§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire how far the present distribution of endowments for religious purposes throughout Ireland may be so amended as most to conduce to the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects; to search the Journals of this House for any Resolutions passed since the Acts 1989 of the 39 & 40 Geo. III., c. 67, having reference to the application of any surplus revenue arising from Ecclesiastical Endowments in Ireland; and to report how far such Resolution or Resolutions appear to have been subsequently carried into effect. He thought the time had come when a great change should be made in the arrangements with regard to the temporalities of the Irish Church, and further that the liberal party especially were pledged to the advancement of that question. He was perfectly aware that any measure which was likely to settle permanently, or even materially advance the great question involved in his Motion, must emanate from the Government. A matter of such magnitude and importance could not be taken up with any hope of success by a private Member; and in order to have a fair chance of success, it must be taken up and urged forward with all the power of the Government. As that was the case, and as the present Government was supposed to represent the Liberal party, it had long been a matter of surprise that the Government had so long neglected to take the question up. Year after year he had hoped that some mention of the subject would have been made in the Speech from the Throne, and year after year he had been disappointed. It had been allowed to sleep, like Reform and many other questions, which once formed the watchwords of the Liberal party. Under these circumstances, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to take up the matter as it was a question which in some respects stood in an exceptional position to others. The question of Reform was one which the Government had abandoned, as he thought unwisely, although he admitted that the country had shown great indifference on the subject. Peace, Reform, and Retrenchment were questions which had been in turn abandoned by the Government; but it must be remembered that it was in the power of the country at any time to interfere, and force the Government to carry out their pledges with regard to these questions. But that was not the case with the Irish Church; for there was no doubt whatever, that if the question was put to the Irish people, whether or not the temporalities of the Irish Church should be maintained on their present footing, the response would be that they were not content with their present state. The institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom were maintained in accordance with 1990 the will of the people; but the Established Church of Ireland was altogether in a very different position, and a very able writer, Mr. Goldwin Smith, had stated that "the hold of the Irish Church Establishment, on the affections of the Irish people, was a garrison of 20,000 men." That was perfectly true; and as the power of the country was wielded through the House of Commons, it behoved the House to see whether that power was wielded for the advantage of the whole nation, and in a manner justified by the national exigencies, and whether the Irish Church Establishment had answered the desired end. He liked to shelter himself behind the opinions of statesmen and eminent men, and therefore he would quote a short extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, whom he did not then see in his place. Speaking of the Irish people in 1844, the right hon. Gentleman said—
That dense population, in extreme distress, inhabited an island where there was an Established Church which was not their Church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest Executive in the world. That was the Irish question. Well, then, what would hon. Gentlemen say if they were reading of a country in that position? They would say at once, 'The remedy is revolution.' But the Irish could not have a revolution; and why? Because Ireland was connected with another and a more powerful country. Then what was the consequence? The connection with England thus became the cause of the present state of Ireland. If the connection with England prevented a revolution, and a revolution were the only remedy, England logically was in the odious position of being the cause of all the misery in Ireland." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 1016.]Consequently, the House of Commons was especially bound to protect the Irish from the injustice alleged to be committed against them. The force used in maintaining the Irish Church Establishment could only be justified by political necessity or success. Believing that the Irish Church, far from being a political necessity, was a cause of great weakness to this country, and that so far from being a successful institution it had proved a signal failure, he felt he should not be doing his duty as a Member of that House if he sat there and allowed the question to slumber any longer. But he had another and less important motive, which was that he was ashamed to call himself a Member of the Liberal party, to sit year after year upon those benches and see the question quietly shelved. During the nine years he had 1991 had the honour of having a seat in that House, the subject had only once been brought before their attention. He referred to the Motion brought forward with great ability by his hon. Friend Mr. Miall, in 1856. Why was that party named Liberal, if it allowed such things? It would deserve the reproach of being a party of promises rather than of performances if it continued to do so. He was resolved, that so far as he could, the stigma should not apply to him; and therefore he determined to call the attention of the House to the question, although he should have been glad to have seen it taken up by a Member of greater standing and ability than himself.He felt one difficulty in dealing with the subject—namely, that the facts and arguments were so well known, that if he were to go into them fully, he should be told he was only proving truisms; and if he did not do so, he might be told he had not proved his case. However, he only asked for inquiry. One thing, at all events, was plain, that the result of the rule of this country in Ireland had not been attended with satisfactory results. In 1823, Lord Brougham said—
Matters in Ireland could not rest as they are for ever. One day or other the time must come that the House will have to give account of its stewardship of the country. England, possessing Ireland, is in the possession of that which ought to be her security in peace, and her sinew in war, and yet in war what has Ireland been but strength to her enemies—what in peace but an eternal source of revolt and rebellion?" [2 Hansard, lx. 1276.]Lord John Russell, speaking on the Maynooth question, said—We cannot help being struck with the fact that there has been be time in the history of Ireland since this country obtained a footing and dominion there, in which there was not some dreadful contest—something amounting to a civil war—and a state of the law that encouraged the people to consider themselves rather as victims of tyranny than as the subjects of a just Government.He (Mr. Dillwyn) appealed to recent facts, as illustrating these observations. Scarcely a year passed without witnessing disorder, turbulence, and disturbance of various kinds in Ireland. Hon. Members often ascribed the unsatisfactory state of things in Ireland to the turbulence of the Irish people; but if they were not the quietest people under the sun, they would not have put up so long with the gross injustice to which they had been subjected, inasmuch as they were treated in an entirely exceptional manner. There was no other part of the British dominions which was treated 1992 in the same way—no other part of the Empire in which the religion of the people, a point upon which most countries were so susceptible, was treated as it was in Ireland. They took the revenues arising from the soil of Ireland, and applied them to the teaching of a religion which the majority of the people believed to be a most dangerous heresy. In Canada, in India, they would not dream of doing anything of the kind. No part of the three kingdoms was more firmly united to the Crown than Scotland; but so long as England endeavoured to force upon the Scotch, not an alien religion, but a religion differing only in form from their own, they stubbornly resisted; and he believed, that if that endeavour had been persevered in, the union with Scotland could not have been maintained. The maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland prevented that union of the different classes of Irishmen which was necessary for social progress. In England the whole body of the people united in support of law and order; and he believed, that if an attack were made upon the liberties of the people, Tories would unite with Whigs in defence of those liberties. But it was impossible to expect a similar union amongst the various classes in Ireland so long as that source of discord, the Church Establishment, existed. He would lay before the House one instance of the operation of the system, In the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette of the 15th of February 1863, he found a letter, in which the writer stated that he did not object to any man on account of his religion, whether he was an infidel, a Socinian, or a Roman Catholic; but he thought a Protestant landlord ought to have Protestant tenants, and a Protestant employer ought to have Protestant servants. That was an illustration of the unhappy spirit which the antagonism of the two churches produced in Ireland. In England ministers of religion of all denominations were the best allies of the Government in the preservation of order, and they were prominent in every movement for the promotion of the education and prosperity of the people. But that was not the case in Ireland, because there the Catholic priest felt himself aggrieved by the maintenance of the Church Establishment, and could not be expected to be an ally of the Government in the preservation of order. In support of his assertion that the evils of Ireland were mainly due to the Established Church, he might refer to the opinions of some of the occupants of the Treasury Bench. 1993 The President of the Indian Board (Sir Charles Wood), in March 1835, asked where the House would find in any country a rich Church with a small congregation containing a minority of the population. The right hon. Baronet then asked why the Legislature did not strike at the root of the evil, and determine to make a different appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church? In 1845 the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) said that "Parliament might do what it would for Ireland, but so long as the Irish Church remained it would be a badge of conquest and degradation. There must be religious equality in that country." He did not however rest his case upon either his own opinion or the isolated opinions of statesmen, however prominent, but the course which the House of Commons pursued on the subject; and the Resolutions it had passed, showed it had been felt by statesmen in general that the Established Church had been at the root of the mischief in Ireland. At the beginning of the present century Mr. Pitt, being anxious for the Union, determined to carry Catholic emancipation. He failed, and resigned office. After thirty years the emancipation was carried by the Duke of Wellington, who saw the necessity of making the conciliation that Mr. Pitt had urged, although up to that time he had strenuously opposed it. The next step was that by which some of the Irish bishoprics were cut down and church rates were done away with in Ireland. Those were beneficial measures, but they did not meet the great question at issue, which he took to be the re-distribution of the funds set apart for ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland, for the benefit and use of the great masses of the people of that country. In 1835 the appropriation clauses were brought forward. Two Resolutions were adopted by the House. The one declared that the House should resolve itself into a Committee—For the purpose of considering the expediency of applying any surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland which may not be required for the spiritual wants of the members of that Church to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the community.That Resolution was acted on in Committee, and the House subsequently passed a further Resolution, which declared—That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing Resolution.1994 The Government of Sir Robert Peel resigned in consequence of those Resolutions, which had been adopted during the discussion on his Tithe Bill. Sir Robert Peel was turned out by noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who occupied seats in the Cabinet at present. The Government which succeeded Sir Robert Peel's brought in a Bill to give effect to those Resolutions. It was thrown out in the House of Lords; but they held on to office. Nevertheless, the subject had been mooted once or twice since; but those noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen seemed to have abandoned a principle on which they themselves turned out a Government. About the year 1845 Sir Robert Peel, having again come into office, directed his attention to the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland. He did not attempt to deal with them as he had endeavoured to do before; but feeling that something should be done to conciliate the Roman Catholics, he brought forward the Maynooth Grant in its present form; but that measure did not, in his opinion, meet the case; and this was shown by the result, as he would appeal to the House whether it had not failed to give satisfaction to any party, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, and whether, looking at the debates and divisions upon it, any hon. Members believed it could be considered either a satisfactory or final settlement of the question.He (Mr. Dillwyn) would candidly avow to the House that in advocating inquiry he did so in the expectation it would lead to a great change—that it would lead to a re-distribution of the revenues of the Church in Ireland which would be more in accordance with what was required by the existing wants of the people. When the subject had been brought forward by others, it was said, by way of objection, that by the 5th article of the Act of Union they were bound to preserve the Church of Ireland as a portion of the United Church of England and Ireland. That article provided that the Church of England and Ireland should thenceforth be one United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the United Church of England and Ireland should be in force for ever. But it said nothing about the temporalities. Moreover, Parliament had over and over again dealt with the temporalities of the Church both in England and Ireland, and there was a Bill at that very time before Parliament introduced by a Bishop, with regard to Wales, which would have that 1995 effect. He contended, therefore, that no breach of the 5th article of the Act of Union was involved in such a re-distribution of the temporalities of the Church of Ireland as he wished to see brought about. The Church of Ireland was not placed by the Act of Union in a different position from that of the Church of England. No one disputed that Parliament might, and had dealt how it pleased with the Church of England, and it certainly had an equal right to deal with the Establishment in Ireland. If he wanted an argument to show that they had the power for which he contended, he might quote a speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, in answer to a Motion brought forward by Mr. Miall in 1856, said Parliament was competent to deal with the Church of England and Ireland, but they must deal with them not in order to destroy them, but to render them more perfect in their operation. But the object of the Church was for the benefit of the whole people, and it did not carry that object out. If the Irish question were again to be settled, he did not believe that Parliament would re-establish the Irish Church on its present basis. Many hon. Members on the other side of the House had admitted as much to him, though they pleaded that it worked well, on the whole, and had done some good. The whole Liberal party, including the Members of the Government and some Gentlemen on the other side, admitted that the Establishment was an injustice, an anomaly, and altogether an objectionable institution. The question was, could its maintenance be justified? The only ground of justification for it was that it was either a political necessity, a source of national strength, or that it promoted harmony and true religion. As to its being a political necessity, it was well known that the Government, since they had been slipping away from the principles which apparently they had put forward to gain the support of Irish Members, had been gradually losing their support, until there was not a single Irish representative on the Treasury Bench. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: The Attorney General for Ireland.—An hon. MEMBER: Where is he?] Instead of its being a source of national strength, it was a source of national weakness. They had to keep in Ireland, for the maintenance of that Church, an army of 21,000 men, exclusive of 12,450 constabulary. All foreign nations, when they had a quarrel with them, pointed to Ireland as their weak point. France did it, and America too, and every one had 1996 noticed the burning animosity displayed by Irish emigrants against this country. He lad little doubt, that if Ireland were invaded, a great portion of the people would ally round the invader, instead of, as they doubtless would in this country, rallying round the Government. Instead of producing harmony, the Irish Church prevented union, and destroyed all chance of peace and good will. It might be said that the Church in Ireland must be maintained to teach religion in that country. If it claimed to be an infallible Church, like the Catholic Church, he could understand that argument; but coming from the Protestant Church he could not understand it. The Established Church in Ireland could only be looked upon as a Missionary Church; it had tried its mission for some hundreds of years, and they knew with what success. They knew that it had succeeded in gaining over to the Church only a small proportion of the whole population of the country. It appeared from the religious census that there were in the province of Armagh, in 1834, 557,315 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province 455,353 members of the Established Church. In the province of Dublin there were, in 1834, 295,845 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province only 236,519 members of the Established Church, showing that so far from there being an increase there was a very great falling-off. The revenues of the Church in Ireland in 1834 amounted to 18s. 7d. per head; in 1861 the revenues amounted to 17s.7 d. per head, some reduction having taken place in consequence of the Tithe Act. They were told that the decrease in the population accounted for the decrease in the number of members of the Established Church, but that was not borne out by the facts; because the decrease being less where the Church was strongest, it might fairly be assumed that the greatest decrease was not among members of the Church, but among members of the Roman Catholic religion. Since 1841 the decrease of population in Munster had been 882,603, the Church numbering 80,860; in Leinster 516,319, the Church numbering 180,508; in Connaught 548,000, the Church numbering only 40,296; and in Ulster 472,118, the Church numbering 379,773. In speaking of the numbers of Church population, it must be remembered, that even the number, small as it was, was maintained not by the temporalities of the Church alone, but also by extraneous aid. Con- 1997 stant appeals were made to this country for money. He had received a pamphlet not long ago, the title of which was, Good News from Ireland; but the good news seemed to be, that if more money were sent, there would be more converts. They did not seem to rely on their own resources, or the resources of the Irish Church, but to depend upon subscriptions from this country. The religious census in 1834 showed that the proportionate percentages to population in Ireland were—of the Established Church 11, of Roman Catholics 81, of Presbyterians 8, and of other denominations about one-third. In 1861 the Established Church, had increased to 11½ the Roman Catholics had decreased to 78, owing to the falling-off in population; the Presbyterians, who had no other temporalities than the regium donum, had increased to 9, and other denominations to 1⅛ per cent, thus showing that the less assistance that was given the better, and that voluntary efforts were more successful than a system of endowment based upon injustice. It seemed to him that they could not maintain the Irish Church much longer in its present position, and they could not expect the Irish people to remain passive and quiet adinfinitum. All the leading statesmen of both the great parties in that House, one after another, with only some few exceptions, had expressed most strongly their opinion on the absolute necessity of some change, and he trusted that a sense of right and justice would induce the adoption of a remedy for a great and pressing evil. The Conservatives, unwilling as they were to concede anything, had conceded the necessity of some change in Ireland; and they had carried out what they thought they ought to do. They passed the Maynooth Grant, though it was opposed by some Gentlemen on that side of the House. On the Liberal side of the House the appropriation principle was admitted in 1835, and they seemed disposed not to deal in a narrow, petty spirit with the Irish question. But, unfortunately, they adopted those principles when out of office; and when in office, instead of carrying them, they contented themselves with carrying small measures, which merely touched the distribution of the funds of the Church among its own members, and not among the whole people of Ireland, for the benefit of whom he conceived it to be the duty of Government see them administered. The Maynooth Grant had had to struggle through an uncertain existence, and it could not be said to be a permanent settlement. Its prospects, 1998 indeed, were anything but flourishing. It was opposed on both sides of that House; it did not give general satisfaction to English constituencies; and he understood that even among many Roman Catholics it did not meet with approval. Under such circumstances, he did not think it could be long maintained; and when it fell, Parliament would have to meet the difficulties of the question face to face. If that Vote were disturbed, there would at once be an unsettlement of existing arrangements as regarded the ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland. It was better, therefore, to be prepared in good time for a change which might soon come; and the best way, in his opinion, in which to meet that change was by appointing the Committee which he proposed. The Government did not seem inclined to take any steps in the matter, but he hoped that the Liberal party would refuse to support the Government if the latter did not endeavour in some way to carry out the principles by which they professed to be guided. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) had given notice of an Amendment, which was very long if not very intelligible but it would seem, if carried, to pledge the House to more than would be justified by the present state of their information. He believed, however, that the authority of Archdeacon Stopford was appealed to in support of the views embodied in it. Archdeacon Stop-ford was no doubt a very well-informed man; but the House probably would not take the question merely on his ipse dixit. He (Mr. Dillwyn) could hardly imagine what could be the grounds of opposition to his proposition. He had been told that that was not the time to bring forward the subject—that the Roman Catholics were unpopular in this country. But although it was true that Roman Catholics were not much favoured in this country, yet justice and fair play were highly approved; and if justice and fair play were denied to the Roman Catholics, it could not be expected that they would be more well-disposed towards the Government of this country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a speech which he made in 1845 respecting the grant to Maynooth, said that—
It is impossible, in my opinion, that the present state at things in Ireland, in regard to the two establishments of the two different sects in Ireland, can be permanent …… A provision by the State for the Catholic priesthood is a measure to which the Government and this House will at no distant period be compelled by their sense of justice to proceed. The great mistake made by 1999 Governments, not only in this country but everywhere, is to be too late in the measures which they adopt …… Government comes down with its measure, but comes when the time of proposing it with effect is gone by; and that concession which may be—no doubt on the present occasion it is—the result of conviction, and the spontaneous offering of modified opinions and a sense of justice, wears to the public all the appearance of a surrender to fear,"—[3 Hansard, lxxix. 1304.]He (Mr. Dillwyn) would urge the Liberal party not to delay upon that great question. He could not shut his eyes to what was passing—that the noble Lord, upon important questions, was indebted to the party opposite for support, and that judging from the results of recent elections, the time might soon come when parties might have to cross the House. The Liberal party could not consistently attack their opponents when in office, if they refused now to act upon their avowed principles. He asked for a Committee—a fair and impartial Committee—to inquire and report with a view to the introduction of a measure that might make the union of this country real, and Ireland itself contented and prosperous. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee.
§ SIR JOHN TRELAWNYseconded the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far the present distribution of endowments for religious purposes throughout Ireland may be so amended as most to conduce to the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects; to search the Journals of this House for any Resolutions passed since the Act of the 39 and 40 Geo. III., c. 67, having reference to the application of any surplus revenue arising from Ecclesiastical Endowments in Ireland; and to report how far such Resolution or Resolutions appear to have been subsequently carried into effect.
§ MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. His hon. Friend had commenced by saying he was very nearly bringing in a Bill to alter all the religious endowments throughout Ireland; and it was only on second thoughts that he brought forward this Motion for a Committee. He mentioned also that his Resolution was founded on a proposition formerly made by Lord John Russell as to appropriation. Now, one of the chief arguments which he (Mr. H. Seymour) would have to address to the House would be, that a settlement of the Irish Church question was possible without entering into the question of appropriation. Both the friends and the opponents of the Irish Church were of opinion that the existing state of things must be modified to 2000 a considerable extent. The only question was in what way it should be done. He, as a member of the United Church of England and Ireland, was anxious that its resources should be so modified as to increase its strength; and he was happy to say that the question was dealt with in a similar spirit of moderation by many Roman Catholics. Serjeant Shee, on bringing forward the question ten years ago, said that he fully admitted that the endowments were first due to the members of the Church, and that until they were fully provided for its resources ought not to be diverted to any other object. At the same time, if any abuses could be shown to exist, all true friends of the Church must wish for their removal, as the very fact of their existence must prove a source of weakness and impair the efficiency and usefulness of the Establishment. The Irish clergy themselves were alive to the necessity for some inquiry, and indeed there was among them a considerable party which called loudly for reform. Archdeacon Stopford, who was well known from the part which he had taken in regard-to this question, had written a remarkable pamphlet, from which, as the hon. Gentleman had suggested, he had adopted the terms of his Amendment, and he did not think he could have borrowed them from a better source. He believed that his Motion would meet the necessities of the case, which was not the case with that either of the hon. Member for Swansea or the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne), who had likewise an Amendment to propose. The object of Archdeacon Stopford's pamphlet was to show that there ought to be a re-distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland; and it was a very good sign that the members of the Church should themselves come forward in that spirit. Such a movement was unprecedented, and ought to receive the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. In his pamphlet the archdeacon pointed to many livings which ought to be diminished, while others ought to be augmented. Among other cases he mentioned a vicarage extending over an area two miles long and wide, net income £115, 17 Protestants; a rectory, net income, £115, 110 Protestants; a union, net income, £330, 24 Protestants; a vicarage, four miles by two in extent, net income, £165, 24 Protestants; a union, net income, £260, 27 Protestants; a union, net income, £280, 31 Protestants. All these benefices lay close together, and the archdeacon recommended, that instead of being held by separate 2001 incumbents, they should be united under stipendiary curates. The Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea assumed that the Committee would be able to ascertain the present position of endowments in Ireland, to show that there was a surplus, and to point out the manner in which it ought to be distributed. If the Committee ascertained all that he seemed to anticipate, it would have done no good, but only much mischief, because the real inquiry must comprehend a multiplicity of details, into which the Committee could not enter. It would only open up the questions which agitated the country thirty-one years ago, and which were abandoned by the very Government which raised them. Although the hon. Member for Swansea had proposed to deal with a surplus, he had obtained no Returns to prove that it existed, nor were there any such Returns. He granted that changes were required in the Irish Church; but even Roman Catholics admitted that the Protestant clergy should have a proper stipend to live upon. Reform was demanded upon good grounds, because there were some clergymen in Ireland who did no work at all, and others who did very little; while, on the other hand, there were clergymen in Ireland who did work, but without any pay. Such cases occurred in every diocese. By the 93rd section of the Church Temporalities Act, it was provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland should increase benefices up to £200 a year. How many had been so increased? Very few, indeed. In the diocese of Armagh, which was the best provided with clergy and where the clergy were best paid, he had a list of nineteen benefices with an income of only £1,717, or an average of £90 a year each. Yet some of these parishes had between 2,000 and 3,000 Protestant inhabitants. In one union in the west, which consisted of ten parishes, and was fifty miles long by thirty broad, there was an income of only £200. The number of Protestants had some years ago diminished to about 500, but a society had been formed to supply it with clergy, and the number of Protestants had increased again to about 5,000. There had formerly been only one church; but now there were ten, besides three licensed chapels. The Commissioners had only endowed two churches with £75 each, and endowed two others with £25. Very few benefices had received augmentations since 1836. An endowment society had been established in West Connaught, three years ago, to re- 2002 lieve the wants of the district. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government subscribed £20; the Member for North Warwickshire subscribed £20; and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) subscribed £60. In justice to the Irish Church they ought not to speak of a surplus until they had first inquired into its requirements. A Royal Commission, not a Select Committee, was the proper instrument for real and effective inquiry. It would give precisely the sort of information required for practical action. A different distribution of ecclesiastical revenues was required, and that no Select Committee could make, not having the means of ascertaining the relative position of parishes. The object which a Commission, if appointed, should have in view was to use its discretion and judgment upon details already to a considerable extent found for it. It had been suggested that the inquiry might fitly be undertaken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland; but that body already had onerous duties to perform, and it would be impossible to throw upon them this additional labour. Others contended that the end in view might be obtained by procuring Returns from the bishops; but some central body would still be required to amalgamate those Returns and to adjust their contents upon a general principle. A Royal Commission, on the contrary, armed with full powers of eliciting information would obtain much more satisfactory results; and if appointed at once, would be able to report before the opening of next Session, so that the entire question of the Irish Church could be settled before that time next year. Another reason for a Royal Commission was that to the Queen belonged jurisdiction in ecclesiastical territorial matters. The second head of inquiry in the Motion of the hon. Member referred to searching the Journals of the House, the most important entry in which would be the Resolution moved by Lord Russell in 1835; but he should think that no Whig Government would wish to have that brought forward too prominently. A question was put to Lord John Russell in 1858, by Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Lord stated that the Government had done their best, and had introduced a Bill for the settlement of tithes on the appropriation principle. Since then, however, the appropriation principle had been altogether abandoned, and he should altogether deprecate a renewal of discussions leading to much animosity and bitterness. He had only been 2003 induced to take up the question from a belief that the original Motion would have a very bad effect, and because no one else had put an Amendment similar to his own upon the paper. He believed that the question of the Irish Church, treated on its own merits by both sides of the House in a political lull such as that which then existed, would not prove as difficult as it appeared at the outset. He was in hope that it might be dragged from the arena of party politics, and prevented from becoming, like the church rate controversy, an annually recurring source of ill-feeling at both sides of the House. If it were taken up by the Government, at the wish of a portion of the Irish Church, the disputed points might be settled in a period shorter than most persons imagined, and without that strife and animosity which were certain to ensue if a Royal Commission were not appointed. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEseconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into—
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
2004§ MR. WHITESIDEI rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, and all the other Motions that stand upon the paper with reference to the Irish Church. It has been said that language sometimes is used to conceal men's thoughts; in the present instance I am quite satisfied that the language of the hon. Gentleman has been used to convey his thoughts. But it is justifiable for us who oppose his Motion to inquire what has been the policy of that school of politicians to which he belongs. The hon. Gentleman, having endeavoured to make a political reputation by nibbling at the Church of England, now aspires to establish a character by attacking in a bolder manner that branch of the same United Church which exists in Ireland. He has told us to-night when the subject of that Church was last discussed here. I remember it well. In the month of May 1856, a Gentleman, who once adorned the same benches, rose and gravely made a Motion which had the support of the hon. Member. Its mover said, in the usual way, that the circumstances of Ireland afforded a favourable opportunity for the settlement of the question, and he proposed, that as an Incumbered Estate Court existed in that country, it would be a wise thing to put the Church into that court and sell it by auction. That Motion might have been made by a revolutionary trooper in the time of Oliver Cromwell. That hon. Gentleman failed in his object, and he has since transferred his talents to a more congenial sphere; but though he soon vanished from our view, the mantle of his inspiration has descended upon the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea. There are two classes of politicians in the world—the one with a constructive, and the other with a destructive genius. When Mr. Miall had shown his destructive talents in selling off the Church in Ireland, it became necessary for him to construct a theory as to what was to become of the proceeds of her property. And what was his luminous idea on that subject? He thought those proceeds might safely be employed in the erection of lighthouses and lunatic asylums. The noble Viscount, with infinite good humour—and I never admired him more than on that occasion—thought his hon. Friend had gone a little too far; he could not give his assent to the Motion; he had some lingering respect for the 5th Article of the Union; and in a very happy way he put an end to the debate on the Irish Church, which has not been disturbed from that hour until it has 2005 now been taken under the protection of the hon. Member opposite, who complains, and with perfect truth, that no other man in Parliament could be found to meddle with the subject, and therefore he felt it his imperative duty to undertake its settlement himself. Public opinion he has, Sir, at his back; for it is enough to fill the House with consternation to hear how excited the people of Ireland have lately been on this question. Why, after a diligent search made in the records of this House, I find that during the last year there was not a single Petition on the subject of this Church, its property, or position, and that for some considerable time past there has been but one Petition from Ireland at all bearing on that Church—a Petition of which I will make a present to the hon. Gentleman, for it was in favour of a convocation. But if the hon. Gentleman should chance to fail in his Motion, as fail he will, the hon. Member for Poole comes to the rescue. I thought that that hon. Member had devoted his talents chiefly to the consideration of questions connected with the East; that he had taken the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India under his surveillance, and meant to explain to the House what is doing by that right hon. Baronet and his incomprehensible Council. I had imagined that the affairs of China might satisfy that hon. Gentleman, but these do not appear to content his vaulting ambition, for he suddenly descends upon the Church in Ireland, and recommends that constant device of the Whigs, a Royal Commission. Well, a Royal Commission is an excellent thing, and to excite the House to yield to this proposal I may say that I have made another diligent search to discover what is the sum which has been expended of late years upon these Commissions which lead to nothing, and I found that it amounted to £823,171. That fact I set against the able speech of the hon. Gentleman. But there is another Member of this distinguished triumvirate in reserve. We have, Sir, an ex-Secretary of the Ad miralty—forgetful of all the delinquencies of that Board since he quitted it—forgetful, too, of the nice questions on which he has spoken so ably, touching iron-cased ships, fortifications, and the comparative merits of the Whitworth and Armstrong guns—suddenly rushing into the arena of controversy and taking the Church of Ireland under his protection. I am satisfied, from what we know of his abilities, that he will bring to bear on this subject all the force of his 2006 eloquence, raillery, and wit; but I think the result of his attempt will resemble that which followed the efforts recently made against iron-clad forts by those American ships which attacked in vain, were smiled upon by their opponents, and then battered into submission.
Well, the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion indulged us with some general reflections before entering into particulars. And first be gave utterance to a deep and no doubt sincere lamentation on the condition of the great Liberal party. In regard to that, I can give him no consolation. His arguments did affect me considerably; and while I entirely concur with him in his remark, that he was very little acquainted either with his subject itself or with the condition of Ireland, I admit that he appeared to be very well acquainted with the condition of the Liberal party. For he said, Sir, that they had forgotten their principles and abandoned their measures, and never did man more conclusively prove than he did the rashness of the vote he gave in order to bring that party into political power. But if they will only listen to him on the present occasion—although I do. not know whether they will hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely—if they will but take up the old exploded appropriation clause, not with standing the warnings of the late Sir; Robert Peel—if they will only revive the old Whig dodge of attacking the Church, then his affections may be recovered; and he promises to the Ministry which might be so misguided and so forgetful of their duty, that the great Liberal party, whose disorganization he so painfully depicted, and what he inadvertently called ''the Irish Members"—an expression to which I shall presently recur—will return to their allegiance. Speaking of the state of Ireland, the hon. Member declared very truly that there had been in that country political rebellions, disorders, conspiracies, and assassinations. And his panacea for all these evils is to abolish the Christian Church ["No, no !"]—to abolish, I say, a branch of the Christian Church in that country. That was his remedy. I am sure I do not misrepresent his arguments or his facts, which I intend to follow fairly; although I own that in doing so I feel like a heavy laden soldier marching across an arid wilderness, in which fatigue, hunger, and intolerable thirst are far more to be dreaded than the arms of the enemy. He told the House, and truly, that there is a profound tranquillity on this subject in 2007 Ireland, and that a statesman of no mean order, at least in the party of which he is a shining ornament, thinks that when the country is tranquil on a question and no complaints are made of the law as it exists, then is the time for interfering to disturb and confuse the minds of the contented subjects of the Queen. The hon. Member also quoted a passage from a book which I read once, unfortunately, but which I never mean to read again, written by Mr. Goldwin Smith, a gentleman who resides in Oxford and lectures on history. In reference to that I will only say that great men, who have thought and read much more deeply than Mr. Goldwin Smith on such subjects, have held that that Church of which he has spoken so lightly and so rashly was intimately connected with the monarchy and with the maintenance of British power in, Ireland, and that as soon as you destroy that Church, you will weaken that monarchy and uproot that power.
Now, it is a remarkable fact that this Motion is not brought forward or suggested, as far as lam aware, by the Roman Catholic Members of this House. I did, however, observe that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had a Motion on the paper for to-night relating to Maynooth. That Motion, Sir, he has most suspiciously withdrawn; and having given his Vote against church rates and the Church in England he now clears the way for an attack on the Church in Ireland. I can assure that hon. Gentleman, that if he imagines that this kind of Radicals policy will give him the position of a leader of the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland, he is under a great delusion But lot me ask why we are to dear with this question. Is it because we have very few important. Bills before us that we are to employ ourselves in attacking the Church? I regret that we have not measures of more practical interest to engage us; but I wish to know whether we are about to re-consider the foundation of all the great institutions of the realm—the Church, the peerage, or whatever else has hitherto been regarded as fundamental, with a view of determining whether they should not be altered or subverted. That is a very serious question, because if this matter of the Church in Ireland touches the monarchy, the constitution, and the Union, is it a subject that ought to be undertaken by a private Member of Parliament, or does it fall within his province to unsettle that great fundamental institution? I have no intention, in considering this question, of 2008 speaking in language that would be unsuitable to those who differ from me; on the contrary, I would apply to it the words of Canon Wordsworth, delivered in the Abbey close by. That distinguished divine said—
The condition of the Church, wherever it may be, is a sacred and solemn thing. Hence every Church has a claim to the reverence of all Christian men. In the present case it is strengthened by ties, both civil and religious, as are the Churches of England and Ireland. These Churches stand side by side. If one of the candlesticks is removed, the other, it is probable, will not long remain, If the light of the one is pure and streams forth in pure lustre, the other will burn brightly,On the ground then of our common religion and our common nationality, we must all feel a deep interest in the condition of the Irish Church, and must approach the discussion of it with something like feelings of reverence. The very fact that the Church, in Ireland has existed for centuries, and that it is incorporated in the constitution of the country, is a powerful argument in favour of its preservation, and those who impugn it are bound to give better reason than the rash, conjectures—for they were nothing else—of the hon. Member for Swansea, If I were asked to say why I maintain that branch of the Church which exists in Ireland, my answer would be, plainly and directly, that I maintain it because I believe as firmly as my own existence that it upholds the ancient, pure, Catholic faith which was professed in Ireland centuries before the English set foot in that country. The ablest scholars, the best divines, the soundest antiquaries are agreed upon that point, and no man has proved it more logically or more conclusively than Canon Wordsworth in the series of discourses which he delivered in Westminster Abbey for the purpose of establishing our claim to be the true descendants of the ancient Catholic Church in Ireland. That man is profoundly ignorant who attacks the ancient Church in Ireland. The question between us and the Roman Catholics is which of us most nearly conforms to that Church; but, I repeat, that man is profoundly ignorant who assails the purity or doubts the existence of the ancient institution. Few will venture to deny that the argument of the divine who compared the ancient creed with that which we repeat every Sabbath day—who showed that the Nicene creed agrees in substance with that established by St. Patrick—was conclusive; and therefore I maintain that the Church in Ireland preserves the did, ancient, true Catholic faith. But if I am asked for another reason, I 2009 would refer to that which occurred in the reign of Elizabeth. The hon. Member for Swansea has wondered to-night how it happens that the Church has not made greater progress in Ireland. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth all the bishops save one—men who were confessedly the direct descendants of the ancient bishops of the ancient Church—men of great learning and piety—assented to the change which was then made, adopted the Reformation, signed the roll, took the oaths, and sat in Parliament. According to Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, who is at present writing a history of the Archbishops of Armagh, there was only one bishop who dissented, and he left the country and never did another episcopal act. The present bishops are the direct descendants of those men, and are therefore the representatives of the ancient Church. On this point I have only to add, that while there are a good many people in Rome who are ready to find fault with the orders of the English Church, not one questions the direct and unbroken descent of our bishops from the earliest times. Nor must the hon. Member for Swansea imagine that he can carry everything before him by simply asking how many go to church here and how many there. I agree with Burke that it will be a bad day for mankind when great principles come to be decided by numerical majorities. Henry VIII., who was not much of a Protestant, quarrelled with the Pope because he wanted to be King in England and Ireland. It was a struggle for power and supremacy, and had little to do with matters of religious faith. The battle continued during the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles, and it never ceased while one descendant of the House of Stuart remained to maintain it. Let me assume that the hon. Member for Swansea lived 300 years before he was born; that he flourished in the days of Elizabeth; that he was summoned to the Council with Burleigh, Bacon, and Davis, and that he was asked to decide the question with what branch of the Church should the State link its fortunes in Ireland. How would he have acted in those circumstances? Would he not have stood by the judgment of the biggest intellects that ever existed in this country, men whose names are written in the history and literature of England, great scholars, brilliant writers, wise and sagacious statesmen? Such were the men who deliberately connected the State with the Church of England in Ireland, and not with the Church of Rome, which was the Church of the majority. 2010 Why did they come to that decision? We often hear broached now arguments that are destitute of principle. Has the State, I ask, not a right to say with what form of Christianity, what ritual, what creed, what discipline, it should connect itself as most consistent with the Monarchy, the Constitution, and the law of this great country? Cecil and the others settled that question in the reign of Elizabeth, and why? The Pope at that time naturally thought, that if things went on as they promised to do in England and Ireland, he should be deposed from the power he possessed in those countries, and therefore he exerted himself to prevent so undesirable a result. He excommunicated the Queen; and although the man who affixed his bull upon her palace was tried and executed, he was punished for his political misconduct, and not for his opinions. What I want to know is, if the Ministers and Councillors of Elizabeth were obliged to decide with what form of Christianity they should connect the State—were they to connect the State with those who would destroy it, or with those who would strengthen and uphold is? They decided, like men of sense, that they should connect the State with that Church which at all times had been true to the Monarchy, faithful to the principles of the Constitution, and friendly to the well-regulated liberty of the country.But I shall go further, and meet the hon. Member for Swansea, as men of his peculiar school must always be met, with an argument derived from the evidence of his senses. If I am asked what faith has the Church of Ireland professed, I must refer to another reign. King Harry was not the sweet-tempered gentleman which he is represented to have been by some modern historians; he was, at all events, rather unpleasant to his wives; but he was an able man, a man of great courage and high intellect, and let us not forget that his antagonists were the chivalrous Francis, a powerful Emperor, and a brilliant Pope. It was no easy task to maintain the liberties of England against such formidable opponents. He broke off from the Pope because the Pope wanted to share his sovereignty; and I think he did quite right. The hon. Member for Swansea has asked what has the Church done for Ireland. "What is truth?" asked jesting Pilate, and did not wait for a reply. Let us see what was the policy of James I. The character of James I., as drawn by the late Mr. Disraeli, is a most interesting study. That 2011 Sovereign was, I believe, a learned, able, and wise man. Large grants were made in Ireland during his reign for the maintenance of the Protestant religion. What right have you to meddle with those grants? Have those who got them failed to perform their duty? Have they abandoned the Reformed faith? No; in the darkest hours of your history they have upheld that faith without wavering or flinching; and therefore I say, you have no right to lay a finger on their property. It has been asked, what has the Church ever done in Ireland? In order to answer that question I ask any candid man, what was the state of the country at the time when the large grants I have referred to were made? Why, Sir, there is not in the history of the world a more interesting chapter than the settlement of Ulster in the reign of James I. Ulster was then the most sterile part of Ireland; but the sagacious Monarch, was of opinion, that if he could plant in those barren wastes the laws, language, and religion of England, then, perchance, men might grow up there who might change the wilderness into a garden, bring commerce, trade, population, cultivation, and create a great, rich, and flourishing kingdom. You ask how many people are there in Ulster now? I ask how many were there then? I ask you to look at what the country was, and what it is. I appeal to the history and writings of the great statesmen and authors of that time to vindicate the magnanimous policy of the English nation in establishing the noblest colony they ever planted. Sir John Davis has left us a vivid description of the transformation of Ulster. In the quaint but graphic language of his day he tells us how Ulster, from being one of the most rude, barren, unpromising parts of Ireland, the scene of turmoil and rebellion, became the best managed, the most orderly, and the most productive. Sir John Davis says that King James, in designing the settlement, did not utterly exclude the Irish, but admitted a mixed population of British and Irish, who might grow up into one nation. That was the principle on which the colony was founded; and I defy the hon. Member opposite, or any one else, to point out any grievance under which Irish gentlemen laboured at that time. The Parliament of which Sir John Davis was Speaker comprised both Protestants and Catholics. In his speech from the chair Sir John gave one of the most admirable statements of the duties and conditions of a Parliament. He laid down the principle 2012 that the English and Irish were to possess equal rights, and that all cause of quarrel being removed, Protestants and Catholics were both to be admitted to a share in the Government of the country. In a letter to Lord Salisbury Sir John Davis gives an account of a circuit through the province. Wherever his party encamped they took care to inquire whether there was in the neighbourhood a church in which the truths of the Scriptures could be taught. Differing from the hon. Member opposite, they held that no State could exist unless it had a connection with some branch of the Christian Church. Therefore, while these men redeemed the waste and transformed it into a garden, they did not fail in every district to establish a church and to provide for a minister; and the Church which they thus established was the Church of England and not the Church of Rome. Well, what followed these proceedings? I believe that those who guided the policy of the foreign power—I mean the Papacy—came to the conclusion, that unless they could root out the plantation, overthrow the Church, and thereby extirpate the English name, race, and power from the land, it would spread over the kingdom and would make Ireland a source of strength to England; whereas if they could but destroy it, they would have in that country a platform for their operations in England. That was the real cause of the movement of 1641. That movement was not provoked by oppression, but its object was to annihilate the reformed faith, and with it the British power in Ireland, and to restore the country to the domination of a foreign Power. Hence Spain at one time, France at another, and the Papacy repeatedly interfered in the domestic affairs of Ireland. Therefore, when I am asked why the great statesmen of Ireland did not connect the State with the Church of the majority, I reply that it was because they wanted to preserve the independence of the State from foreign control, to maintain freedom, and to uphold truth. I cannot admit the argument, that because there happens to be in Wales or in any other province a number of persons who do not believe in the Church of England, the Church is therefore to go down. On the contrary, there is the more need to keep it up, in order to bring the Dissenters to their senses. But have there been any Petitions from Dissenters to support the present agitation? No; the Dissenters of Ireland are too wise for that. They feel that they must take their stand with the Church. If the Church goes 2013 down, the Church of Scotland will soon go down too, the Wesleyans will disappear, and, as for the Quakers, they will be swallowed up in a moment. The hon. Member has also admitted that he is not supported on this occasion by the Catholics. As far ns the large grants in Ulster are concerned, the hon. Gentleman who mates the Motion has no case at all. The hon. Gentleman asked what have the ministers of the Irish Church to say for themselves if that Church, after being once powerful, has now become weak? But on what grounds does the assertion implied in that question rest. In the first place, the statement with respect to the property of individual members of the Church is incorrect. By the Irish Directory for 1863 it will be seen what is the net income of the parochial clergy, and I hold in my hand a letter from a parochial clergyman, in which a complaint is made of the manner in which the gross income is spoken of instead of the net. The clergyman states that he has a living of £700 a year, but that after deducting necessary and unavoidable payments, his net income only averages about £292. The difference between the gross and the net income is expended for taxes imposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The fact and the truth are that a great number of livings are under £100 a year; and a most amusing circumstance, connected with the Irish Church, occurred on the publication of Serjeant Shee's pamphlet. The learned Serjeant stated that he should not wish any clergymen to have a less income than £300; and he was then told that £70,000 a year more must be given to the Irish Establishment in order to raise the incomes of the clergy to the point at which the learned gentleman admitted they ought to stand. But has the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he speaks of the property of the Church, turned his Attention to any one of the documents at his command? In the Reports of the Commissioners may be seen what they state with respect to the question of the property of the Church. They admit that the contributions from individuals for building churches were very large; but with respect to the repairs of churches, the Commissioners state that their funds only enable them to provide for repairs absolutely necessary to preserve the buildings. The House has been told that the Irish Church is a failing Church, and that no progress has been made in its improvement. Now, I will show, on good authority, what has been 2014 done since the Union. There have been 944 churches built in Ireland since the Union in 1800, and 224 enlarged. Of these 638 were built, and 53 enlarged, before the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1834, and since 1834, 239 churches have been built or rebuilt, and 171 enlarged, chiefly by the funds of the Board, assisted by private subscriptions; and 67 additional churches have been built exclusively by private funds. The Commissioners state—
The sums expended during those ten yearn in building, rebuilding, and enlarging churches have amounted to £l96,652, 11s., from which deduct subscriptions £90,739 0s. 4d., expended by the Commissioners. There are now in this office applications for rebuilding and enlargements, amounting to £89,400, without including five new churches, urgently called for in Belfast alone, which will cost at the least £10,600, so that the actual applications could not be complied with under £100,000, in addition to which it would take £12,498 to paint and clean internally churches requiring it at present, if there were funds available. These applications, however, very inadequately represent the whole wants of the Church, even in this one particular—that is, decent places of worship. The inadequacy of the Commissioners' income to meet even these claims for years to come will be apparent from the following analysis of their income and expenditure:—Gross income, including addition from the Archbishoprick of Armagh lately vacant, calculating renewal fines at their annual amount, if renewed regularly every year, £110,000; Church requisites including salaries of clerks, &c., £36,934 9s. 10d; average repairs of churches, £25,000; ministers' money, forced on them by Mr. Fagan's Bill in 1857, £12,529 15s. 4d.; curates' stipends, £5,892; augmentations of poor livings, £4,234; insurance fund, £2,130; incidental expenses, £1,640 16s. 7d.; salaries, &c., £6,185 14s. 10d.; law expenses and solicitor, £800; superannuation allowance, £217 10d; total expenditure over which the Board has no control, and which may be called fixed charges, £95,694 6s. 7d.; leaving but £14,305 13s. 5d. a year in any way at the disposal of the Board to meet claims for building and enlargements. The foregoing not only excludes all applications for building chapels of ease, but omits all reference to other important trusts contemplated by the Temporalities Acts,Now, we have been asked for a picture of a diocese in Ireland, and I therefore applied to a friend connected with the Church in Dublin, for a little sketch of what has been done since that able scholar and excellent man Archbishop Whateley came to the diocese; and it appears that in the diocess of Dublin a number of churches have been built and are building, and it is in such a way that the country has become covered with churches and a Protestant population. I ask, then, is a Church of no use when it happens to be the Church 2015 of the minority. Let the House consider that the Church of Rome has a wonderful organization, which is sometimes, though erroneously, sneered at. The Church of Rome, in its organization, its missionaries, its priests, its friars, and its Jesuits, is one of the most wonderful institutions in the world, while the Protestant Church has nothing but the parochial system to set against it. If we beat down that parochial system, do we think that the efforts of a few wandering fanatics in the country will be able to resist the operations of that great organized system which has so much influence, not only in Ireland, but in the world? I must not forget the unceremonious manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite treated the Act of Union. The hon. Gentleman read a clause in that Act, containing the most solemn and binding contract ever entered into by two rations, and then said, "There is the Act of Union." I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to escape in that way. Mr. Pitt was a gentleman, and spoke the truth; and had Mr. Pitt been alive, and had he witnessed the manner in which the clause in the Act of Union was treated, he, no doubt, would, with all the majestic eloquence of which he was a master, have rebuked the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting the views and opinions of the statesmen who framed that document. What did Mr. Pitt's representative in Ireland say. Lord Castlereagh sard—One State, one Legislature, one Church—these are the leading features of the system, and without identity with Great Britain in these three great points of connection we never can hope for any real or permanent security. The Church in particular, while we remain a separate country, will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. When once incorporated with the Church of England, it will be placed upon such a foundation as to be above every fear from adverse circumstances. As soon as the Church establishments of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one, the Irish Protestant will feel himself at once identified with the population and property of the Empire, and the establishment will be placed on its natural basis.Well, the Parliament of Ireland may have been induced, by unworthy means, to vote away the independence of their country—that I will not deny; but I do not believe all the honours and peerages and titles that were given could have obtained from an exclusively Protestant Parliament the surrender of their independence, had not Mr. Pitt and his mouthpiece, Lord Castlereagh, pledged the faith of England to the maintenance of the Protestant Church. And this 2016 House will nut be an assembly of English gentlemen and statesmen if, having got what you wanted, the incorporation with the Imperial Legislature of a local Parliament difficult to manage, you should proceed to vote away the existence of the Irish Church not with standing the article of the Act of Union which guaranteed it. If that be done, I should like to know the value of the Act of Union itself. That Act states, that after the Union you should no more interfere with the existence of that form of the Protestant religion established in Ireland than by the Articles of the Union with Scotland you would be allowed to do with that form of the Protestant religion established in Scotland. If you will refer to the history of the Scotch Parliament written by Daniel Defoe, you will find that the Scotch were apprehensive, that if they yielded the independence of their Parliament, what they called the prelacy would get rid of the Presbyterian form of worship, and restore the Episcopalian form, which they disliked; but they were informed that the faith of England was pledged to the Union; that the honour of the country was pledged to maintain the Protestant religion in Scotland; that although they might be in a small minority in this House, they would be certain that the fundamental part of the Union would never be impaired; and I hold that I should be bound to vote with the Scotch Members if any attempt were made to alter the Presbyterian form of worship, as much bound as I am to maintain the Established Church in Ireland. If you adopt any other policy, you will adopt a dangerous policy, and one of which those who originally propounded it have not considered the consequences. The hon. Gentleman may say, "Don't talk to me of consequences. Tell me first about your numbers, and then see what opinions of able statesmen I have got to show how the Church can be done away with." Well, about numbers. Hon. Gentlemen must have observed that for some time past little Returns have been handed to them about the Church in Ireland. And what is the object of the hon. Gentleman? To represent, if he can, that Protestantism in Ireland has receded. Whether an Englishman ought prudently to do that is not for me to say. But what does the hon. Gentleman do to prove his point. He takes two periods—the year 1834 and 1861; 1834, because it is supposed that at that time Protestants were most numerous, and 1861 because in con- 2017 sequence of famine, emigration, and other causes the Protestants may appear less numerous. And then the hon. Gentleman said he would show a diminution of 200,000. But there was no Census in 1834, and therefore the House may reasonably ask how the numbers for 1834 are obtained. The numbers have been taken from the Report of the Commissioners on Public Instruction in Ireland; but how did they arrive at the numbers? A decennial Census had been taken in 1831, and they said, "We will take the rate of increase in the population from 1821 to 1831, and apply it to the time between 1831 and 1834." And in that way they got a Protestant diminution of 200,000. That reminds me of an anecdote about the late Dr. Cooke Taylor, who went over to Ireland with Lord Clarendon. A gentleman being asked who Dr. Cooke Taylor was said, "He is statistician to the Castle." A country gentleman asked, "What is a statistician?" "Oh," replied his friend, "it is a man who is hired to invent facts for the Whigs." The decennial period from 1831 to 1841 showed altogether an increase of only 231,184, but the wiseacre who made the calculation gave the increase of the three years, from 1831 to 1834, as 209,574, being about 140,000 on the wrong side. But how was the supposed diminution to be accounted for? The Census of 1831 was not accurate, because the enumerators were taken from the mass of the people, and, as an official gentleman informed me, a great mistake was committed, because they were paid according to the numbers returned. So that if an enumerator wanted to put a couple of pounds in his pocket, he had only to return a few thousand more than he ought. But before 1841 the mistake was discovered, and in that year the Government got rid of those enumerators, and took the constabulary, and certain assistants approved of by the constabulary authorities, to perform the duty; and at the last census even those assistants were got rid of, and none but those who were under the immediate control of the State were employed. Then the hon. Gentleman deducted the Wesleyans. What right has he to do that. When the Wesleyans take the sacrament, they take it in the Church. Under the last Census the Wesleyan Methodists, a most respectable body of men, than whom none are better affected to the Church, amounted to 47,000. Then there were 27,000 other Protestants, sturdy fellows perhaps, who refused to say to 2018 what body they belonged; they, too, are taken away, and the numbers of the Established Church diminished still more. The hon. Gentleman also deducts the Independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. But what right has he to take away the half a million members of the Church of Scotland also? Do those Presbyterians ask him to do so? Do the Synod of Ulster ask to have it done? In the North of Ireland half the family may be Presbyterian and half Protestant. By what authority, then, are the Presbyterians separated from the members of the Established Church? The hon. Gentleman also forgot another part of the argument. He stated the diminution of population from emigration, and that diminution has no doubt been wonderful. It appears that from the year 1825 to 1844 no less than 1,250,000 emigrants left Ireland, 1,000,000 of whom went to America. Since that period to the present the numbers who have emigrated from Ireland are about 1,500,000. The curious question then arises, what is the religion of those people in the countries to which they emigrate. The heads of the Roman Catholic Church sent a respectable gentleman, a Mr. Mullen, to America to see what became of the Catholic emigrants when they got out there. He reported that the number of Catholic emigrants in America was 3,970,000, not less than 1,990,000 of whom were lost to the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics left a country in which the Scriptures were freely inculcated, and it is certainly most astonishing that so large a number when they reach America come over to the Protestant form of religion. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Hear, hear !] The hon. Member means, that if Ireland were Americanized, she would become Protestant. It is assumed that Irishmen are discontented and quarrelsome; but I am satisfied with Ireland as it is, and I believe that Irishmen are much less discontented and less quarrelsome than people generally in this country imagine. Crime is not by any means so common in Ireland as it is sometimes represented to be, and it is forty years since there has been an execution in Dublin. At all events, do not let hon. Members opposite impute that the Church is not perfectly successful whenever it has taken root and had the opportunity of perfecting its mission. Before the Emancipation Act was passed there was an inquiry before Committees of the Lords and Commons on the question 2019 whether it would be perfectly safe, in respect of the Established Church, to grant emancipation. The right hon. Richard A. Blake—himself a Roman Catholic—who went to Ireland as a friend of the Marquess of Wellesley, and received the appointment of Chief Remembrancer, was examined before a Committee in 1825. Mr. Blake told the Committee that he should not wish to see any settlement of the Catholic question effected, in which the rights of the Established Church were not preserved. Mr. Blake made the above statement before a Committee of the House of Commons. He said before the House of Lords' Committee—I should not be favourable to any settlement which went to disturb the Protestant Establishment; I considered it a main link in the connection between Great Britain and Ireland, and with that connection I was satisfied the interests of Ireland were essentially identified.Mr. Blake added, that he did not think—the Protestant Church of Ireland could be disturbed without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and order— without danger to all the blessings we derive from being under a lawful Government and a free Constitution.Of all the statesmen who have argued the question of the Irish Church, the late Sir James Graham was the most impartial. He traced the settlement of the Church to the settlement of property, and he uniformly contended that it would be impossible to overthrow the one without endangering the rights of the other. By what right or title can the descendants of a clever engineer, named Sir William Petty, claim their property, compared with the claims of the late Primate, who received £15,000 a year, but which has been reduced one-half? [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No; £9,000.] The late Primate disposed of that sum so well, that I, for one, regret that it was not £20,000. But if the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) meddles with the property of the Church, what chance will the absentee landlord have of getting his rents? There are great political reasons why the Church of Ireland should be connected with the State in England, and I will give the House a fact from history. When Wolfe Tone planned the subversion of the English Government in Ireland, he went to Paris, and persuaded Carnot and the great revolutionists there to give him the armament that was to be commanded by Hoche, and which, if it had landed, would have marched all over Ireland. Carnot asked Wolfe Tone if he was 2020 sure of the Roman Catholics. Tone replied that the priests would join when the expedition was seen to be successful. "But what about the heads of the Catholic Church?" he was asked. Tone replied that he did not like the then head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, because he had ordered the priests not to give the sacraments to persons whom the English thought traitors. Carnot then, in reply to Tone's questions, told him that General Bonaparte was in Rome, and had caught the Pope. Tone thereupon urged Carnot to write a despatch to Bonaparte, directing him to make the Pope send an edict to his legate in Ireland to join the French the very day they landed; and added that the expedition would then be successful at once. If these great revolutionists could calculate on a foreign Power being turned to the subversion of the British Empire, can the House wonder that the great wits and far-seeing statesmen of Elizabeth's reign discovered the importance of connecting the State in Ireland with a Church in whose loyalty they could place the most implicit reliance? Upon all these grounds—upon the history of the country, the history of the Church —upon the state of Ireland—upon the condition of the Church, never so satisfactory, I rest my defence of the Established Church of Ireland. But I will add, because I do not wish to conceal it, that it is mainly to be defended because it is connected with the Reformation. Let that event never be forgotten by Protestants. It burst the fetters that enchained the human mind. It taught people to think, and shook the powers of darkness and of evil; from that moment the Church of Ireland has held up the lamp of truth. It may have been obscured, but it has never been quenched. The light now shines with steady lustre, and will grow brighter and brighter every day, until, I trust, it will at last illuminate our island.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to ask the Government for an assurance that they would give a night after the recess for the discussion of that important question.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty in fixing a day.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, that after that intimation from the noble Lord the only course would be for his hon. Friend to introduce the question upon the first day of Committee of Supply.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he should have no objection to that course at all, and gave notice that upon going into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution on the Irish Church.
§ MR. SPEAKERasked whether the hon. Gentleman would name any day.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEnamed the 28th instant.
§ Debate adjourned till Thursday 28th May.