SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.

HC Deb 26 June 1863 vol 171 cc1560-93

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

I rise, Sir, to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present Ecclesiastical Settlement of Ireland." In common with many Members on both sides of the House, I cannot but regret the position which the question of the Irish Church has assumed. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) is disappointed at the somewhat Fabian policy of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the question which he brought before the House. At the same time, the hon. Member should remember that great ignorance prevails in this country as to the position and prospects of the Irish Church; and so long an interval has elapsed since our treatment of this question, which was formerly the stalking-horse as well as the stumbling-block of the Whig party, that no doubt it finds little favour now with the occupants of the Treasury bench. There is another consideration. It is easier to make appeals and read lectures to the Emperor of Russia on behalf of the Poles than to legislate for the people of Ireland. I can well imagine that the ghost of Banquo, rising in the midst of the festivities, was not more unwelcome to Macbeth than the re-appearance of their long-buried associate must be to the noble Lord and those of his Colleagues who formerly rocked the cradle of the Irish Church agitation, and who finally stood by, if not as murderers, at least as mutes at the funeral of their old friend—appropriation. But in spite of the apathy of the House and the disinclination of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the face of the Returns moved for by my hon. Friend, and in the face of the Census of 1861, it will not be possible for any lung period for this House to avoid dealing with the question of the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. That question is not whether we wish the Irish Church to remain as it is, but whether it will be possible to maintain that Church without extensive reforms and new adaptations.

I have said that great ignorance prevails in England upon this subject, and I cannot but think that more knowledge is displayed here of the concerns of China than of the affairs of Ireland. Deceptive statements are so often put forward by people in high places that the real question is but imperfectly understood by the people of this country. From time to time the Viceroy draws a flattering but delusive picture of the prosperity of Ireland, to the astonishment of the residents in that country, but to the admiration of a brilliant and believing staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, taking his cue from his vice-regal master, denies all statements of Irish distress in this House, and it is not until the expiration of three years that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged by financial pressure, acknowledges a wide spread distress, almost unparalleled in history. The fact is, that Ireland is now much in the same position as it was twenty years ago, when Lord John Russell, in opposition, described the country as occupied, not governed. The Ireland of to-day is occupied, not governed. I will grant there is the tranquillity of exhaustion on the surface, but discontent, if not disaffection, remains beneath. It may be said that there are so few Irishmen connected with the Government that they have no means of information of the circumstances of Ireland. But there are such numerous opinions upon the subject of Ireland, and especially the Irish Church, that I will not Weary the House by reading all the opinions of Whig secretaries and Whig Lords Lieutenant; but there are three Gentlemen immediately connected with Ireland whose opinions I feel hound to read to the House. The first opinion I will read is that of a noble Lord who has run a purely Irish career—I mean the noble Lord who now presides over the destinies of that country. As Lord Morpeth he was Secretary for Ireland in 1835; and what was then his opinion of the Irish Church? He describes it in a way I would not venture to describe it—"as a Church without a flock, and a clergy without congregations;" and he said "that the worst gains of the sinecurist were kept up by the worst principles of the bigot." That was he opinion of Lord Morpeth, but the Earl of Carlisle now dispenses the patronage of that Church to the satisfaction of his old opponents, the Orangemen. Then, again, we have a high authority saying, in the year 1843, but upon the other (the Opposition), side of the House— I will venture to say, that you will not find in any country in the world a state of things, with regard to religious sects, such as you find in Ireland. Take the case of Austria—a Catholic country. If I am not misinformed, there are parts of Austria in which the entire population of a parish are Protestants, and there, I believe, the Protestant clergy are provided at the expense of the State. In Bavaria the same rule exists, and in Belgium also.… In Prussia, a Protestant country, the same rule obtains… I say that in no country in the world will you find a population like that of Ireland.…. That is a grievance of an enormous character; but it is a grievance which it is in the power of the Government to remedy, and for which, therefore, I hold that the Government are bound to provide a remedy." [3 Hansard, lxx. 1070–1.] I do not wonder that an hon. Friend near me asks who said that. That speech was made by the noble Lord the Prime Minister, who now presides over this House and he destinies of this country. That was Lord Palmerston's opinion in 1843; and tore is the opinion of the Home Secretary of to-day. They were all acting together—a most unanimous body; but then they sat there, opposite, not here, in office. In February 1844, Sir George Grey said— It is impossible for any one who knows what he feelings of human nature are to suppose that the Irish people can look upon the present state of the ecclesiastical system in Ireland without the deepest dissatisfaction. It is not a mere question of money, it is one which concerns the feelings of a people. Among all the nations of Europe, we find hat in Ireland alone there exists in that country an exclusive Church Establishment, for the Episcopalian minority.… On this subject I certainly entertain very strong feelings.… Nothing appears to me worse, nothing more hazardous than for Parliament to declare that they will not entertain the question as to the state of the Church in Ireland, because it involves, and must necessarily involve, considerations of a difficult and complicated nature.… The Union must be maintained, but a complete Union never could be effected so long as an established and endowed Church of the minority exclusively existed." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 841, 843.] The Gentleman who used those glowing words is now Home Secretary, and, as such, is in intimate connection with Ireland. After those opinions, let us see what are the remedial measures proposed by these men for preserving the Union and redressing grievances. I have searched the records of Parliament, and I find a compulsory measure for the vaccination of infants. I find also another Bill, though its fate is still in nubibus, and that is the measure for the preservation of Irish salmon, and this exhausts the list of the Ministerial reforms for Ireland. Is this disgraceful state of things to be allowed, by what is called—I almost think in derision—the Liberal party, to continue? In the outset I wish to be perfectly candid on this subject, and to declare that in any remarks which I may make, or in any proposition which I may hereafter make, I do not contemplate to destroy or upset the Irish Church. ["Hear, hear!"] Though I believe that no man in his senses, not even my right hon. Friend who gave me that cheer, would now contemplate to erect or endow such an Establishment; yet, at the same time, I do not think that it would be either prudent or politic to uproot that Establishment, which has been interwoven for 300 years with the civil policy and the property of Ireland. Therefore, I expressly state that I do not wish to uproot that Establishment or confiscate its funds; but if it can be shown that the working of the system as it is, is not only prejudicial to the interests of religion, but contrary to the true principles of Protestantism, and most mischievous in its tendencies, then I say we are necessarily bound to enter upon some plan for the reform and re adaptation of the present monstrous Establishment. In discussing this question I wish altogether to keep apart the religious and political elements; and I will read to the House the actual view of the case embodied by Dr. Arnold in one of his lectures— In speaking of Christianity the word 'Church' is rather to be used as distinct from religion than as synonymous with it, and that it belongs in great part to another set of ideas, relating to things which we call political. I mean to discuss the question in that sense alone; but, first, let me call the attention of the House to the nature of this Church, which in some people's minds has the character of being the United Church of England and Ireland. I shall attempt to prove, that so far from being united, the Churches are totally dissimilar in all respects. The Church of England has always been identified with the civil and religious liberties of the people of this country. It has struck deep root into the affections of the people, and the clergy of the Church of England in this country are as tolerant and as educated as any race of clergymen on the face of the globe. But what is the case with the Church of Ireland? Can any one say that the Protestant Establishment in Ireland is identified with the civil and religious liberties of the Irish people? We all know that the Established Church in Ireland was founded by Tudor violence, and perpetuated by Puritan tyranny. As a political institution the Church of Ireland is a blunder, and as a national religion it is a fraud, though, I am ready to admit, of a pious description. But the matter does not end here. Any person who is acquainted with Ireland, and has had the misery to listen to Irish sermons, must know that the great hulk of the clergy of Ireland are of a Puritanical and Calvinistic tendency. That is not the case with the clergy of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the University of Dublin, and who in that capacity speaks for the Establishment in Ireland, claims for the Irish branch of the English Church a higher title than is claimed for the Church of England itself. He speaks very much in the same spirit as that in which I could have imagined that a Churchman of the Tudor dynasty would have spoken. He not only objects to any discussion, but he deprecates all reform; and putting aside the lawyer for a time, and becoming a firm ecclesiastic, he would have the House believe that the Church of Ireland, so far from being created by Act of Parliament, is the sole depository of religious truth, and was the creation of St. Patrick himself. We have all heard the words of an old song, written by a countryman of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, "St. Patrick was a gentleman;" but it was left to the right hon. Gentleman to prove that St. Patrick was not only a gentle- man, but a Protestant! The right hon. I Gentleman, who has great admiration for Queen Elisabeth—and even goes so far as to think her virtuous—exclaimed. "Did not the Irish bishops of that day conform and assent to the Reformation?" But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to inform the House that those Irish bishops were Englishmen sent over to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth. They were English bishops of the Pale, and the Pale ex tended twenty miles from Dublin, Quit ting this preposterous argument, which is more suited for a society of antiquarians than the House of Commons, I would ask, is it not notorious that the priests and congregations of Ireland of that day, so far from agreeing with the bishops, refused to abandon their creed at the expense of their convictions? Is not that the case, according to every historian who has written on the subject. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman sneer at one of the most learned authorities in the country, Mr. Goldwin Smith; but he might have remembered that the Earl of Derby, who made him Attorney General for Ireland, also appointed Mr. Goldwin Smith as Professor of Modern History at Oxford. However, I will not quote Mr. Goldwin Smith, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman two historians of his own kidney. What does Plowden say on this subject? Plowden, speaking of the Eliza bethan era in Ireland, says— The people were provoked by the violence offered to their religious prejudices… The clergy, who refused to conform, abandoned their cures; no reformed ministers could be found to fill their places. The churches fell to ruin, the people were left without any religious worship, and the statutes lately made were evaded or neglected with impunity. Here is another historian, whom the right hon. Gentleman will reverence very much, the old Recorder of Kinsale, Cox. [An hon. MEMBER: Cox?] Yes; but no relation of the hon. Member for Finsbury Cox, the Recorder of Kinsale, who wrote in the time of William and Mary, said— As for religion, there was but small appearance of it—the churches uncovered and the clergy scattered, scarce the being of a God known to those ignorant and barbarous people. So much for that period which the right hon. Gentleman greatly eulogized; and I deny that he represents the opinions of the Irish Protestant clergy on this subject. That clergy is not opposed to the discussion of matters connected with the Irish Church, and to the reform of that Church. I hold in my hand a letter addressed to the right hon. James Whiteside by the Archdeacon of Meath, and what does he say? The Archdeacon of Meath, who has even the confidence of my hon. Fiend the Member for Sheffield, has stated that the clergy of Ireland are anxious to see abuses reformed, and that they are even ready to undertake the work themselves. On that point, therefore, the arehdeacon, a man of great ability and high standing, is directly at issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University.

But be that as it may, I come to another argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He tells us we are all under a delusion in imagining that the Irish Church is a wealthy institution; because it is, on the contrary, a poor one. If all its revenues were justly divided, of which I must say I do not think there is much chance, they would only give £200 a year to each clergyman. Is that a fitting provision, the right hon. Gentleman asks, for an educated gentleman? Well, Sir, in all these matters ecclesiastical as well as civil, the question is the same. Do these men earn their £200 a year? Have they duties which require a salary of £200 a year? £200 a year may be a poor pittance for a gentleman; but if a gentleman cannot earn £200 a year of public money, he ought not to be in possession of it. Let us see, then, how these duties are performed, and what claim a great portion of these clergy have to any salary at all? I will come to the Census of 1861. Let us see what was the condition of the Church of Ireland at the time of this census. The population of Ireland at that date was 5,764,543 of all creeds. Of these, the Roman Catholics were 4,490,583, being some thousands more in number than the population of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, of which we have beard so much lately. The Establisbed Church amounted—not to 691,872 as erroneously given in the Returns of his hon. Friend—and this was material—but to 678,661; whilst the Presbyterians amounted to some 528,992. For all this, for a great majority of these Roman Catholics there is no State religion, no provision is made for their clergy. The State hardly recognises them, except by the trumpery grant for Maynooth, which is voted grudgingly, and not without much abuse from some hon. Members of this House. There is also a small grant called the Regium Donum to the Presbyterians. For the Es- tablished Episcopal Church, however, a large spiritual staff is maintained, including, besides deans and chapters, two archbishops and ten bishops, whose net united incomes amount to something under £80,000 a year. Comparing Ireland with England, we find that there are seven English dioceses, each of which has a much larger population than the whole of the Episcopalians in Ireland. These dioceses are London, Winchester, Chester, Exeter, Lichfield, Manchester, and Ripon, each of which is presided over by one bishop, while no less than twelve bishops are required for the 678,000 of Episcopalians in Ireland. Therefore, it appears that one bishop in this country does the work of twelve in Ireland. Is the House content that that state of things should go on, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University should be successful in setting himself tooth and nail against all reform? In England there is one bishop to 410 benefices, comprising congregations of 1,500,000 souls. In Ireland there is one bishop to 118 benefices, comprising congregations of 5,000 souls. A small parish in England with a population of 5,000 is looked after by a rector, and probably a couple of curates In Ireland 5,000 people make a diocese with a bishop, receiving about £5,000 a year, and a dean and chapter. The united diocese of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh, in which there are about 686 Protestants, have a bishop and the usual staff, and the bishop actually receives £4,000 a year for looking after those 686 people. In the dioceses of Waterford and Lismore, with which I am intimately acquainted, there is a population of 134,336, of whom 5,000 belong to the Established Church. The bishop receives £5,000, and he has two deans and chapters, two cathedrals, two archdeacons, and sixty parochial clergy. Attached to Waterford and Lismore are Cashel and Emley, in the South Riding of Tipperary, with a population of 139,030, of whom 4,900 are Protestants; and there are two more deans, two more archdeacons, and another staff of clergy there. Between these united dioceses there are about 110 parochial clergymen. Is there any other country on the face of the earth where you can show a similar state of things? Dr. Paris, in a well-known work, has observed that the original type of the cabbage and the cauliflower are not to be found in animated nature. Sir, I think I may almost go further, and say that the original type of an Irish bishop is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament. In 1850 there appeared an advertisement in the Dublin Evening Packet, which is or was a highly Conservative paper, concerning the sale of a bishop's effects, which showed how comfortably the good man had lived. The announcement is of a peremptory and unreserved sale at the Palace Clogher, and it sets forth that "the wines, of which there were about 100 dozen, principally consist of very superior maderia, claret, old port, champagne, &c. There is an enormous stock of cattle, and a herd of about 200 fallow deer." The bishop had under 5,000 souls in his diocese, which has since been united to Armagh, but he died full of wealth and worldly honours. Such an advertisement as that of itself impugns the existence of the Irish Church. To make it more striking, it appeared during the famine year, and the luxury of which it spoke offered a strong contrast to the prevailing misery and destitution of the people. I may be asked what I would recommend as a remedy for this state of things. In my opinion, it would be no great stretch of the authority of the House if it were to extend the provisions of the Act which was brought in by Earl Derby when Lord Stanley. What is Archdeacon Stopford's opinion of that Act? Writing to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), the Archdeacon said, "Allow me to call your attention to the fact, that when a measure is proposed, people cry out that is a destruction of principle; but when it is passed, they always say the principle remains untouched." No Tory of the present day probably will say that the British constitution is ruined by the passing of the Reform Bill. The Archdeacon of Meath says that the Irish Church Temporalities Bill has been of the greatest value. In his opinion, it has been the salvation of the Church of Ireland, and he suggests the completion of the arrangement, which it established, in certain respects where it is defective. By that Act the number of Irish bishops was reduced from twenty-two to twelve, the income of the Archbishop of Armagh from £14,500 to £10,000, the income of the Bishop of Deny from £12,000 to £8,000 and all the other bishops were not to have less than £4,000 per annum. Vestry cess and first-fruits were abolished, leases of bishops' lands were converted into perpetuities, a tax was put upon livings, and the money arising from these sources was placed at the disposal of a Board of Com- missioners to be applied to the augmentation of small benefices, the building of churches and glebe-houses, and other purely ecclesiastical objects. What I would urge on the Chief Secretary, who at heart is a good Church reformer, whatever he may say to the contrary, is to reduce the number and incomes of the Irish bishops. Surely there can be no necessity, in the present condition of Ireland, for keeping up twelve bishops where six might do the work, and still less can there be any necessity for these bishops receiving the enormous salaries they do. Why should these bishops, with only 5,000 people in their dioceses, get from £4,000 to £6,000 a year? A Judge receives only £3,000, and yet he has something to dc for his money; whereas an Irish bishop has very little to do. Let the bishops have £1,500 apiece. [A laugh.] Hon Gentlemen laugh, and I suppose their idea of a bishop is a man who rides in a carriage with patent springs, who gives good dinners, and has a large income. But my proposal is not new; it was made years ago by one of the best friends of the Church who ever sat within the walls of this House, one whose opinion is not to be laughed at. The present Vice Chancellor Wood told the House in 1849 that he did not think it necessary for a bishop to have £4,000 a year, and he suggested that the Irish bishops should have £1,500 each; adding that he would go lower than that if necessary. Such was the opinion of Sir Page Wood, and I think it was founded on good sense and good policy. I urge my right host Friend the Chief Secretary, at least, to consider whether the state of the Irish Church, as regards its bishops, is satisfactory—whether it would not be just to the Church itself to reduce the number of bishops from twelve to six, and to cut their incomes down at any rate one-half. The measure may he a strong one, but I believe it to be necessary, and that if you do not do that in time, you will see the whole bench of bishops swept away in Ireland. So much for the state of the Irish bishops!

I now come to the condition of the parochial clergy. No man acquainted with Ireland can say that the state of the clergy is satisfactory. No doubt there are many distinguished and exemplary men among that clergy, but there are also many of the most inferior description, both as regards learning and manners You cannot he surprised at it. How are they ordained? Clergymen in Ireland are ordained by the bishops in numerous instances without any University education at all I know, at all events, that the Bishop of Cashel requires no University education, and he has ordained in my diocese many most objectionable men, whose only claim was that they had spouted abuse of Roman Catholicism at Exeter Hall. The senior divinity class in the University of Dublin is rapidly falling off. Where there were a hundred students there are not now fifty, and you have great difficulty in getting men to enter into the Irish Church. Lord Westbury has lately brought forward in another place a Bill for the augmentation of benefices in England, and his principal reason for it was the impossibility of getting men to enter the English Church. That difficulty is twice as great in Ireland, and why? A cure of souls in England is given with reference to the number of parishioners existing in the parish; but in Ireland a cure of souls depends upon extent of territory. There may not he ten Protestants in a parish, but the cure is given for a great acreage. The Archdeacon of Meath says, in his pamphlet on Church reform, that the position of ordained and settled ministers where they have no opportunity for the exercise of their ministry, as is the case in many places in Ireland, is an "anomaly," and the subject which requires to be dealt with first in legislating for the Church of Ireland. He says— That to ordain ministers and settle them in a place where they have no opportunity for the exercise of their ministry—no books, no means of study—no society suited to cultivated minds, or to exercise the faculties of scholars or ministers, was an evil to the ministers themselves and to their Church He also says— That on looking to the position of many of the ministers, he cannot vindicate it on moral, religious, or ecclesiastical grounds, or even on the How ground of political expediency. That is the deliberate opinion of a distinguished Churchman, and I think this House will concur in it.

But to proceed—in England there is one clergyman to every 2,612 people, whereas in Ireland there is one clergyman to every 325 persons. A clergyman of my own acquaintance—an Englishman, who was anxious to be active in the cure of souls—on obtaining a living some time ago was surprised to find that his congregation consisted of five individuals, for whom he received £500 a year; but he was consoled by a relative, who remarked to him, "Well, you know, there is one great conveniences in it—when you pay me a visit, you can not only come yourself, but you can bring your congregation along with you." I have said that there are some bishops with £6,000 a year. On that point I can give some information from a book which was cited by the right hon. Member for Dublin University. It is the Irish Church Directory for 1863, and it contains a good deal of curious and interesting statistics. It gives not only the means of the bishops, but their Church accommodation. It does not, however, supply any information as to the numbers who attend the protestant worship, but I shall be able to give some information on that point. First of all, I will commence with the diocese of Month. That diocese is in a peculiar state. There is neither chapter nor cathedral there; but the bishop has £4,308 a year. By the bye. Archdeacon Stopord is in that diocese. The population of Meath is 110,609, of whom 103,489 are Roman Catholics, and the members of the Established Church 6,584. The facts relating to the church accommodation there are excessively curious. I am not so much surprised at the Archdeacon of Meath writing those letters, and calling for Church reform in Ireland; for the first thing that I find is that be has the living of Kells, the value of which is £1,151 a year; that the population of the town is 3,225; that the number of Protestants there is 31; and that there are sittings in the church for 500 persons. In the town of Navan the value of the living is £566 per annum, the church accommodation is for 290 persons, and the number of Protestants who attend is only 154. In Trim the living is £559 a year, there is church accommodation for 300 Protestants, but there are only 230 in the parish. In the diocese of Limerick there is the parish of Castle Island, with a living worth £531, and sittings for 20 people. In Killarney the living is £534 a year, the number of Protestants is 120, and there are sittings in the church for 300. Newcastle living, is worth £717, the sittings are 350, and the attendants 90. I now come to the diocese of Cashel, of which I can speak from my own knowledge. There are 145 benefices there, and the gross value of the see is £5,334, the net value being £4,691. In the city of Water-ford the Roman Catholics number 20,465, and the Protestants 1,900. In the county of Waterford the Protestants are 3,265 and the Roman Catholics 107,354. At Dungarvan the Protestants are 124, and the Roman Catholics 5,743; and the income is worth £487, while the church-room is for 300. At Cahir, diocese of Lismore, the members of the Established church are 93, and the Roman Catholics 2,953; while the church-room is for 130, and the income is £321. At Carrick on-Suir the Protestants are 140, and the Roman Catholics 4,831; the income being £436, and church sittings 300. In the church of Killaloan there are 150 sittings, and the number of Protestant families in the parish, besides the clerk, amounts to eight. In Kilcash there are no duties attached to the living, which has been given by the bishop to a gentleman who never comes near the place. In my own proper parish Kelshelan the income is £150. The rector resides in Wexford, and I have never seen him. I am told that I need not pay him his tithe rent charge unless he has had leave from his bishop to live at a distance; and I cannot think that so excellent a man as the Bishop of Cashel would give his permission to a clergyman to reside away from so remarkably Protestant a district. At Kilronan there is church accommodation for thirty Protestants, and the services are attended by three policemen, who are migratory in their habits, the wood-ranger, and the housekeeper employed by Lord Stradbroke, and the clergyman's own family, which is rather large, consisting of ten members. In Lisronagh, very near which I myself reside, the living is worth £206; the number of sittings is 100, and one policeman attends the church! Still, proceeding with the diocese of Waterford and Lismore, I find that at Mora, the living of which was lately given to a gentleman who resides thirty miles off, the income is £195, and there are no Protestants at all in that parish. At Mothel, again, the income is £535 the church-room is for forty, and the number of Protestants is seven. Go to the diocese of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin. The gross income of the see is £4,605, there are 70 benefices and 37 curates, and two of the richest livings in Irelands exist there. In one case the income of the clergyman is £1,845, while there are but 88 Protestants, with sittings for 160. In Powers-town the salary is £359; there are sittings for 100, but there are only two Protestants besides the clerk, and one of these has been bedridden all his life. At Kil- beacon the income is £214; there are 100 sitting, and only one Protestant family and three policemen attend the church. I might go on indefinitely with these details were I not afraid of wearying the House But let me refer for a moment to Connaught. There the population is 911,339, and the members of the Established Church only 40,605, or only 4 per cent of the whole. In the diocese of Tuam, Killala, and Achenry, the value of the bishoprie is £5,080 per annum. At Athenty the living worth £800; there is church-room for 300 persons, and the attendance, I am told, is very poor indeed. At Ballinrobe the value of the living is £410, the number of Protestants 121, and the sittings are for 400. At Castlebar there are 202 Protest ants, with accommodation for 400 and the income is worth £614. At Headford the living is worth £830, and there is church room for 200 At Westport there are 21 Protestants, and church-room for 900 the living being valued at £661. At Tnam the seat of the bishopric, there are 257 Protestants, and church accommodation for 450, the value of the living being £623 All these are very large livings, of £400, £600, or £800 a year; but the congregations are extremely small, the number of Protestants in no case amounting to mere than about one-tenth of those for whom church accommodation exists. Then, take the diocese of Killaloe. In the town of Killaloe itself the Protestants number 184, and there are sittings for 250. A friand of mine visited the cathedral the other evening, and found public worship so thinly attended that service was being performed in the vestry to fifteen persons. At Kilrush the Protestants number 222 and the sittings are for 500. At Longhrea there are sittings for 200, but there are only 89 Protestants, and the value of the living is £444. I think I have adduced enough from the Irish Church Directory, which the right hon. Member for Dublin University pointed out to me as a book to be relied upon, to prove that the Protestant clergy of Ireland have scarcely any congregations, that their own number almost exceeds the number of their flocks, and that they ought to be dealt with as I propose to deal with the bishops, giving them some duties to perform as well as salaries to receive. But does the evil end here? My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland lately appointed an excellent man to Cork—I mean Dr. Gregg. That I think was my right hon. Friend's own peculiar appointment, and I believe the only difference he has had with the Earl of Carlisle arose out that appointment. In Mallow, agreeable nice Mallow, there reside— Rev A. Baldwin, vicar of Rahan; Rev. J. Coghlan, rector of Mourne Abbey, salary of £427, church-room for 90: Rev W. Johnson, rector of Clenore, salary £596, church-room for 80 (he resides away from them); Rev. H. Orrnsby, vicar of Carrigamleary, salary £99, no church, Rev A. Todd, vicar of Clonmeen. In Midleton there are 186 Protestants, 3,155 Roman Catholics, income of rector £708, no church. Rev. S. Halloran, vicar of Clonmult, salary £175, sittings for 20. Rev. J. L. Robinson, rector of Templenacarrigan salary £394, sittings for 80. Rev W. Williamson, rector of Lisgoold, salary £760, sittings for 70. Rev. J. A. Roister, rector of the hardest name in Ireland, Killaspugmullane, with a salary of £522, and sittings for 450: he resides at Glanmire, some miles off. Rev. R. St. Laurence, rector of Murragh, salary £547, sittings for 150; he resides at Brussels. This is the picture of the non-residence in the diocese of Cork I might multiply instances of non-residence, but I want to know whether the laity are bound to pay their rent-charge if the clergymen do not reside. I hope my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) will give a distinct answer to that question. Such, then, is the picture presented by this book, in nothing hostile to the Church, for it is recommended by the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken my facts from that hook, and I lay them before the House. The book sums up in this way— The church forms 20 per cent of the inhabitants of Ulster—the largest percentage in Ireland—12 per cent in Leinster, 5 per cent in Munster, and 4 percent in Connaught. And it concludes in these terms— In conclusion it maybe observed, that the position of the Church in Ireland in respect of numbers and distribution, as disclosed by the Census of 1861, cannot be regarded as otherwise than satisfactory. Such is the hook recommended by the right hon. Gentleman.

Now then, Sir, I would press on my right hon. Friend to consider, whether as a great proportion of these livings with very large revenues in Ireland have very small congregations, it would not be possible to transfer the revenues of large livings without flocks to the town districts where there are flocks and very small emoluments. For example, there is the living of Louth, in the diocese of Armagh; it has an income of £1,638, church room for 250, and I do not think thirty people attend. [An hon. MEMBER: Not quite twenty.] I have been there when the attendance was not quite ten. Belfast has 30,000 Episcopalians, and but one vicarage of £400 a year. Why should these twenty Protestants of Louth "crying in the wilderness" have this large revenue of £1,638, while 30,000 in Belfast have only one vicar of £400 a year? Really we ought to insist on taking this matter out of the hands of the Government, and send them to the other side of the House, in order that they may agitate this question. In fact, it comes to this—the parochial system in Ireland is merely nominal. It does not exist, and we should substitute for it the congregational system. The territorial system is the natural one where the great populations of the country belong to the Church; but in the circumstances of Ireland, where the great populations do not belong to the Established Church, the congregational is the right, proper, and fitting system. Am I saying anything not supported by names of high authority? In 1837 a Bill was brought into the House, with the approbation of Archbishop Wheatley, to make the system congregational instead of territorial. And what said Members of the present Government in regard to that Bill? Here is the opinion of Lord John Russell—I am sure he is of just the same opinion now; and if he were at the head of a Ministry, he would no doubt again agitate this question. But Earl Russell is now in an unfortunate position. On February 13, 1844, Lord John Russell said— I concur in the plan propounded, as it is said, by Dr. Wheatley, the Archbishop of Dublin, for making it a Church of congregations, and not of parishes, as it is under the present system.… The Protestant Church ought to be fully provided for, but at the same time I do not believe that anything like the amount at present allotted to it is necessary." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 720.] There is another most important opinion, it is that of one on whose accents this House always hung, and whose judgment it always respected—I mean Sir George Lewis, He wrote considerably on the Irish Church, and gave most important evidence in regard to it. Here is his opinion on the Irish Church question— So long as the penal laws were in force, and Government held that every Irishman ought to be a Protestant, it was quite consistent to maintain a Protestant Establishment, which should be sufficient for the wants of the entire population; but now that principle is abandoned, there can be no excuse for not reducing the State provision for the Protestants to a level with their actual, not their possible, numbers.… The number of clergy required for 852,000 Episcopalians might be con- siderably reduced if a congregational instead of a territorial system were adopted, and if as many persons were assigned to each minister as could conveniently attend the church at which he would officiate.… When the number of clergy had been thus reduced, there would be no necessity for keeping up the Episcopal Establishment of two archbishops and ten bishops; probably four bishops, one for each province, would be an ample provision for the government of such a Church. I ask for six, but he says four bishops would be enough for the sustentation of the Irish Church. But, it may be said, "These are the opinions of Lord Russell; we are not followers of Lord Russell." Well, but my right hon. Friend is a follower of the noble Lord, whose opinion I am going to quote, as expressed on the 12th of July 1843— I would ask the Government, are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not twenty Protestant parishioners—are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not fifteen Protestant parishioners—in which there are not ten—in which there are not five—nay, in which there is not one Protestant parishioner? If there are such, then I say that nothing would be more just, nothing more fair, than that, after the expiration of existing interests, the revenues of those parishes should be suspended, and applied to other purposes connected with the general interests of the mass of the people in Ireland." [3 Hansard, lxx. 1068.] This is the opinion of Viscount Palmerston, speaking, it is true, in opposition; but, no doubt, if properly supported by my right hon. Friend, he would be ready to act on the sentiments he so eloquently expressed in 1843.

But it has been said that the Irish Establishment, though with large church accommodation and few attendants, is a missionary Church. Let us see how far that is so. And here, I must say, the popular delusion has been fostered by men of high authority and great mark in this country. The Irish Church Mission Societies have been in existence since 1852. They have spent upwards of £30,000, and they claim to have made 30,000 converts; but the effect has been to deceive the public mind. A monstrous deception has been and is practised on the old ladies of this country who have more money than wit, with regard to these Missionary Societies. Here is an extract from a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, preached in Westminster Abbey on the 29th of August 1852. Now, I must say that Dr. Wordsworth is, in some measure, open to reprobation, inasmuch as he has been the innocent means of deceiving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Ireland. But, be that as it may, Dr. Wordsworth says— We refer with thankfulness to the fact, that within the last few years thousands and tens of thousands in Ireland have renounced the errors of Romanism. A work is now going on unequalled in importance since the 16th century. The number of converts within the last two years is stated as 30,000, in page 40 of the Report for the present year of the Society for Irish Church Missions. Thus, Dr. Wadsworth gives it out from the pulpit that there is a work going on in Ireland in the way of reformation, which is unexampled since the 16th century, and computes the number of converts made at 30,000. Now, I hold in my hands Good News from Ireland, and I find that this society, called "The West Connaught Society," is only two years old It appears, nevertheless, to have been very active in getting together a good deal of money, although I do not perceive that it is in reality much weighted with converts The society, at all events, held a meeting recently at—if I mistake not—the Hanover Square Rooms, My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland will be able to correct me it I am wrong. Mind, I find no fault with him for going there, because I know he is a man of strong Protestant feeling No one, at any rate, has a right to complain of his attendance at the meeting, because we learn from Good News from Ire land that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from whom he received his appointment, and who made such fine speeches when in Opposition, now subscribes £20 a year to the West Connaught Society. The tight hon. Gentleman, no doubt, attended the meeting, having been taken in by the sermon of Dr. Wordsworth. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I never read it.] Yes, but be told us he read Good News from Ireland, and it is to be found in that. But, however, the right hon. Gentleman stated that an immensity of good was done by those missionary agents, and that declaration is so far important that it goes down to Tamwoth with his Imprimatur, and may help to aid the funds of the society, as holding it up as a great missionary success. He milled that since 1847 there had been a large increase in the church accommodation in Ireland—I let you into the secret of that accommodation—and that the Irish was a true missionary Church. Well, it is certain that Dr. Wordsworth tells you that there are 30,000 converts as the result of its labours, and these it appears have been made chiefly in Galway. Now, the popu- lation of the county of Galway is, I believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Galway will correct me if I am wrong—254,256; out of that number there are, I find, 7,500 members of the Established Church. Well, then, what becomes of those 30,000 converts? Are they included in the 7,500? I can nowhere discover them, and yet this is the success of which Dr. Wordsworth and my right hen. Friend talk so loudly. Now, if anybody, after what I have said, gives assistance to the West Connaught Society, that person must, I think, be held to be bereft alike of intellect and judgment.

Let me institute a comparison which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin for a different purpose, when be read a quotation to show that of the Roman Catholic emigrants who went to America the greater portion had become Protestants, Where, let me ask, was the missionary Church in that ease; and if this be true, of what further argument in favour of the reform which I advocate do I stand in need? If you wish to convert the people of Ireland to Protestantism, it is clear that you had better do away with this missionary Church. Then you will stand some chance of having more than 30,000 nominal converts. I think the House will not be slow to draw from the fact to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman called our attention an inference unfavourable to the conclusion at which he wished us to arrive.

But, says the right hon. Gentleman—I am anxious not to pass over any of the arguments which he advanced—"Laving aside altogether the circumstance of its being the depository of religious truth, the fifth article of the Union forbids you to meddle with the Established Church in Ireland;" as if it were not meddled with by the Earl of Derby on the occasion to which I have already referred. But the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion on the point, and I will now give him the opinion of a man who is his equal, whether as an orator or a lawyer. What was the opinion of Lord Plunkett, a steadfast supporter of the Established Church, and opposed to any scheme of abolition? These were his words— He had heard a great deal of vehement declamation and energetic denunciation, but not a single argument to show that this [that is, the partial appropriation of Irish Church property to educational purposes] would he in the slightest degree a violation of the principles of Protestantism, or of the Act of Union. By the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland were consoli- dated. By the fifth article of that Act they were identified in doctrine, worship, and discipline; but was there anything in that article which identified the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland with those of the Church of England? There was nothing of the kind. The Irish temporalities were altogether distinct from those of the Church of England. If they were not so, they had been violating the articles of Union ever since they were passed. The whole system of composition of tithes in Ireland was a violation of these articles. But, when they looked to the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland, they were not to throw out of their consideration that Ireland was a nation of Roman Catholics, and that they were bound to apply the same principles with regard to the temporal concerns of that nation which they considered themselves justified in applying to the interests of this great Protestant country. That is the opinion of Lord Plunkett, but I have likewise the opinion of the estimable and illustrious father of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this article of the Act of Union, which is now, as always, thrown in our faces in such discussions as the present. The late Sir Robert Peel, in 1844, said— It may be asked, are compact and authority to be conclusive and decisive? If we are now ourselves convinced that the social welfare of Ireland requires an alteration of the law, and a departure from that compact, and a disregard of that authority, are our legislative functions to be so bound up that they must maintain the compact in spite of our conviction? I, for one, am not prepared to contend for such a proposition." [3 Hansard, lxxiii. 244.] Having given you the opinions of Lord Plunkett and of that Sir Robert Peel, who did not attend meetings of the West Connaught Society, I will now give you that of another noble Lord, because I am anxious to be fortified by the views of those who are the great friends and bulwarks of Protestantism. This is the opinion of Viscount Palmerston when in Opposition in 1856— I do not, however, go so far as those who would argue that that article prevents you from dealing with the Irish Church.… Parliament is competent to deal either with the Church of England or the Church of Ireland according to varying circumstances." [3 Hansard, clxii. 767.] Varying circumstances very much depend, no doubt, on the side of the House on which a man happens to sit. He adds— Undoubtedly, the property of the Church belongs to the State, and the State, represented by its proper organ, the Legislature, has the power and the right of dealing with that property as the circumstances of the time may require.' [3 Hansard, clxii 768] After the extracts which I have read I need, I think, delay the House no longer with any arguments about this fifth article If the Reform for which I contend be necessary, the fifth article cannot be allowed to interfere. But, suppose it were held to do so effectually, what better handle can you give to those who advocate a repeal of the Union than by saying, that as matters stand, it prevents justice being dune in this respect to the people of Ireland?

I have entered at great length into this subject, and I thank the House sincerely for the attention with which they have listened to me; but I wish to say a few words before I sit down with respect to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have the management of the Church property in Ireland. That Commission was instituted in 1833, and consists of the Archbishop of Dublin, the Chief Justice being a Protestant, the Lord Chancellor, and "three other proper and discreet persons." I find that there is under its control 132,701 acres of land, which the Commissioners describe as profitable. It produces, however, under their management, only £42,770, which is, I contend, a sum totally inadequate. The Commissioners, I may add, spent one million sterling in the last thirteen years for the repairs and building of churches—and what is the cause, I would ask, that while the churches are most excellent, and their numbers on the increase, their congregations are growing "small by degrees and beautifully less?" What have the Ecclesiatical Commissioners done in my own neighbourhood? There was a very commodious church in the town of Clonmel, and a considerable Protestant population. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were asked to improve and enlarge; this church. They expended £4,000, and now the church is finished they discover that it holds 200 less people than before, and they are actually about to lay out £800 to enlarge the church which they have reduced in size at the expense of £4,000. That is a fair specimen of the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. What is the expense of this Commission? The only three persons who receive salaries are the three proper and discreet men. The expenses of the Board are very large indeed. There is no church rate in Ireland, and everything is found for the country gentlemen for nothing out of the funds of the suppressed sees. The requisites for Divine service cost £7,438. The clerks and sextons for these 600,000 Protestants, cost £23,529. Yet, I have seen cobwebs in the fonts, no parochial duty whatever, marriages at a stand-still for want of people, and funerals likewise In many instances the sextons are women. In my own church the sexton was a woman, and a Roman Catholic, because they cannot get a Protestant. Organists, organ blowers, and timers for the 600,000 Protestants, £1,020; fuel for the churches, £3,540; ceremonials alone, £33,118 a year. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: What ceremonials?] The organ-blowing, clerks, and sextons. The salaries of the three propel and discreet Commissioners are £6,097 12s. 8d. a year. They lately paid to soli chore, £2,365; rent and coals, £998 a year. They have done an extraordinary thing lately, and I call for an explanation of it. A vacancy occurred in the deanery of Ardagh, which has no cure of souls. In their Report, dated April 10, 1862, the Commissioners say— The Commissioners being apprised of a vacancy in the deanery of Ardagh, appointed a day to consider the propriety of recommending the Lord Lieutenant to suspend the appointment. This intention was not able to be carried out, for they learnt that your Excellency had filled up the vacancy. Looking with some confidence to the right hon. Baronet to keep the Lord Lieutenant in order, I want to know how he accounts for the Lord Lieutenant having, in the teeth of an Act of Parliament and in the teeth of the Report, filled up the deanery of Ardagh without any cure of souls? And I hope he will give me an answer. So much for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so much for the Ecclesiastical Commission!

I cannot think that this debate will be altogether unprofitable. However liberal you may be to volunteer suggestions and reforms to foreign States, I think you will he of opinion that some time ought to be given to domestic! policy. It is very true that, with the Treasury Bench, "'tis distance lends enchantment to the view." But while they are endeavouring with such assiduity to pull the beam from the eye of his Holiness the Pope, I think they might find sufficient time to remove the Irish mote from their own vision. This I know, that a noble Lord in another place has lately kindly offered a palace and an asylum to his Holiness at Malta. I think it may he suggested to the noble Lord, that if the people of Ireland were consulted, they would not object to see the Protestant primate of the Irish Church removed to a smaller mansion, and a more circumscribed income. I know that where the Pope is concerned the people of England are apt to lose their reasoning powers. At the same time, there is a strong analogy between the position of the Pope and the situation of the Prime Minister. Both the Minister of England and the Pope of Rome have been heads of the liberal party in their respective countries Both, at one time, have been ardent Reformers. Both have produced Reform Bills, and both have abandoned them The Pope is supported at Rome by French soldiers. The Prime Minister of England is kept upon the Treasury Bench by Conservative votes. Both are inclined at present to do little or nothing. Non possumus is as much the motto of the Pope of Rome as of the Minister in Downing Street. I regret that Her Majesty's Ministers do not sometimes look at home "and see ourselves as others see us." If they did so, they would see four and a half millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland who would gladly accept some of the six points which are offered for four millions of Roman Catholics in Warsaw. I think they would not object to see men who have the confidence of the Irish people sitting in the noble Lord's Cabinet, The noble Lord can recommend to the Czar in suggestive lectures that there should be nothing but Poles having the confidence of Poles in the administration of Poland, but he sedulously excludes every man who is an Irishman and enjoys the confidence of Irishmen from filling a public office in Ireland. It is because I am not content to masquerade as a reformer in a foreign country, and act as an obstructive at home, that I, for one, who prefer contentment in Ireland to unity in Italy, am opposed to these projects of the noble Lord; and I think that if the Liberal party pretend to have any claim to the name, they will not be content for ever to rest in their present torpid state, but will unite upon this question, and insist upon the measure which I have so inefficiently and so lengthily advocated.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present Ecclesiastical Settlement of Ireland,"—(Mr. Osborne,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."

MR. CARDWELL

I will not aspire to continue the animated and amusing tone which has pervaded the speech of my hon. Friend; but I trust the House will be willing to listen to a few practical and serious remarks upon a subject of great importance to the welfare of Ireland and to the interests involved in the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. My hon. Friend, who has made the Motion with his accustomed ability, began with very large propositions, but narrowed his argument as he went on, till at last it seemed to me directed rather to a reform of the Church than to the question which really engages our attention. But with regard to the proposal the hon. Gentleman makes, he has pursued exactly the contrary course. He began with a narrow one, and he has ended with a very broad one. On the 19th of May he gave notice of a Motion which was limited to a Committee to consider how far it may be expedient to carry out further reductions in the Establishment in Ireland on the principles of the Act of William IV.; but in the Motion he now makes he invites us to appoint a Committee to consider the general question of the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. We all know what is meant by a proposal to consider the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. It is not to consider whether three gentlemen sitting in Dublin as Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have a larger or a smaller salary; nor whether the Act of 1833 shall be carried further in its spirit and provisions; but it is to re-open that great question of Irish and British politics which agitated Parliament, governed parties, and disorganized Ireland before the hon. Gentleman and I had seats in this House. The course which the Government intends to take is to ask the House to resist this Motion, and proceed with the ordinary business of the evening. My hon. Friend began his speech by an eloquent reply to an eloquent speech made in this House on a former occasion. It is not necessary for me, in the course which I have to recommend to the House, to uphold the arrangements of the Church of Ireland as they now exist; it is not necessary for me to contend, that because it is ancient, therefore it cannot be changed; or because it is English, therefore it is to be maintained; or because the Act of Union contains stipulations with regard to the Church, therefore it is not within our province or power to re-consider those provisions. Neither is it necessary for me to contend, that because we have confidence in the truth of the principles of our Church, we should therefore impose it on a people who do not choose to receive it. The argument which I shall venture to lay before the House is of a practical character, founded on the state in which we find this question, and on the state in which we should leave it by acceding to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am not without high authority when I say that we ought not to disturb a question of this sort, touching the foundation of the moral, social, and political interests of the people, without grave cause, and without a well-founded hope of bringing it to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend himself told us that the Church of Ireland was founded by Tudor violence—that politically it was a blunder, and ecclesiastically a fraud; but, if he so thinks, what is the conclusion we should naturally expect from such premises? I was astounded to hear him say in his next sentence that he would not uproot a system which had existed for three centuries, which had been intimately connected with all the deepest social and political interests of Ireland. He will excuse me if I also have my own opinion with regard to the original establishment of a Protestant Church among a Roman Catholic people, and who have never denounced it in such language. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: It was a quotation.] Yes, but a quotation endorsed by the hon. Gentleman. He will excuse me, I say, if I point out that it is a very different thing to overturn an institution when you find it firmly established, and that it is a very serious matter, for those who are responsible as the Members of this House are for the good government and the well-being of the country, to appoint a Committee to unsettle a question without a prospect of bringing it to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend has quoted from speeches made by high authorities in former times, strong speeches in favour of Motions stronger than his own. But if the statesmen whom he has quoted, and the great parties by whom they were supported, were unable to accomplish their object, what does he suppose would be the result of the appointment of a Committee selected equally, or nearly equally, from both sides to consider this question? This is not merely a matter of argument, we have experience upon it. In 1833, when this question was brought forward by one of the most powerful Governments we ever had, before the flood-tide of reform had begun to ebb, no sooner had they brought in the appropriation clause than they found it necessary to withdraw it. In 1834 the appointment of a Committee to consider this question dissolved that strong Government, and was almost immediately followed by the retirement of Earl Grey from office. In 1835 the Government of Sir Robert Peel was expelled from office on this very question from 1836 to 1838, this House was in perpetual conflict with the House of Peers, and in 1838 the broad proposal which this House had placed on its records had to be surrendered by the House, and a settlement was made in direct defiance of that abstract Resolution. What is the proposal of my hon. Friend? It is not really the appointment of a Select Committee. He would think I was trifling with him if I were to argue that it was too late this Session to appoint a Committee to go into all the details of this question. What he really means is an abstract Resolution of this House again condemning the Irish Church—that is to say, he means now once more to enter on that course for which we have so little encouragement from experience. Twenty-five years have elapsed since 1838, when this question was finally settled without the adoption of that celebrated clause, and during that period there has been almost uninterrupted silence upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman has quoted speeches made in the debates of 1856; he says that circumstances alter cases, and that when Gentlemen change their seats they are apt to hold different opinions. My hon. Friend has not told us where he was at that time. He then had the honour of a seat on this bench, and I do not remember, nor do I find it recorded, that we had then any of those animated and pointed sallies and brilliant sarcasms which have enlivened the debate to-night My hon. Friend referred to the plans which have been brought forward at various times, but I do not know that he identified him self with any of them, nor did I gather which of them he intends to bring before the Committee. He spoke with particular praise of the plan of my right hon. Friend whoso loss this Session we have all had to deplore That plan, I believe, was to place all the tithes in one common fund, and then to make a congregational Church, and to re distribute the money to Protestants, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics according to the number of their respective congregations. There must be a Concordat with the Pope, and arrangements made with the Roman Catholic bishops. However wise these provisions may be, if you argue this as an abstract question, I need scarcely ask what would be the result if it were proposed to refer them to a Select Committee of this House. I believe this House will not surrender the principle of an Established Church. I believe it will not alienate the property of the Church from he ecclesiastical uses to which it has been devoted. With regard to the payment of Ionian Catholic priests, I have yet to lean hat the priests themselves desire that payment. [Sir GROUSE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] By that cheer my hon. Friend confirms my belief that that part of the plan is not likely to be accepted by either party. That is the ground which I take, do not at all wish to be understood as baring in those arguments which would recommend the original institution of a Protestant Church in the heart of a Roman Catholic people. I have no wish to disguise the opinions which I entertain, nor do I wish to put forward any argument in the force of which I do not sincerely believe. The ground I take in opposing the present Motion is this. It is practical ground, and, as I submit, thoroughly sufficient for the occasion. The question is, whether you ought to appoint a Committee to inquire into the general question of the ecclesiastical settlement in Ireland. I think those who think that settlement wise, and those who think it unwise, must concur that it would be a mischievous day when we should appoint a Committee to make such an inquiry without there being any probability that it would lead to a satisfactory result. The result of such a proceeding would necessarily be to disturb and unsettle the question, without there being on your part any prospect of bringing it to a complete and satisfactory conclusion. I have referred to the history of the question, I have touched on the various stages through which it has passed, and I ask the House, whether, seeing that great statesmen and powerful majorities were unable to effect a settlement of it at a time of tithes, a time of pluralities, a time when the whole of Ireland was disturbed by matters connected with the Established Church, this is a moment at which there is any hope of the labours of such a Committee as that proposed by my hon. Friend being attended with a satisfactory settlement of the question. I think the House will agree with me that it is not. There are other ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland besides those of the Established Church. There is the Regium Donum, which receives the consistent support of many hon. Members of this House, on the ground that it is a part of the ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland. Then there is the Maynooth endowment, which many hon. Gentlemen vote for on the same ground, who would not support it on its abstract merits. The same reasoning applies to the endowments of the Established Church; and therefore, when a Motion of this kind, which, while it is not likely to be attended with any good, may do a great deal of harm by exciting a strong feeling throughout the country, is submitted to the House of Commons, in my humble judgment the House will do wisely to meet that Motion with a direct negative.

THE O'DONOGHUE

observed, that the fact of the Motion having been made showed that all the people of England did not think it fair that the Church of the small minority of the people of Ireland should monopolize the whole ecclesiastical revenue of Ireland. The arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), when the subject was under discussion on a former evening, consisted In the assertion that the Established Church in Ireland was right, and that, therefore, she was entitled to monopolize the ecclesiastical revenues of the country. If that was the point which it was necessary to argue in dealing with the question, the subject would afford the present generation matter for discussion, and leave a reversion of discussion to their Children, It was time that the question of the Irish Church should be discussed in that House, For a long time the Roman Catholic Members had not moved in it; find, perhaps, those Englishmen who would wish to see the present system put an end to, had thought to themselves that it was not for them to make the first move, as they were only indirectly affected by it. His constituents had frequently urged him to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the misappropriation of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland, and he entirely recognised the grievance of which they complained. Could there be a greater infringement of national rights than to have a Protestant Church in a Roman Catholic country supported by funds provided by Roman Catholics? Was it not a mockery to say that religious equality prevailed so long as the Established Church continued in its present form? He conscientiously believed that the Protestant Established Church, as it existed at present in Ireland, was an anomaly unparalleled and unprecedented. He believed the justice of the complaint of the Roman Catholics clear and self-evident. If he had hesitated to take the course which his constituents wished him to take, it was because he knew that their opponents, though they defended no great principles, were the advocates of great interests, which were sustained by mighty influences, and to a certain extent by popular prejudices, and that the justice of a cause was not sufficient to insure its success. According to the last census, the Episcopalian Protestants in Ireland were, in round numbers, 600,000, and the Roman Catholics 4,500,000. In this country the ecclesiastical State revenues were appropriated to the Church of the majority. According to that rule, they ought in Ireland to be devoted to the support of the Roman Catholic Church. For that, however, he did not, nor did the Catholics of Ireland, ask. In a clear and accurate Report of the Committee of the National Association of Ireland, in the year 1840, which was drawn up by Mr. O'Connell, it was distinctly stated that they did not claim that the ecclesiastical revenues should be applied to the support of the Church of the majority, but that, as existing interests dropped off, they should be appropriated for the benefit of the community, to the support of the poor, the promotion of education, and in works of charity, without distinction of sect or persuasion. The people of England would not endure such an application of ecclesiastical revenues in this country as existed in Ireland. The Irish people did not sanction, and never had sanctioned, that application On the contrary, all the 4,500,000 Catholics and many Prote3tants felt that it was a monster grievance, He should lay down two propositions. The first proposition for which he contended was that Ireland was a Catholic nation. The second was that it was unjust to compel her to contribute to the support of a Church in whose doctrines she did not believe, and whose teachings she bad emphatically rejected. In support of the first proposition, he appealed to the Returns of the last census. In support of the second, he appealed to the common sense of mankind. Was it possible to name any nation in which the State Church differed from the religion of the majority? In England the establishment was Protestant, because the majority of her people were Protestants; in Scotland it was Presbyterian, in conformity with the religious views of the majority; in Ireland it was Protestant, though the majority were Catholics. According to the Return made to the House, there was in 1861 a decrease of 16,000 and upwards in the Protestant population of Ireland, as compared with 1834; and in some dioceses the Protestants could all he conveyed in a few omnibuses, in others they could not fill a single Catholic chapel. In eleven dioceses of Ireland there were fewer Protestants than there were Catholics in a single parish in the city of Dublin. In the county of Cork there were nearly as many Catholics as there were Protestants in the whole island. The existing state of things was felt by the Irish nation to be an intolerable grievance, and he hoped that the House of Commons would not, by refusing the Motion for inquiry, show that they were determined to maintain a system of injustice, and a policy of repression towards Ireland wholly inconsistent with that fair and liberal system of Government which they advocated in all other parts of the world. His belief was that many Protestants would be found in Ireland who were not anxious to uphold the existing monopoly, and he maintained that Parliament had as much right to deal with the question as with any other. No doubt the House would be told of a compact entered into at the Union to uphold the Irish Church, Now, if there was a compact, it bad been already violated; but the Irish people were no parties to the compact, and were not in any way bound by it. At the Union the contracting parties were on the one hand England, and on the other a small place-hunting minority; and it was monstrous to say that such a contract was binding on the present and on all future generations, no matter what the interest of Ireland might be. It could not be said that the maintenance of the Established Church was necessary for the preservation of the Union. The example of Scotland settled that point. The simple question was as to the distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland; and was it reasonable that the Protestants of that country, numbering only 500,000, should monopolize all these, to the exclusion of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects in that country. No doubt an attempt would be made by their adroit opponents, through lack of argument, to array against the Motion the Protestant prejudices of the House and of the country; but while the supporters of the Motion would do all they could to avoid exciting religious animosities, they were not to be debarred from pointing out the grievances and anomalies inseparable from the maintenance of a Protestant Established Church in Ireland, through any pusillanimous fear of irritating those champions of Protestant ascendancy who had never shown the Catholics any quarter. All they sought to establish in Ireland was religious equality. They had no intention to assail the doctrines of the Protestant Church; but their case was one of grievous hardship, and they appealed with confidence to the sense of justice of Englishmen. He was anxious to stand well with his Protestant fellow countrymen and to unite with them in furthering the common interests of their country, But he believed there never could be a sincere and cordial or lasting union of Irishmen till the great principle of religious equality was established on a sure, firm, and eternal basis. In conclusion, he would quote the opinion of Lord Macaulay that no good defence could ever be made for the Irish Church till it was shown that, like the English, it deserved the name of "the poor man's Church;" that it had trained the great body of the people in virtue, consoled them in affliction, commanded their reverence, and attached them to itself and to the State.

MR. GRANT DUFF

moved the adjournment of the debate.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he desired to draw attention to the peculiar position of this debate The debate was practically a renewal of the debate raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). To this an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ker Seymer), which he had the honour of seconding. The hon. Member for Swansea, by withdrawing his Motion, compelled the withdrawal of the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Poole; and now the hon. Member for Liskeard, taking advantage of the forms of the House, which enabled any Member to bring on a Motion as an Amendment to the Motion to go into a Committee of Supply, renewed in substance the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poole had been got rid of, on an evening when be (Mr. Bernal Osborne) knew that the great body of the Conservative Members would not be present, having an engagement elsewhere, from which it would be highly inconvenient for them to be absent—[Mr. REGNAL OSBORNE: I knew nothing about it]—and when he knew the Prime Minister would be absent from indisposition. He then proceeded to dress up that old doll of the Appropriation Clause with such tinsel as his wit could furnish; he pressed it on the attention of the House at an hour when he well knew that it was impossible that the discussion could be concluded that night. Well, the hon. Member for Liskeard had explained in very few words the nature of his Motion—it was to turn out the Government, and agitate against the Church of Ireland. That was the solution of this Motion, though the hon. Member pretended that all he wanted was reform. But he had avoided the means of obtaining the information necessary for reform, which his acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poole would have furnished. Why was this new phase of the agitation got up? It was because the Protestant community of the country, having become aware that in the West of Ireland a considerable number of Christian congregations had been formed by missionary clergymen in places where the means of supplying them with the ministrations of the Church were wanting, had ventured to meet together and subscribe their own money for that, purpose—it was because of this that the present attack was made on the Church of Ireland. On a recent occasion, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) used expressions with regard to this movement which ought no longer to pass unnoticed.

MR. SPEAKER

interposed, and reminded the hon. Member that it was irregular to refer to a previous debate.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that in the course of his speech the hon. Member for Liskeard had made constant reference, without objection being taken, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Dublin University, which had been made in a previous debate some days before. He (Mr. Newdegate) had contributed his mite to help his co-religionists in the West of Ireland; and he might be pardoned if he alluded to the fact that in this House—he would not say when—expressions had been used to the effect that a certain pamphlet, written by the Rev. Mr. Garrett in aid of this movement, was a mere trap to catch the credulous and the fanatical in England. It happened that he had known this gentleman for some time, and he knew him to be a gentleman of veracity; and he knew also several Members of the Committee, all of them men of the highest character. Lord Plunket, the Bishop of Tuam, who was not only a bishop but a gentleman of high character, the chief promoter of the movement, had stated to him that he knew the conversions in the West of Ireland to be real. If further evidence were needed of this, he would state that he (Mr. Newdegate) had in his hand a letter from the Bishop of Chichester which fully supported his statement. With such testimony as this the House lad palmed upon it a statement that this missionary undertaking was simply a trap for credulity and fanaticism. They had heard an eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), who virtually prayed for the abolition of the Church in Ireland. It was not for him (Mr. Newdegate) to interpret the obligation that that hon. Member had taken upon himself when he entered that House, according to the hon. Member's understanding of it; but it seemed to him that according to plain English be, as a Roman Catholic Member of that House, was bound not to seek to disturb or weaken the Established Church in Ireland. He regreted that the opinions of the hon. Member on the subject of property, if they might judge by his recent speech on the subject of tenant-right, seemed as lax as those which he now avowed on the subject of the Church in Ireland. The House was mistaken if it supposed that the affections of the people either in England or Ireland towards that Church were weakened. Although in a great community like this there might be members of the Church of England who spoke of the Irish branch of the Church of England in the spirit of a purse-proud man casting off a poor relation, yet he had had the pleasure of being present at a meeting at which the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Archbishop of Armagh in the movement that had been spoken of in the House of Commons in terms of derision. They were asked to abandon the parochial system in Ireland, and to substitute for it a congregational system. But the policy of the Church of Rome in England was quite different; for, in defiance of law, that Church was endeavouring to divide England into foreign dioceses and parishes. The House was also appealed to upon the ground of equality; but it appeared, from a recent number of The Tablet, that the Pope, in dealing with the South American Republics, had acted upon the great principle of inequality. All the animosity which the House had seen, was excited by the simple attempt to supply, by means of their own money, their coreligionists in Ireland with religious instruction; and yet the House was appealed to against this movement, on the ground of religious freedom Where was the violation of religious freedom in the people of England endeavouring to supply the religious deficiencies of the people of Connaught from their own private resources If the House was prepared to reconsider the 5th article of the Union, he trusted that they would reconsider the Union; altogether; and then perhaps the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) might see his own property, and that of other Irish landlords, dealt with by an Irish Parliament. There had been repeated attempts to injure the Establishment in Ireland, but they had all failed from the direct opposition of public opinion. He (Mr. Newdegate) denounced the cowardice of those Members of the Church of England who shrink from the duty of tendering to Roman Catholics the moans of accepting the religion which they themselves enjoyed, no less than from the duty of placing the Sacred Volume in the hands of the Irish people. He thanked the House for having allowed him to defend the endowment, which, if successful, would ensure society having among the Irish people guardians from whom the House would hear if persecution reached the people, and who would be ever ready to make them remember that they were the subjects of a Christian and a Protestant Sovereign.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, it was impossible that the debate could close that night, and he therefore hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be agreed to.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

remarked that the Motion for adjournment would be illusory unless the intentions of the Government as to its continuance were made known.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that as the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard was made as an Amendment to the Question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, of course upon the next Supply day that Amendment would stand upon the paper, and he anticipated that it would come on early on Monday.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.