I know it is the fashion to say, the Irish Roman Catholics are destitute of property. It is natural that you should think so, for your ancestors left us tolerably bare. You put Ireland through a process unexampled in the history of confiscation. If I may be permitted to play upon a word, I should say, that the history of Irish Protestantism was to be found in Rapin. You not only took away all we had, but you prevented us from acquiring anything. It was not until 1782 that a Roman Catholic could purchase an estate. But since that time our progress in territorial acquisition has been great, and, as is obvious, must every day increase. But I am free to admit, that the bulk of fee-simple property is Protestant. I stop not to ask how much of it is in mortgage to Roman Catholics. My case is this, that the mass of property to which political influence is an incident, is in the hands of the middle classes. Before the Reform Bill, the great Protestant proprietors nominated to boroughs, and thus political influence was attached to their estates. But a complete transfer of this influence has taken place to the body of the inhabitants of towns sending Members to Parliament. I will give you the ocular proof of the extent and character of the change which has taken place. Look at the hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for the University of Oxford. He was once the Member for Dundalk. You will scarce believe it, but it is the fact, and the House perceives that he does not dispute it. My Lord Roden selected a gentleman eminently qualified to represent him and his religious feelings and pious addictions in the House. It is not to be presumed, that any sublunary inducements were applied by the hon. Baronet to the noble Lord, in order to persuade him to make so felicitous a choice. The House sees in the hon. Baronet, not only the representative of Lord Roden, but the image as it was before reform of Dundalk, and now look at Dundalk as it is. Look at the hon. Gentleman, the successor of the Member for Oxford. There is not a greater contrast between the hon. Gentleman, between the the soft and gentle Conservatism of the one, and the stern and inflexible demo- cracy of the other, than there is between. Dundalk before and since reform. Believe me, that although I have put the matter in such a form as to produce a smile, the illustration is not inapt. The fact is, that the political influence once connected with individual Protestant property has been completely handed over to the mass of merchants, traders, and the various classes employed in the different pursuits of business in the Parliamentary boroughs. The same is very much the case in several of the counties of Ireland, which have not been divided, nor, if I may fabricate the word, been Chandosized. The voters in populous towns outweigh the aristocracy even in county elections, and the grocers beat the squires. It must thus appear evident that not only the numbers are with us, but that the property distributed amongst those Members is more efficacious for Parliamentary purposes, and those purposes are the only ones which in a country governed by Parliament, ought in legislation to be taken into account. There are various other sources of affluence and of influence opened to the mass of the community besides agriculture and trade. Formerly the Protestants of Ireland enjoyed a complete monopoly of the patronage of the Crown. The Pactolus of the royal bounty rose in the castle to discharge itself into the reservoir of Protestantism; but now, without distinction of religion, an indiscriminate participation takes place in the dignities and emoluments connected with the departments of the State. The different professions have been thrown open to us. Take the Bar as an example of the effect produced by the career which is furnished to the talents of the Irish Catholics. In the year 1812, Mr. Saurin denounced us as miscreants, and now one of those miscreants is his Majesty's Attorney-General, Roman Catholics are in all branches of business at the bar at its highest points. My learned Friend, the Member for Cashel, who holds a topmost place in his profession, is one of his Majesty's law-officers; and my Friend, the Member for Clonmel, for talents, learning, and station, is unsurpassed at the Chancery Bar. To the Bench these men are rapidly making their way. Why do I mention these things? Because they are some among the many proofs that might be given of the general and rapid progress of that community, which it is the custom to depreciate with those who admit our numbers, but are blind enough to be insensible to the great and augmenting influence with which we are invested. I might readily go into other details to sustain my view of the great strides which are made every day in power by the mass of the Irish people. But my apprehension of exhausting the patience of the House prevents me from indulging in any minute enumeration of the different circumstances which deserve the consideration of those who are to determine by what policy Ireland shall be governed. I shall, therefore, pass by all the rest, and limit myself to one leading and noble feature, incident to the state of the Irish people. If we were seven millions of mere unintellectual, dull, insensible, degraded serfs, a mere mass of helotism, to our seven millions little regard should be paid. Once we were sunk indeed by the penal code, but a marvellous change has taken place. Men often talk of the great improvement which has taken place in Ireland, and in doing so they refer merely to its external aspect: its moral one has undergone a still greater alteration. Not only has the plough climbed to the top of the mountain, and cultivation pierced into the morass, but the mind of Ireland has been reclaimed. You educate our people, and with educacation of the people the long continuance of unnatural and unjust institutions is incompatible. But, if education has done much, agitation has done more. Although it may have been attended with many evils, it has been accompanied by one great countervailing good. Public opinion, which before did not exist, has been created in Ireland. The minds of men of all classes have been inlaid with the great principles on which the rights of the majority depend. This salutary influence has ascended to the higher classes, spread among the middle, and descended among the lower. The humblest peasant has been nobly affected by it. Even in the midst of the most abject destitution he has begun to acquire a sentiment of self-respect. "He venerates himself a man." I remember the time when, if you struck an Irish peasant, he cowered beneath the blow. Strike him now—the spirit of offended manhood starts up in a breast covered with rags. This Celtic blood boils up as yours would, and he feels and he acts as if he were born in this noble land of yours, where, the person of every British citizen is sacred from affront, and from his birth he had breathed that moral atmosphere which Britons are accustomed to inhale. No, Sir, we are not what we were. We have not caught the accents of your voices, indeed, but we have caught the intonations of your rhymes. Englishmen, we are too like you to give you leave to keep us down; nay, in some points we have surpassed you. Have you read the evidence of the Intimidation Committee, and the dispraise of heroism in rags which it details? The Irish peasant is prepared again to do what he did before, and to bid defiance, in the cause of his country, to poverty, expulsion, ruin. Do you doubt it? Put it to the test: if Parliament were dissolved to-morrow our numbers would be augmented, and even if they were to remain stationary, no Conservative Government could long withstand the pressure of sixty Representatives, not of a transitory faction, but of an undecaying and imperishable people. If we stood alone I should not despair. Sustained by British sympathy, how can I for a moment of the triumph of this great cause entertain a doubt? Scotland is with us. The Scotch feel, that the cause in which their fathers bled is ours; and as to England, if we have been defeated in skirmishes at occasional elections, I make no question, that at a general election in the great onset we should win the day; and if we do (and with that question I conclude) what course will the Tories take? They hid us yield to the Lords. Will they, in that event, yield to the people? Will they give up the great principle on which their resistance is founded? The Member for Lancashire will cry out, that he will resist it to the death—the Member for Tamworth is too wise to say that he will do so.

Mr. Hodgson

stated, that in the late election for Newcastle, he had been returned without soliciting a single vote; and after having declared his determination not to lend his support in any way to the alienation of Church property to secular purposes in Ireland. With respect to the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, it abounded, particularly the latter part of it, in beautiful imagery and powerful figures, but he did not see that throughout the whole tenour of his address, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made one attempt to argue the question before the House upon its merits. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech contained this point, and this one alone, that if the House voted against the appropriation clause to-night, Ministers would be dismissed from their offices, but that the House would preserve them in their places by opposing the Lords' amendments to this Bill. Now he (Mr. Hodgson) considered the question of the stability of a Government as infinitely unimportant, when compared to the settlement, of a great principle like that before the House at this moment. He was well aware that a great diversity of opinion did exist as to the propriety of enacting the appropriation clause, and many there were who were earnest in its support; but the question was now, whether the whole Bill — the whole measure of Church reform in Ireland — should be rejected, because the appropriation clause could not be had with it? Such a course would, in his opinion, be founded upon a very illogical argument. The hon. Member having thanked the House for its indulgence in listening to the few observations he had made, sat down, declaring that he should vote for the amendment of the right hon. Baronet.

Mr. Harvey, after premising that it was not his intention to detain the House very long, said, that having on a former occasion expressed his sentiments decidedly, and he believed not very acceptably, upon this subject, he should probably have forborne altogether from speaking on the present occasion, but that he felt bound to urge the usual appeal to the forbearance of the House in favour of a new Member, in which light he certainly had a right to consider himself. The sentiments which he had uttered on a former occasion on this subject, had been very much misrepresented, so much so that he felt himself called upon to appeal to a tribunal to which an Englishman seldom appealed in vain — to his constituents, and the result was, that they declared themselves unanimously in favour of the line of conduct he had taken up, and from that line he saw no reason now to deviate. In one respect, however, he felt himself bound, on the present occasion, to adopt a different course to that which he had on the last division on this subject, when, as it might be recollected by the House, having fearlessly expressed his opinions on the whole question, he had abstained from giving a vote. On the present occasion he should give a vote, and for this reason— on the former occasion he was equally opposed both to the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and to that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, therefore, he would not vote for either; and on the present occasion, if the question was the acceptance of one or other of those propositions, he should again abstain from voting; but as it happened this was not the question upon which he was now called to vote, but whether they should accept this measure denuded of the appropriation clause, which would be nothing less than extracting all the merit from it? That, and no other, was the consideration and the question upon which he should this evening give his vote. He had followed with great attention the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, in hopes he would have advanced some arguments in support of the course proposed by his Majesty's Government on this subject —some attempt to show that this Bill, when passed, would be sufficient to tranquillize and satisfy the demands of that country of which the hon. and learned Member was so distinguished an ornament and so able an advocate. But so far from this, when the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a brief survey of the history of Ireland during the last half century, he abstained altogether from giving any opinion for the future, as to what would be the result of the passing of this measure. For his own part, he did not think this measure would be productive of all that satisfaction and tranquillity which were promised from it. The hon. and learned Member said, he did not wish to disturb the Protestant Church of Ireland; on the contrary, he was solicitous for its preservation, and would not meddle with its revenues unnecessarily, nor in any way impair its utility. Now he could not see how a Roman Catholic and a Protestant Dissenter could conscientiously hold such an argument. He thought the hon. and learned Member, as a Roman Catholic, was bound to do everything he could to destroy the power, and subvert the influence of the Protestant Church in Ireland. If he conscientiously thought that the existence of a Protestant Church was necessary for the happiness and welfare of the people of England, he should have taken the view, and supported the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lanca- shire. But he was not of that opinion; and therefore it was that he felt that this very measure which was now before the House, could not satisfy the feelings of a people who were conscientiously opposed to the doctrines, and therefore to the very existence, of a Protestant Church, and its claims to protection were essentially different in Ireland from what they were in England. In England, the great bulk of the people of the country were in favour of the Protestant doctrines, but in Ireland the case was precisely the reverse. Under these circumstances, if it were attempted to maintain the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Establishments in Ireland, in friendly juxta-position and mutual alliance, could it be pretended that the Protestant Church Establishment had any chance of perpetuity, at variance as it was in its tenets to the persuasion of the great majority of the people of that country. As the case stood at present, the Church Establishment of Ireland was conducted upon principles to which the great majority of the people were, in their consciences, opposed; and he was one who thought that, if a Church Establishment was to be maintained at all, it ought at least to be an establishment whose tenets were in conformity to the doctrines and feelings predominant amongst the majority of the population. The institutions of the country ought to be applied to the utmost possible extent, according to the wants and desires of the people. Upon this principle, he held it to be impossible to maintain a Church Establishment in Ireland, which was made use of by a small minority of communicants. What course, then, was to be pursued? The only course, in his opinion, was to withdraw all legislative countenance from both Churches, and to apply the revenues of the Church to the moral instruction and comfort of the people at large. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his speech, took a very agreeable survey of the state of the property in Ireland, and of the learned professions, and other parties of influence in Ireland, but he studiously avoided any allusion to the feelings of the great bulk of the humbler classes of his fellow-countrymen. But did the hon. and learned Gentleman really pretend to say that this Bill would become either inviting or disgusting in the eyes of the people of Ireland, just according as this appropriation clause was included in it or not? Why, such a notion as that would be totally preposterous. The appropriation clause was a mere dry, worthless abstraction. It pretended to apply a certain surplus of Church revenues to the education of the people in Ireland; but where was that surplus to be found? The very advocates of the measure did not anticipate that they would have anything of the kind for half a century to come, and then it would only amount to something about 50,000l. a-year; and, in the mean time, the anticipations of that surplus fund were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. What then did all this quarrelling about appropriation come to? Why, both parties seemed to understand the principle pretty well, and to act upon it too, by taking care of themselves; only that the Conservatives were more honest than their opponents. The Ministers look thirty per cent. from the Church revenues as the price of this measure, whilst the Conservatives had expressed themselves content with twenty-five per cent. But there was one oilier question involved in this Bill, which, it appeared to him, had been left quite untouched in the course of the discussion on this measure; namely, the proposal to forgive the 700,000l. which had been already advanced out. of the million originally voted for the relief of the clergy of Ireland. It would be recollected, that when the House was applied to by Lord Althorp for a sum of money to meet the deficiency in the tithe payments of the years 1830 and 1832, their feelings were harrowed by the touching descriptions which were given of the state to which the working clergy in Ireland had been reduced by the systematic resistance which had been made to the payment of tithes. Curates, men of small estate, but hard-worked in their holy avocation, were represented as being entirely dependent for support, together with their large families, upon the precarious bounty of their neighbours. One hon. Member stated the distress to be so great in many parts, that a poor curate was unable to raise the money to release a letter addressed to him from the post-office. Well, in consequence of all these appeals, the million vole was carried, under the understanding, however, that it was to be repaid to the public purse by a sort of land-tax, spread over a surface of five years' time. It was surprising how the arithmetic of hon. Members of that House varied with their objects. On that occasion, Mr. Littleton stated the tithes of Ireland to be about 600,000l. a year, and taking the sum due to be 400,000l., that it would require a million to meet the arrears; so that, at that time, in order to show the House that there was no ground for alarm, lest the loan should not be repaid, the tithes of Ireland were declared to be worth 600,000l. a-year. But now, when those who took upon themselves the defence of the clergy in that House, wished to make out a case favourable to their views, the tithes were lowered to 350,000l. But so far, said the hon. Gentleman, from this sum of a million being given to the meritorious, distressed, and indigent clergy of Ireland, the fund was actually received in large lumps by noble laymen, and by female laymen, too, if I may so term them. There were no terms of application made before the Commissioners, which have not been used by those noble persons. Now, presuming that these individuals took the sums which they received as loans, it must have been understood by them, that they were to repay them agreeably to the provisions of the Act. On what ground those persons who have 100,000l. or 200,000l. a-year, and who are deriving immense revenues from a country which they desert, and the withdrawal of their enormous rents from which has a far greater share in the impoverishment of the people, than anything which appertains to the present Bill. On what principle, I say, those who derive their ducal incomes could so demean themselves as to borrow money, creates my surprise; but how they could condescend to receive from the resources of an impoverished country, by which they are so much enriched, sums of money derived from the people of that country, as well as from the people of this country, who are already so burthened with taxation, and that they should not only consent to borrow these sums, but to take them as a gift; this, I say, baffles all the powers of language which it is possible for me to command, in expressing my detestation of their conduct. It is very well for the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary to talk of "unfurling his standard," and to deal in all those pointed allusions, by means of which he so successfully and justly worked upon the feelings of the House; but I wish to give a practical direction to the course of our debate, because when we come to the hour of twelve o'clock, every minute is worth something, particularly when it may be employed in showing up such delinquency, and explaining what is meant by parties taking care of themselves. I find on this list every class of persons. There are those on it who find their justification in the magnitude of the sums which they demand, and others again in the paucity of their amount. There is nothing too large for them to seize — there is nothing too small for them to take. I find amongst them some very large recipients; and what is remarkable, there is a certain coincidence between the magnitude of the title, as well as the noble possessor's resources, and the sums which they have taken. The Duke of Devonshire, for instance, has actually condescended, first to borrow, and next to accept in charity, no less a sum than 3,664l. Now, Sir, not to travel out of the "order" of nobility, whilst Dukes have been cramming noble sums, Earls too have had their share; and one of them, the Earl of Essex, had some pickings of crumbs, amounting to 86l. 13s. 4d. But we have often heard, in this House, that we should not speak irreverently of persons who are absent; and I was much more amused than instructed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, when alluding to-night to the House of Lords. He fancied all sorts of things; he insinuated much; he repudiated more; until, at last, he brought us to the subject to which he wished to direct our minds. Now it may be said, that it is unfair in me to speak of a noble Duke and Earl, when they have not the opportunity of replying to the statement; but it should be recollected, that I am stating the items of a return, in which are to be found the names of the Members of this House, who can answer for themselves. I should like to know whether those hon. Members mean to vote on this occasion. We have heard a great deal lately of hon. Members sitting on Committees, or taking any part in the discussion upon questions on which they have the slightest personal interest. Now I cannot think that some hon. Members will sanction a measure by their vote, one of the objects of which is, to relieve them from the payment of a debt, which they, as recipients of the million, have consented to incur. As this return is in the hands of hon. Members, they can easily see whether they are amongst the number of those who receive any portion of the million, or whether they are not. When on a former occasion, the Pension List was before the House, I alluded to those who received the pensions without reserve; but what will the House feel when they are informed, that there arc in that list which is now produced, ladies, residing in this metropolis, who received part of that grant of a million as lay impropriators? Now this is a most flagrant perversion of the original intention of the grant, particularly when, on looking over the debates for the purpose of strengthening my recollection, I find that Lord Althorp, when some distant intimation of an apprehension from past experience was made by any hon. Member (though he was disinclined to suppose that so bad an example would be followed) of the event, that what was originally a loan, would, by some means or other, be converted into a gift; when, I say, such an opinion was indirectly expressed, the noble Lord Althorp, whose fancy and vivid imagination were instantly touched by the expression of the remotest apprehension of such a circumstance, declared, that if he could possibly conceive such an event to arise, he should be the last man to make the proposition which he then submitted. And yet I am bound to say, that if the lists be looked to, the Whigs will be found to have, at all events, as deep a finger in the purse as the Tories. If there were no other objection to this Bill, I should rest my opposition to it on the topic to which I have alluded; but we are placed in this blessed condition, that though this Bill is bad, we can make no choice, for the other is worse, and it is scarcely possible that we can at present get any better. And here I must allude to the repetition of the old story, which I had fancied was almost worn out —namely, that "if you leave Ministers in a minority on this question, it will so agitate the vessel of the State, that, in all probability, it will be engulphed in general ruin." Now really this is a topic on which I can scarely bring myself to speak with seriousness. The idea of this great nation being left in a state of distraction, the cables of the vessel of the state cut, and she in danger of running into the wide sea, without having any guide to direct her into port, this statement implies an imputation on the capacity of the people of this empire which I can scarcely for a moment entertain. Why, let the Tories come in. How long would they remain in power? Just so long as they deserved. They can't stand an hour unless they are pre- pared to mend their manners and their measures. But, unfortunately, if they were once in, they need not do much more than stick pretty closely to the tactics of their predecessors, and give out that as they found a great deal of unfinished work on hand they must first turn that out before they take any new orders, so that in this way a Session or two may be consumed before they begin on their own account. But none of those who feel bound to withhold their vote from Ministers on this or any such occasion, should be guided by any apprehension of the result. We ought to act in such matters by the rule which guides our conduct in private life; we ought to do that which is right, and which the country requires. The country understands the thing very well. We have been six years, since November, 1830, looking forward to measures of substantial relief, but whether we take the measures with respect to the Church, the law, or taxation, or with reference to any of those manifold departments which were thought would be better administered, we have been grievously disappointed. Now when I speak of taxation, I perceive the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking notes, and I beg to assure him that I do not mean that he should let loose on us his budget speech, for I have not the least intention of inviting the chastisement of such an infliction. A great deal, I admit, has been done in giving relief from taxation by both parties, and more must be done; but what I am certain is, that the just expectations of the people us to the results of a reformed Government have met with nothing but disappointment. Now, as regards this appropriation clause, I shall vote against the Lords' amendments, because it is just so much worse than the present Bill, for not containing that clause, which, though of no importance in itself, acknowledged the principle that that House had as much jurisdiction over the property of the Church as over the Civil List, the revenues, or any other department of Government. It would, however, be said by the Government, that this appropriation clause was of immense importance. I am very much disinclined to affirm it, because it seems to cast a doubt on the power of Parliament previously to its proposal to deal with Church property. The will of Parliament is omnipotent, not only over the distribution of the property of the Church, but also in its application. But even supposing that this clause had originally any value in it, the worth which it possessed was stripped from it by the Ministers themselves, who, I cannot help thinking, regret that they ever took it in hand, because I, and several other hon. Members who voted for that clause, voted for it with this view, that the example of the reformation of the Church of Ireland would travel to that of England, and when once the power of the House was affirmed of appropriating a surplus, the example would become invaluable whenever the reformation of the abuses of the English Church was proposed. But has the Government so acted? Quite otherwise. We have a Bill for a better distribution of Church revenue, which is lauded by Bishops, and with respect to which the Prime Minister dealt out summary chastisement to any one who ventured to hint a different appropriation of Church property. It has been actually stripped by the Government of all benefit which the application of its principle would afford, if made with reference to the English Church. Well, then, this being the situation of the question, I should say, that every Gentleman who really believes that the extinction of tithes and the substitution of a land-tax are calculated directly and efficiently to tranquillise Ireland, ought to support the measure without the appropriation clause, for that clause is, as I have said already, a mere abstraction. And what I want to know is this, whether any hon. Member who is familiar with the state of Ireland, with the feelings of the people, and their just expectations, really believes that this Bill, whether it contain the appropriation clause or not, will have that effect. Sir, there is not a Gentleman connected with that country, who knows its real state, that will affirm that proposition. It is much better that the Irish Church should remain as it is for the present. The people of Ireland will be able to understand the merits of the question by the next Session of Parliament. The people of England do now understand it; and I am quite satisfied that the enlightened reform and amelioration of the ecclesiastical establishments of both countries will be more speedily effected by having this Bill, which provides for neither, postponed.

Mr. Cavendish

said, that down to 1824 the Duke of Devonshire's tithes were let to individuals, who sublet them at increased rents, but still on moderate terms. At the request of the parishes, the Duke of Devonshire in 1824 let them to trustees for the different parishes, as yearly tenants, at rents amounting together to 2,521l. The compositions for the same parishes amount together to 5,293l., and most of such compositions were voluntarily entered into. The Duke however continued to receive the same 2,521l. and therefore annually relinquished 2,772l., being more than one-half. Notwithstanding this, the same objection was raised against this payment, as in all other cases of tithes, and since 1830, with some few exceptions, all refused to pay anything. The Duke, however, has regularly paid tithes for his own estates where tithe able. It has been stated, I understand, that the Act passed in 1833, called the Million Act, was not intended for the relief of lay impropriators, and that such persons ought not to have availed themselves of it, and that, at all events, it was not intended that any payment should he made from it to either lay or clerical persons, who are not in distress for want of the money. The contrary, I maintain, was the fact; the Act was passed to stop the collection of tithe, with a view to a final adjustment of the tithe question the following year. A reference to the speeches in the House of Commons on the introduction of that Act, and the debates during its progress, clearly show this:—the Duke of Devonshire merely acted in obedience to the wish of Parliament, and did what he considered best to promote the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. The contemplated measure of adjustment failed, the Bill being lost in the House of Lords or by it. As he always supposed the repayment of the money would have been secured, all that he could do he did to forward that measure. The money was accepted by the Duke of Devonshire, as a loan from the public, to avoid the necessity of enforcing the payment of tithes; and I always understood that the Duke is, as he has always been, ready to repay the money whenever Parliament shall so decide. The following note of some of the speeches on passing the Act, and a reference to the Act itself, will prove the intention of Parliament, on passing the Act, to have been what I have stated. I quote from Hansard, (vol. xx., page 342) 5th August, 1833. On going into Committee on Tithe Arrears (Ireland) Bill: — Mr. Liltleton: As a desire had been ex- pressed by the House that impropriate tithes should be included in this arrangement, it was necessary to ascertain the amount of such lithe due at present. He then states the arrear of lay-tithe for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, to be 222,578l. 17s. 3d. And his calculation of 1,000,000l. is to cover both ecclesiastical and lay-tithes. Sir Robert Peel: The principle, as he took it, was to advance to lay and other tithe impropriators this sum of money. Mr. O'Connell: This money never will be repaid. Who is there to repay it? He heartily concurred in the vote of 1,000,000l. Never was there 1,000,000l. more cheaply laid out; for if the collection had been continued, more would have been expended in six months in keeping peace. Lord Althorp: It would be good policy to make the advance and prevent the old mode of collecting tithes from being again resorted to in Ireland. Government intended to bring forward a proposition for such a measure.'' Lord Duncannon was confident that tithes never could be collected in Ireland under the present system, and thought the arrangement proposed highly necessary. Mr. Hume especially objected to the grant of 220,000l. for lay impropriators. Mr. Littleton, on the 12th of August, said, Mr. Hume has fallen into a grand error if he supposes the money required was only for the compensation of the clergy; it was no such thing, it was for the lay impropriators. The question resolved itself into this —would the Parliament, or would they not, support property in Ireland, and yield it the necessary protection, not merely the properly of the Church, but property generally.' The Act itself clearly follows up the intention as above expressed. It is entitled, "An Act for the Relief of the Owners of Tithes;" and the preamble states, "that it is expedient to make provision for removing the necessity for the collection of Tithes in this present year, and for the recovery of the arrears for 1831 and 1832." The language of this Act is quite different to that of the 2d William 4th, c. 41, which authorised advance to ecclesiastical persons only. What would the occupiers have said if the Duke had not availed himself of the provisions of the Act, but had proceeded against them for the recovery? It was generally understood in Ireland, that the Government wished all persons to avail themselves of the Act, in order to set the question of tithes at rest, it being intended to follow up the Act by a permanent measure the following year. The only question at the time, therefore, was whether the Duke should abandon the arrears, or receive them under the provisions of the Act, to be afterwards repaid by the parties from whom they were due; and no person, I think, can with reason say, that he was called upon to abandon the arrears, especially after the liberal deduction for years made, as I have before staled.

Lord Stanley

having troubled the House much on this subject, and having done so twice during the present Session, it might believe him when he said, that he was as anxious as any hon. Member could be to bring the present debate to a close in as short a time as possible. But the real question was not before the House, and it had been hardly touched upon at all. It was not a question with reference to the Tithe Bill; it was not a question as to the sort of wealth possessed by the Irish Church; it was not a question referring to the conduct of the lay or ecclesiastical impropriators; it was not the merits of the question of appropriation which involved the question of the right of Parliament to appropriate, or the expediency of exercising such a right. The question he maintained was this, and this only —Will you accept so much of your own measure as both Houses of Parliament are willing to carry into effect, or will you for another year at least (and I say for a hopeless year) go on protracting the misery and wretchedness of the conflict between parties in Ireland and parties in England without effecting your own object, which you say you desire; which you say would be of infinite benefit, and which we admit, but which you will not consent to have accomplished with the consent of the House of Lords, and with consent and satisfaction of a large body of the Representatives of this House, unless you can attach to it that which we think objectionable, which we cannot accept? It was aye or no; would they accept the Lords' Amendments, or would they postpone them? Not even that; but would they consent to take the Lords' Amendments seriatim into discussion. If that were not the question, he hoped he should be told what it was; but if that really was the only question before them, he trusted he should not be interrupted by the muttered moans of Gentlemen who could not, in debate and argument, contradict what he said. How, then, stood the case; the Bill was sent down amended by the House of Lords, and the Minister of the Crown moved the postponement of the consideration of these amendments for three months, thereby rendering it impossible that any measure could pass in the course of the present year; and on this motion alone the House was now called upon to decide. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had stated, that the example of such a proceeding was set by the House of Lords, because notwithstanding all the concessions made to the Lords on the Municipal Act, they did not pass it. Why, true; but the House struck out clauses in your Municipal Bill, which they considered objectionable; whilst your objection is, that as you cannot obtain some one principle to be put into your Bill, on the refusal of which you insist upon rejecting the whole measure. Now that was the distinction; the House of Lords would not consent to concur in your measure, because it contained objectionable principles; and you would not consent to pass this Bill, because it had not some one principle which you insist upon having inserted. Here arose the question —was this principle valuable or not? All those who supported the Bill plainly told the House it was not for the clause itself, but for the principle it introduced, and the means it gave of carrying that principle still further. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Harvey), who opposed both sides of the House indiscriminately, declared, that in his opinion both Bills were equally worthless, and that both ought therefore to be rejected; but he added, that if in either there was anything that could raise them above the contempt they deserved, it was the clause of appropriation contained in the Bill, of which he should be glad to avail himself as a lever wherewith to overthrow the whole fabric of the Established Church in Ireland. Other hon. Gentlemen, indeed, who were the supporters of that clause, declared that their intention was not to overthrow the Church in Ireland, but to add to its strength by securing to it the affections of the people. If that were their real object, and he would not presume to doubt their sincerity when they declared it to be so, he must at least be allowed to doubt the soundness of their judgment. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, who began his speech certainly in a very amusing manner, went on in a very piteous tone to entreat the House to reject the amendments introduced by the Lords into the Bill, and afterwards proceeded to argue the Bill —no, not to argue the Bill, but to argue the question, and to point out the superior numbers, wealth, and intelligence of the Catholic population of Ireland, and to show how, by an increasing perseverance, they had succeeded in obtaining a concession of their claims in the years 1793 and 1829. "Weak as we were in 1793," said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "we extorted much from you in that year; advancing afterwards in strength, we extorted from you a great deal more in 1829." Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman stop there? Because the argument he adopted, before it came to its conclusion, just overleaped the Bill now brought for ward by his Majesty's Ministers. "We are strong, wealthy, and intelligent," said the hon. and learned Gentleman; we extorted much from you in 1793; "we extorted what we chose from you in 1829; and whether you will or no"— he would have added; at all events, this inference was to be derived from his argument —"we will hereafter extort from you a great deal more." That was the ground on which the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary supported this Bill. Then was the House of Commons to come down humbly to the people of Ireland, and to say, "Gentleman, you are strong, you are intelligent, you are wealthy, you arc powerful; tell us what you want, and you shall have it. You are powerful, and we, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, cannot refuse you what you choose to demand; you must have whatever you choose to ask." That was the argument of the hon. and. learned Gentleman. But, how did the hon. and learned Gentleman proceed with that argument? Had he told the House that they, the powerful representatives of Ireland, were satisfied with this Bill? Had anybody told the House that the Representatives of Ireland would be satisfied with the Bill? Had anybody told the House that this Bill would meet the expectations of the Representatives of Ireland? Had anybody declared that it would do full justice to Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House, that the people of Ireland could extort anything from the weakness or the fears of the Legislature. Then he asked whether it was likely they would rest satisfied if they obtained this Bill? Even at the present moment they answered "no;" all their actions, all their speeches, all their letters said, that they regarded this measure only as a step to something more, and that it was only valuable to them, because by one of its clauses it recognised a principle for which they had long been contending! In that respect it was valuable to them, but it would not satisfy them. Their argument was this —"we are 7,000,000, you are but 1,000,000." Was it supposed when that argument was applied to the tithe-payer, when he was told that it was a badge of degradation, a mark of slavery, to be compelled to maintain the ministers of a religion to which he did not belong, was it to be supposed, he said, that whilst this argument and these assertions were advanced, that a measure like the present would give full satisfaction to the people of Ireland? They on the Opposition side of the House had been asked whether they expected this Bill to tranquillise Ireland. There were two or three meanings to be attached to the phrase "tranquillising Ireland." If he were asked whether it would tranquillise those who were determined not to be satisfied until they had overthrown the Church Establishment in Ireland, he would say that this Bill certainly could not be expected to achieve such an end; and that no Bill to which he (Lord Stanley) would consent, or to which, he hoped, the Government would consent, would ever satisfy that party, nor as long as their clamour was listened to would Ireland ever be tranquillised. But they on that side of the House did not rely upon the appropriation clause to tranquillise Ireland; they relied upon that which they believed calculated to afford a real and true satisfaction to the people of that country — namely, the transfer of the payment of tithe from the poor peasant to the wealthier landlord. Whence was it that so much strife, so much collision, so much bloodshed had arisen under the old tithe system, and more recently under the new mode of composition? From the tithe-proctors under the old system, and the process-servers under the new, being compelled to proceed against a poor, an ignorant, and a wretched class of the people for the recovery of the income due to the Church. Hence had arisen all the strife and all the bloodshed to which Ireland for so many years had been subject; and as long as the tithe remained to be collected from the occupying tenantry there could be no tranquillity in Ireland. He and his Friends entreated and im- plored the House to join with them in putting an end to this deplorable state of things. They now had it in their power to tranquillise Ireland as far as strife and bloodshed arising from the payment of tithe or composition for tithe, was concerned. They had the means in their hands —a word from the head of the Government in that House would do it. If Ministers refused to consent to the Lords' amendments, and to pass the Bill as it then stood, it would be the Ministry and not the Opposition who refused to give tranquillity to Ireland. They were told that they wished to support the overgrown wealth of the Church, whilst they left the poor clergy to starve in indolence and poverty. They did no such thing. They called for a re-distribution of the property of the Church, and they took especial care that an adequate remuneration should be given to the working clergy. But before any of the property of the Church was applied to other than ecclesiastical purposes, they insisted upon it that all the spiritual wants of the Protestant community in Ireland should be properly provided for. He (Lord Stanley) went much further in his own private opinion, and should not be disposed to consent to any appropriation of a surplus of Church property to secular purposes; but he said, that by the provisions of this Bill the Government professed to deal with a surplus, under which there lurked a gross and palpable fallacy, for it was left to their own discretion and caprice whether there should be any surplus at all, how it should be applied, and under what circumstances the Protestant Church was to be maintained, and if the arguments of many of their supporters were to he followed out, the principles laid down by the Government would lead to the total destruction of the Church in both countries. He would never sanction the introduction of a principle which might he carried out to such dangerous consequences. As he had said, he had spoken often upon this subject, and was not desirous of debating the main question; but he was anxious to put the question distinctly before the House, upon which they were about to divide. It was not whether appropriation was desirable, or defensible, or expedient, or whether this Bill,' as sent down from the Lords, was amended or made worse; but whether it provided such a substantial and real reform as to justify those who wished for the peace of Ireland and the reform of the Church—without carrying their designs further—in accepting the amendments offered by both Houses; or, whether that point was so secondary, or so dangerous, as to induce them, for the sake of a mere abstract principle, to reject the opportunity of carrying those provisions which both branches of the Legislature and the Church, the Government and the Opposition, admitted to be valuable, important, and real measures of reform in the Church, by the reduction of its inequalities; and above all, conducing to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, upon which he set as high a value as any Gentleman opposite, but which he did not think would be promoted by any part of the Bill which and been rejected by the Lords.

Mr. George F. Young

, unfettered by any connexion with political party, had voted on every opportunity for a settlement of the tithe question. He came down to the House, impressed with the propriety of voting for the Bill, as amended by the Lords, notwithstanding that the appropriation clause, for which he had previously voted, had been struck out of the Bill; but he was then unacquainted with the effects of the extensive alterations which had been made in the Bill in other respects, by which he saw that, so far from obtaining any surplus, the proposed redistribution would require an access above the Church revenues of no less than 134,550l., upon which ground, reserving to himself the unfettered right of considering the question of appropriation at another opportunity, he should vote against the amendments of the Lords.

The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 260; Noes 231: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.
Acheson, Viscount Beauclerk, Major
Adam, Sir C. Bellew, Richard M.
Aglionby, H. A. Bellew, Sir P.
Alston, R. Beutinck, Lord W.
Angerstein, J. Berkeley, hon. F.
Anson, G. Berkeley, hon. C. C.
Astley, Sir J. Bernal, Ralph
Attwood, T. Bewes, T.
Bagshaw, J. Biddulph, Robert
Bainbridge, E. T. Bish, T.
Baines, E. Blake, M. J.
Baldwin, Dr. Blamire, W.
Ball, N. Blunt, Sir C.
Bannerman, A. Bowes, John
Barclay, D. Bowring, Dr.
Baring, F. T. Brabazon, Sir W.
Barnard, E. G. Brady, D. C.
Bridgeman, H. Grey, Sir George
Brocklehurst, J, Grey, hon. C
Brodie, W. B. Grote, G.
Brotherton, J. Guest, J. J.
Browne, R. D. Gully, J.
Buckingham, J. S. Hall, B.
Buller, Charles Hallyburton, hn. D. G.
Bulwer, H. L. Handley, H.
Bulwer, Edw. G. E. L. Harland, W. C.
Burdon, W. Harvey. D. W.
Burton, H. Hastie, Archibald
Butler, hon. Pierce Hawes, B.
Buxton, F. Hawkins, J. Heywood
Byng, G. Hay, Sir A. L.
Byng, G. S. Heathcoat, J.
Callaghan, D. Hector, Cornth. John
Campbell, Sir J. Heron, Sir R., Bart.
Carter, J. B. Hindley, C.
Cave, Otway Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Hodges, Thos. Law
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Holland, E.
Chalmers, P. Horsman, Edward
Chichester, J. P. B. Hoskins, K.
Churchill, Ld. C. S. Howard, R.
Clay, W. Howard, hon. E.
Clayton, Sir W. Howard, P. H.
Clements, Viscount Howick, Viscount.
Clive, Edward Bolton Hume, J.
Codrington, Sir E. Humphrey, John
Collier, John Hurst, R. H.
Conyngham, Lord A. Hutt, William
Cookes, T. Henry Jephson, Chas, D. O.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Kemp, T. R.
Crawford, W. S. King, Edward B.
Crawford, W. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Crawley, S. Lambton, Hedworth
Curteis, H. B. Langton, W. Gore
Dalmeny, Lord Leader, J. T.
Denison, J. E. Lefevre, C. S.
Deunistoun, Alex. Lennard, T. B.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T. Loch, James
Lushington, Dr.
Divett, E. Lushington, C.
Donkin, Sir R. Lynch, A. H. S.
Duncombe, T. S. Mackenzie, S.
Dundas, J. D. M'Leod, Roderick
Dunlop, J. M'Namara, Major
Ebrington, Lord M'Taggart, J.
Elphinstone, H. Maher, John
Etwall, Ralph Mangles, J.
Euston, Lord Marjoribanks, Stewart
Evans, G. Marsland, H.
Ewart, William Martin, T.
Fellowes, N. Maule, hon. F.
Ferguson, Sir R, Methuen, P.
Ferguson, Rob. Moreton, hon. A. H.
Fergusson, rt. hon. R.C. Morpeth, Viscount
Fielden, J. Morrison, James
Fitzgibbon, hon. B. Mullins, F. W.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Folkes, Sir William Nagle, Sir Richard
French, F. O'Brien, Cornelius
Gaskell, Daniel O'Connell, D.
Gisbourne, T. O'Connell, J.
Gordon, Robert O'Connell, M. J.
Goring, H. D. O'Connell, M.
Grattan, J. O'Ferrall, R. M.
O'Loghlen, M. Strutt, E.
Ord, W. H. Stuart, Lord James
Oswald, J. Stuart, Lord D.
Palmer, General C. Stuart, V.
Palmerston, Lord Vist. Talbot, C. R. M.
Parker, John Talbot, J. Hyacinth
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H. Tancred, H. W.
Parrot, J. Thomson, right hon. C. P.
Pattison, J.
Pease, J. Thompson, Colonel
Pechell, Captain Thornley, Thomas
Pelham, hon. C. A. Tooke, W.
Philips, M. Tracey, Charles H.
Philips, G. R. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Phillips, C. M. Tulk, C. A.
Ponsonby, hon. J. Tynte, C. K. K.
Ponsonby, W. Tynte, C. J. Kemeys
Potter, Richard Verney, Sir H., Bart.
Poulter, J. S. Villiers, C. P.
Power, J. Vivian, Major
Price, Sir R., Bart. Vivian, J. H.
Pryme, G. Wakley, T.
Pryse, P. Walker, C. A.
Ramsbottom, John Wallace, Robert
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Warburton, H.
Rippon, C. Ward, H. G.
Robarts, Abraham W. Westenra, H. R.
Robinson, G. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Roche, William Whalley, Sir S.
Roebuck, J. A. Wigney, I. N.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Wilbraham, G.
Rundle, John Wilde, Sergeant
Russell, Lord John Wilkins, W.
Russell, Lord Wilks, John
Russell, Lord Charles Williams, Wm.
Ruthven, Edw. Williams, W. A.
Sanford, E. A. Wilson, Henry
Scholefield, Joshua Wilmington, Sir T.
Scrope, G. P. Winnington, H. J.
Seale, Colonel Wood, C.
Seymour, Lord Wood, Alderman
Simeon, Sir R. G. Woulfe, Sergeant
Smith, J. A. Wrightson, W.
Smith, hon. R. Wyse, T.
Smith, R. Vernon Young, G. F.
Smith, Benjamin
Stanley, hon. H. T. TELLERS.
Stewart, P. M. Stanley, E. J.
Strickland, Sir G. Steuart, Robert
List of the NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.
Alford, Lord Benett, J.
Alsager, Captain Bentinck, Lord G.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Beresford, Sir J. P.
Archdall, M. Bethell, R.
Ashley, Lord Blackburne, I.
Ashley, hon. H. Blackstone, W. S.
Attwood, M. Boldero, Henry G.
Bagot, hon. W. Bonham, R. F.
Bailey, J. Borthwick, Peter
Barclay, Charles Bradshaw, J.
Baring, F. Bramston, T. W.
Baring, H. Bingham Brownrigg, J. S,
Baring, T. Bruce, Lord E.
Barnbey, J. Bruen, Col,
Bruen, F. Harcourt, G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hardinge, Sir H.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hardy, John
Calcraft, J. H. Hawkes, T.
Campbell, Sir H. Henniker, Lord
Canning, Sir S. Herries, rt. hn. J. C.
Castlereagh, Vis. Hill, Sir R., Bart.
Chandos, Marq. of Hodgson, J.
Chapman, A. Hogg, J. W.
Charlton, E. L. Hope, Henry T.
Chichester, A. Hotham, Lord
Chisholm, Alex. Houldsworth, T.
Clive, Visc. Hoy, J. B.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hughes, Hughes,
Codrington, C. W. Jackson, Sergeant
Cole, hon. A. H. Jermyn, Earl of
Compton, H. Combe Inglis, Sir R. H.
Corbett, T. G. Jones, T.
Corry, hon. H. T. L. Kavanagh, T.
Crewe, Sir G., Bart. Kearsley, J. H.
Cripps, J. Kerrison, Sir E.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Ker, David
Damer, D. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Darlington, Earl of Knightley, Sir C.
Dick, Quintin Law, hon. C. E.
Dowdeswell, W. Lawson, A.
Duffleld, T. Lees, J. F.
Dugdale, W. S. Lefroy, A.
Dunbar, G. Lefroy, right hon. T.
Duncombe, hon. A. Lemon, Sir C.
East, J. B. Lewis, David
Eastnor, Vis. Lewis, Wyndham
Eaton, R. J. Lincoln, Earl of
Egerton, W. T. Lowther, Col. H.C.
Egerton, Sir P. Lowther, Lord
Egerton, Lord F. Lowther, J.
Elley, Sir J. Lucas, E.
Elwes, J. Lushington, S. R.
Estcourt, T. G. B. Lygon, hn. Col. H. B.
Fancourt, Major Mackinnon, W. A.
Feilden, W. Maclean, D.
Ferguson, G. Mahon, Lord
Finch, George Manners, Lord C.
Fleming, J. Mathew, Captain
Foley, E. T. Maunsell, T. P.
Forbes, W. Meynell, Captain
Forester, hn. G. C. W. Miller, W. H.
Forster, Charles S. Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.
Freshfield, J. W. Morgan, Chas. M. R.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Neeld, Joseph
Gladstone, Thomas Neeld, John
Gladstone, W. E. Nicholl, Dr.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Noel, Sir G.
Gordon, W. Norreys, Lord
Gore, W. Ormsby Owen, Sir John, Bart.
Goulburn, hon. H. Packe, C. W.
Graham, Sir J. Palmer, Robert
Greene, Thomas Palmer, G.
Greisley, Sir R. Parker, M. E.
Grimston, Viscount Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Peel, Col. J.
Hale, Robert B. Peel, E.
Halford, H. Peel, rt. hon. W. Y,
Hamilton, G. A. Pelham, J. C.
Hamilton, Lord C. Pemberton, T.
Hanmer, H. Penruddocke. J. H.
Hanmer, Sir J., Bart. Perceval, Colonel
Pigot, Robert Stewart, Sir M. S., Bt.
Plumptre, John P. Stormont, Lord
Polhill, Frederick Sturt, H. C.
Pollen, Sir J., Bart. Tennent, J. E.
Pollington, Vis. Thomas, Colonel
Pollock, Sir F. Thompson, Ald.
Praed, W. M. Tollemache, hon. A.
Price, S. G. Trench, Sir Fred.
Price, R. Trevor, hon. A.
Pringle, A. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pusey, P. Twiss,
Rae, Sir W., Bart. Tyrre H. H.T.
Reid, Sir J. Rae Vere, Sir C. B., Bart.
Richards, R. Vernon, G. H.
Richards, J. Vesey, hon. T.
Rickford, W. Vivian, J.E.
Ross, Charles Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Rushbrooke, Colonel Wall, Charles Baring
Russell, C. Walter, J.
Sanderson, R. Welby, G. E.
Sandon, Lord Weyland, Major
Scarlett, hon. R. Whitmore, T. C.
Scott, Sir E. D. Williams, R.
Scourfield, W. H. Williams, T. P.
Shaw, F. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Sheppard, T. Wodehouse, E.
Shirley, E. J. Wood, Colonel
Sibthorp, Colonel Wyndham, W.
Smith, A. Wynn, Sir W.
Smyth, Sir H., Bart. Yorke, E. T.
Somerset, Lord E. Young, J.
Somerset, Lord G. Young, Sir W.
Spry, Sir S. TELLERS.
Stanley, Lord Clerk, Sir G.
Stewart, John Fremantle, Sir T. W.
Paired off.
Blackburne, T. Wortley, J.
Anson, Sir G. Miles, W.
Ainsworth, P. Wilbraham, R. B.
Andover, Lord Walpole, Lord
Barron, H. W. Coote, Sir C.
Barry, G. S. Longfield, J.
Belfast, Earl of Ossulston, Lord
Berkeley, G. Goodricke, Sir F.
Bodkin, I. J. Kirk, P.
Browne, R. D. Tennent, E.
Buller, E. Patten, W.
Cayley, E. S. Irton, S.
Chapman, M. Plunkett, R.
Campbell, W. Brudenell, Lord
Colborne, R. Baillie, Col.
Crompton, S. Stanley, E.
Curteis, E. North, F.
Childers, T. Johnstone, Sir J.
Dobbin, L. O'Neill, hon. J.
Dundas, T. Praed, J. B.
Dundas, J. Ingham, R.
Fazakerley, T. N. Knight, G.
Fergus, J. S. Martin, J.
Finn, W. Geary, Sir W.
Fitzsimon, N. Cole, Lord
Fitzsimon, C. Cooper, E. S.
Fort, J. Boiling, W,
Gillon, W. D. Ryle, J.
Grattan, H. Scott, Lord J.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Estcourt, T.
Hodges, T. Hay, Sir J.
Jervis, J. Buncombe, W.
Heneage, E. Verner, Col.
Johnston, A. Balfour, T.
Marshall, W. Baring, W. B,
Lister, E. C. Halse, J.
Molesworth, Sir W. Smith, T. A.
Mostyn, hon. E. M L. Jones, W.
Musgrave, Sir R. Marsland, T.
O'Brien, W. S. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Oliphant, L. Entwistle, J.
O'Connell, M. Sinclair, Sir G.
O'Conor Don West, John B.
Lee, Lee Powell, Col.
Long, W. Wynn, C.
Paget, F. Hope, J.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Miles, P. J.
Roche, D. Bateson, Sir R.
Rooper, J. B. Chaplin, Col. T.
Sharpe, M. Johnstone, H.
Sheil, R. L. Hayes, Sir E.
Speirs, A. G. Bruce, C.
Scott, J. W. Owen, H.
Talfourd, T. N. Goulburn, E.
Thompson, P. B. Herbert, S.
Trelawney, Sir. W. L. Follett, Sir W.
Turner, W. S. Davenport, I.
Walker, R. Heathcote, G.
Wemyss, J. Grant, Col.
White, S. Maxwell, H.
Williams, Sir J. Dottin, A. R.
Williamson, Sir H. Bell, M.
Woulfe, J. Jackson, J. D.
Wrottesley, Sir J. Cartwright, W. R.
Kerry, Earl of Greville, Sir C.
Denison, W. Copeland, W. T.

The main question agreed to. Consideration of the amendments put off for three months.