Lords Sitting of 30 July 1833

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Holyhead Roads. Petition presented. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from certain Tenants in Perthshire, for the Right of Shooting Hares and Pheasants on their own Farms.

PORTUGAL.
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to call the attention of their Lordships to the singular notification of blockade which he had recently brought under their consideration, and upon which he had endeavoured to obtain some information from the noble Earl at the head of

97
his Majesty's Government. The only paper which had been laid on the Table of their Lordships' House was so meagre in itself, and furnished so little information with respect to the blockade, that he could not help thinking there must be some further and stronger document not yet produced, or surely the noble Earl would not, on so slight a foundation, have consented to recognize a blockade so prejudicial to the commerce of this country. If he were asked, whether he expected to derive any advantage from thus occupying their Lordships' attention, he must reply in the negative. Why, then, it might be said, did he bring the question forward at all? His inducement was a conscientious feeling of duty both to England and to Portugal. In the latter country he had served during the best period of his life. He had there, at an humble distance, followed the footsteps of the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), and he took a most sincere interest in the welfare of the people of that country, from whom, not only he himself, but the British army generally, had received repeated marks of kindness. So long, therefore, as he had a legislative voice in that Assembly, he could not bear to see his Majesty's Government acting towards that country in so partial, unjust, and unpardonable a manner, without, at least, expressing his opinion on the subject. Don Miguel was, by the voice and will of the people of Portugal, king of that country. The noble Earl could not deny that Don Miguel was as much king of Portugal, as Louis Philippe was king of France. He could not promise any good results from his Motion, because, if the noble Earl thought proper to adopt the means in his power to arrest any information, he might do so. He, however, had a right to examine into the validity of this blockade; and in order to do so, he requested their Lordships to consider how far the notification given was in conformity with other similar notices. He should not venture to argue upon his own information upon this subject, but he had endeavoured to collect some authorities which he conceived to be good, as regarded the course which had been taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Marquess then proceeded to read an opinion of Sir William Scott on the subject of blockades, to this effect:—'To constitute the legal effect of a blockade, two things are held to be
98
necessary—that an actual blockade shall exist, and that some notification shall be given of it, either by public declaration to foreign States, or by notice and warning to the individual ship charged with breaking it. Of these, the actual blockade is most essential, since, without that, a notification avails nothing, as it has been held by the Lords of Appeal in the case of the Proclamations issued by our Commanders in the West Indies, and published afterwards by our Minister in America. It may be laid down as a fundamental principle, that it is necessary that some actual blockade should exist, and that a notification is not of itself sufficient to raise the presumption of a blockade'. And again, 'in the very notion of a complete blockade, it is included, that the besieging force can apply its power to every point and part of the blockaded State. If it cannot, it is no blockade of that quarter where its power cannot be brought to bear Thus it appeared that an actual blockade was most essential, without which no notification was sufficient to raise even the presumption of a blockade. Sir William Scott also gave it as his opinion, That if the blockading Power had not sufficient force actually to blockade all that portion of the coast which it declared to be in a state of blockade, the notification could only be considered good as applied to those ports which were really blockaded How did this opinion agree with the blockade of Viscount Palmerston? He held in his hand the letter which was the foundation of the blockade, which he would read to the House. The noble Marquess then read the letter, commenting on it as he proceeded. The despatch commenced by announcing the victory obtained by Carlos de Ponza, which it described as reflecting glory on the arms of the two nations—Portugal and England, which had been allied for so many years. The noble Marquess repudiated the idea of considering England as either directly or indirectly engaged in the contest, much less would be consent that the exploits of a crew of Buccaneers should be deemed to reflect either honour or disgrace on the arms of England. The letter then went on to state 'that the Vice-Admiral Carlos de Ponza was preparing to blockade Lisbon without delay, and that probably at that moment (i, e. the moment of receiving the

99
letter), the instructions of the Regent of Portugal on that subject would probably have been carried into effect.' This, it appeared, then, was the only ground which his Majesty's Ministers had for declaring the ports of Portugal to be in a state of blockade. They had no actual blockade—no notification of a blockade, but merely a notice of a probable blockade of one port—that of Lisbon. [Earl Grey All the ports were mentioned in the letter.] Still it was but notice of a probability. He could not but believe that there must be something beyond this letter. Surely there must be some other documents which were not produced. This letter looked so like as if it had been made up in this country, that if those men in Don Pedro's service should do anything, then advantage should be taken of it here. The noble Marquess then proceeded to read several documents to show that Government had not been impartial in their conduct as respected the blockades of Lisbon and Oporto, and that with regard to the former, they had, in the instance of some shipments which were made at Villa Nova, of wines belonging to British merchants, refused to acknowledge the blockade, as they had no means of judging whether or not it would prove effectual. Surely the same argument applied with still more force in the present instance; and that Viscount Palmerston should admit one blockade, and refuse to recognize the other, was, in his opinion, an instance of most gross partiality. He had had the honour to know the gentleman who was now, he believed, called the Marquess of Palmella, and was become, he understood, a strong Constitutionalist and a Liberal. If report spoke true, he was now about to establish a Constitutional government in Portugal. His change was very remarkable—it was only to be compared to that of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Ripon). He remembered the time well when that noble Earl fought under the banners of a lamented relative of his, of whose principles the noble Earl seemed now strangely forgetful. In other circumstances the two cases were alike. Both the noble Lords had received a new office, and, he believed, an additional honour, from their respective Sovereigns But the change in these individuals was not so great as the change which had been made in our foreign policy since the noble Earl was in office with his late relative.
100
There was but one opinion, he believed, of the present policy—at least he knew that the opinion he entertained of it was generally entertained in the City of London. To show the effect of the communication, he should read to their Lordships the following letter which he had received upon the subject from a well-informed person in the City, and which would at once show the opinion that was entertained with respect to this blockade in the mercantile world:—'It is a fact that amidst 'the anomalies of the present day no event' ever excited so much surprise among us merchants in the City as the notice of the 15th. Practical men at the time considered the blockade of Madeira as a wanton outrage upon the commerce of neutral nations, because it was instituted without the smallest chance of attaining the object which alone could warrant a recurrence to so extreme, a measure; because it could not, with such a force as that applied, be rendered either effective or permanent; and finally, because the Government, or Power, thus interrupting the usual pursuits of trade, although in possession of a few vessels of war, had no Courts of Admiralty for the trial of prizes; no means, no consistency, sufficient to make it answerable for the injuries inflicted on neutrals. On these principles the Americans acted, and, in order to show their disapprobation of the interference with their trade by the Madeira blockade, the first of their frigates that visited the spot actually broke it, even without special orders to that effect, and the conduct of the Captain was highly approved of by the Government and people of the United States. And is the same contrast with the conduct of our Government again to be witnessed? Are we to be seen acknowledging a blockade which the Americans, acting on the very same principles which we have taught them, and enforced against them, for the mere protection of their trade, and in vindication of neutral rights, deem it their duty to disavow and break? This letter confirmed him in the opinions which he entertained of the conduct pursued by the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that not only the law of nations but the neutrality declared by the King of this country had been violated. He was the last man disposed to speak of any professional man, or of any public meet-

101
ings, with disrespect, but he could not avoid referring to the meeting which had been held the other day in the City, to consider of the means of rewarding and remunerating an Officer who had gone into the service of Don Pedro against the laws of the country, and been dismissed his Majesty's service. Speaking as a professional man, he was sorry that any such meeting should have been held for any such purpose; and he was sorry that an illustrious Duke (His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex) had presided at that meeting. He hoped he should never forget the respect which was due to that illustrious Duke, who had, on so many occasions, lent his services to promote the cause of charity and benevolence, and who was distinguished by his zeal and attention to whatever served the cause of humanity; but he was sorry that the illustrious Duke should have been advised to preside at such a meeting, or express an opinion on such a subject; for it was necessary that he should take care, and not by his illustrious judgment give countenance to what might be injurious. He had every respect for that illustrious person; but he thought he had a good right to express his opinion of that illustrious person's conduct; and he did feel great regret, as a professional man, that the illustrious Duke should have presided at a meeting, which was intended to reward a British sailor who had broken through the laws of his country. If such meetings were to be held in obedience to the vox populi, and encouraging disobedience to the laws, that must be, he thought, full of danger. To hold out reward for such conduct must be injurious. The illustrious person might himself, by the decree of Providence, be called to the Throne; and then, should persons violate the law, he could not feel otherwise than indignant at proceedings to countenance the violation. Nothing but a strong sense of duty could have induced him to say thus much; for he repeated, that he had great respect for the illustrious Duke, but he could not do otherwise than look at the dangerous consequences of disobeying the King's commands; and he thought it was their especial duty not to separate themselves from the Throne when there was a party continually endeavouring, by eulogizing one, to destroy the other. There was a disposition, too, at that meeting, to run down one of the parties in Portugal, and those who took the side of neutrality,
102
and were not prepared to disobey the laws, were called factious; and it was such imputations which made him take notice of the meeting. He submitted to their Lordships, whether he, as a soldier, could know that rewards were bestowed on a sailor, for breaking the laws, without being induced to make such observations? With respect to the blockade, it appeared as if the noble Earl was entirely ignorant of the subject. He must say, that since the noble Earl had taken the direction of affairs, too much had been left to the Foreign Secretary. If he were to state what he knew, he must say, that he believed there was somebody behind the curtain. He would say, boldly, that he believed Prince Talleyrand was the man who directed the whole foreign policy of this country. From him emanated all our proceedings. He maintained that all our acts were of that nature, that if they were under the direct control of France, they could not be more beneficial than they now were to that Power. He desired, if there were any further official papers, which could be laid on the Table, before the issuing of the notice as to the blockade, to have them, as he wished, before moving for the papers he intended to ask for, to know if the noble Earl had any objections to make to the production of them. He should move, first, for a Copy of the letter sent to Viscount Palmerston, by the Chevalier de Lima, of July 15th, which certainly was the most absurd and stupid letter that he ever read; secondly, he wished to have a Copy of any Communication touching the blockade of Portugal, which had been made to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs before the 25th instant. The noble Marquess concluded by apologizing for having trespassed so long on their Lordships' time, and was sitting down without moving for the papers, when cries of "Move, move!" reminded the noble Lord, and he put his Motion in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who put it from the Woolsack.
Earl Greysaid, he was not prepared that the noble Marquess would bring the statement he had made under the consideration of the House, in moving for the papers. If, however, he was prepared to go into the statement of the noble Marquess, he should regard the nature of the Motion of the noble Marquess as an improper occasion for doing

103
so. He was now not unwilling to go so far as was necessary, and that was only into a narrow field. Throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of a personal and extraneous nature, throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of the general foreign policy of the country, for discussing; which there had already been, and would again be opportunities, throwing aside what the noble Marquess had said of Captain Napier, and the statements he had made of the meeting in the city, he should only require to trespass for a few minutes on their Lordships' time, while he made some remarks on the question of the notice given in the city relative lo the blockade. The noble Marquess said that it was most extraordinary, and he could not understand it, that we, professing neutrality, should have lent ourselves to one party, and that the blockade was one which ought not to have been recognised by this country. There was not, however, one but many examples of this country having followed the very course now objected to by the noble Marquess, he was one of the last men who would oppose those principles of the public and general laws of nations which had been so well laid down by the able and learned civilian who had so long presided in our Admiralty Courts. He subscribed entirely to the doctrine that a blockade, to be respected, must be effectual, and that none other was effectual. The question was, whether the blockade was effectual? The first inquiry of all was, what had been done? Upon the communication made to the Foreign Office by a person signing himself, not as the noble Earl said, but as the Agent of the Portuguese Regency, a notice was given at Lloyd's that such a blockade was to be instituted. The letter might be, as the noble Marquess said, absurd and stupid, though he did not know on what ground the noble Marquess found fault with it; certainly there were some expressions in it which might as well not have been used. But what he had to do with was the substance of the letter which announced a blockade. As he had stated, that letter intimated that the Queen's Government had come to a resolution to blockade Lisbon and all the ports of Portugal. The noble Marquess said, why was a notice given when it could not be supposed that there was any means of carrying the blockade into effect? The noble Marquess stated that
104
the Regency had not the means of making the blockade legal and effectual. But were there no means? Had not the Queen a naval force, which had just gained a signal victory, and annihilated the naval force of Don Miguel? A few days would be sufficient to refit that victorious fleet, and enable it to establish a blockade. Nobody could believe that an officer of the great capabilities of M. de Ponza, who had just distinguished himself by his great exploits, would be unable to equip his squadron in the bay of Lagos, or would be idle there, and be unable to carry the blockade into effect. A few days would suffice. The noble Duke had said formerly, that it would not require much time to fit out the squadron. It should be remembered that the squadron had sustained little damage—that there had been no cannonading, and the ships were carried by boarding. One of the best of those ships had surrendered without firing a shot; and he could not believe that the mere transfer of another to her could prevent her from proceeding immediately to establish the blockade. Having the power, then, to establish that blockade, and notice of the intention having been given to the Secretary of State, he did not see what could be done but to give the notice of that to Lloyd's, for the convenience of our merchants and ships. It was said, that we were neutral, and ought not to have acknowledged the blockade; but it was established by the laws of nations, that when two parties divided a country, a third Power was bound to treat each of the two as if it were an independent Sovereign State. Each of those parties had the same rights towards other States as an independent nation, and Great Britain had acted on this principle. In the case of the South American States, long before they were separated from Spain, we had acknowledged the blockade they instituted against Spain. The same was the case in the month of July, 1827, when we acknowledged the blockade instituted by the Greeks against some of the dominions of the Ottoman Porte, though we were then in friendship with that Power. Before the present Ministers were in office, the blockade of Madeira, instituted by the Regency of Don Pedro, had been acknowledged, though that Prince had no vessels to carry it into effect. On the 28th of July a notice had been given to the Secretary of State for

105
Foreign Affairs, by Viscount Santarem, that his Majesty had declared that the port of Funchal in Madeira, was about to be blockaded. On the receipt of that information, the noble Earl opposite (Aberdeen) directed Lord Dunglas to write to Lloyd's, to inform the underwriters that an effective blockade had been declared by the Government of Don Pedro. It was announced as effective, when there was only an intention to institute such a blockade, and the ships had not sailed from port that were to carry it into effect. The two cases were similar, though in the former there was not such an effective force as was at Lagos, and a similar notice had been then given as was given respecting the blockade of Lisbon. The Ministers having therefore received the letter which had been sent by the Chevalier de Lima on the subject, they, consistent with the usual practice, could not do otherwise than send a notice to Lloyd's of the blockade. The noble Earl concluded by alluding to what the noble Marquess had said of the conduct of Lord Palmerston, on whose exertions and zeal in his office he bestowed the highest praise, and declared, that for all the steps taken, he was, sharing in them by his counsel and advice, as fully responsible as any man could be. He did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships any further, particularly as they must be anxious to proceed to the more important business before them.
The Duke of Wellingtonagreed with the definition which had been given of an effective blockade. At the same time their Lordships should consider, that it was the habit of the Government of this country to give great facility to the formation of blockades. We had ourselves carried them to a great extent during war, and had therefore been obliged to give facility to others. But he believed that it was essentially necessary, to constitute an effective blockade, that there should be an actual blockade. To make a blockade effective, too, notice must be given, and no capture could be made unless the vessels were warned off. The warning might be given in different manners. Some powers required that the warning should be given in the strongest manner, namely, by the authority of the Government; holding it illegal to capture vessels till such a warning had been given. When, therefore, a government
106
received notice of a blockade, and gave a warning to its subjects, that warning rendered them liable to capture, and therefore before a government gave such notice, it was necessary that it should be quite sure that means existed to carry the blockade into effect. The noble Earl (Grey) had referred to an opinion of his on a former occasion; but several days had since elapsed, and they had not yet heard that Lisbon was actually blockaded. But it was not only Lisbon to which the notice was applied; it extended to all the coast and ports of Portugal. Even, therefore, if the one 74-gun ship was ready, she could not make an effectual blockade of the whole coast of Portugal. Me was ready to admit the skill and gallantry of Captain Napier, but denied that even with his resources, he was able to institute a blockade of the whole of Portugal. The Government, before giving the notice, should have inquired into the means possessed by Don Pedro of carrying it into effect. Since the news had first come, he had had time to make further inquiries. He had some doubts at first about the letter of the Chevalier de Lima, and he must confess, that his doubts had since been strengthened. The Chevalier stated, that he had on that day received orders to notify the blockade; but he begged their Lordships to look at dates. The Birmingham steamer left Lagos on the 6th, the action having taken place on the 5th, and that steamer carried the news of the battle to Oporto; but how did she communicate it? Why she sent it on board a transport, and had no communication with the shore. That vessel reached Falmouth on the 12th, and on the 15th the news of the action reached London. On the 16th, the Government sent to Lloyd's the notice of the blockade. He said, then, that no letters could have come by the Birmingham steamer from Oporto, and he believed that there were no letters from Oporto by any other conveyance. If these were the facts, was it not incumbent on the Government to make inquiries into the source of the Chevalier de Lima's information before noticing the blockade? With respect to the letter of the Chevalier de Lima, it contained the extraordinary expressions: "He congratulated the noble Viscount on a victory which was equally honourable to the two Crowns;" which expressions, as addressed to a neutral government, were

107
the most extraordinary he had ever read. Some notice should be taken of the letter, and he was sure the noble Earl could not refuse the information asked.
The Earl of Riponobserved, that the object of Government was merely to communicate the fact of the blockade as a warning to British merchants, who, if it had been withheld, might have suffered grievous wrongs. If no notice had been given, and a single ship were taken, how vociferously, as usual, would the noble Marquess have complained of the conduct of Ministers? It was a lamentable thing that, in questions affecting the public interest, the noble Marquess should think it equally agreeable to himself and the House to introduce some poor personalities. The noble Marquess had accused him of forgetting his obligations to the late Marquess of Londonderry, and of having abandoned the principles of that statesman. He would use the words formerly addressed by a noble Lord on the other side, to the noble Marquess—"I do not take your representation of the opinions of the late Lord Londonderry." He well remembered that rebuke, and now repeated it in his own person. When the noble Marquess sneered at him because his Majesty had beep pleased to elevate him in the Peerage, he asked whether the Noble Marquess himself had never received honours from the Sovereign? Did he grudge the noble Marquess those honours? No; and, above all, the first honour which he had received for his military services. He wished to say nothing of the circumstances under which that honour was conferred, nor of his own humble share in it. He would only add, that if the noble Marquess taunted him with having been raised to a higher rank in the peerage, at least his conscience was without reproach of having done anything to depreciate the honour he had received.
The Earl of Aberdeencontended, that the whole blockade transaction was most irregular, and he might almost say wholly unprecedented. The noble Earl had attempted to show that the announcement by the late Government of the intended blockade of Funchal was a case in point; but this was a case which differed from if in several important particulars, one of the principal of which had been noticed by the noble Earl himself—namely, that the then Government had announced that blockade on the authority of a Decree of
108
the Portuguese Government, a power which was in a condition to enforce the blockade. In the present instance, no such decree had been passed by Don Pedro's Government; and with the Portuguese Government which, however unstable it might be, of, however vituperated by some noble Lords, was still the government de facto, we were called upon to observe our ancient faith and treaties. The point was, that no official announcement of any blockade had been made; for the Chevalier de Lima, however respectable a character in himself, held no official position, at any rate in regard to this country, whatever post he might hold in the so-styled Regency of Portugal. Our Government had no right to act upon other than strictly official documents. In point of fact, the whole of this Portuguese affair was nothing but a stock-jobbing concern, the mysteries of which he did not very well understand, not being acquainted with the exact nature of the varieties of Scrip, Stock, Bonds, and so on; all he knew was, that the effect of this unjustifiable proceeding on the part of Ministers was, that several persons had been entirely ruined. Ministers had been most culpable in acting thus, without the slightest evidence that this was a bona fide or honest affair. There was no such haste made in declaring the blockade of Oporto. In the present case, indeed, the fact was not even published of there being a blockade at all. It was merely on a presumptive, a conditional blockade of all the Portuguese ports; so that the British merchants remained in as great a state of ignorance, suspense, and danger, as ever. Yet, though these traders were still kept in total ignorance as to what ports would be safe for them to send vessels to, and what ports would be dangerous to communicate with, all claims on the part of our merchants for losses sustained were to be put an end to by this declaration—not of a fact, but of a presumption. He admitted the conduct and courage of Captain Napier; but he regretted that the action, in which that officer and his men made so gallant a display of English valour and skill, was entirely in contravention of a neutrality which Parliament collectively, and the King in person, had so solemnly vowed to observe. In fact, the whole armament would appear to have been equipped and sent forth by a select company of Jew Stock Jobbers, whose views were merely

109
those of personal advantage, and the effect of whose speculation would be as highly injurious to the interests of this country, as it would be favourable to France. Independently of the gross breach of faith on our parts, and our national interests, which would suffer severely, it was perfectly absurd to attempt to force upon the Portuguese a prince whom they detested, and a Constitution they did not even understand. He trusted, however, that the noble Earl would, on consideration, be better advised than to commit such a gross breach of faith, and to engage in so mistaken a line of policy.
The Duke of Sussexrose in consequence of the noble Earl's (Earl Vane's) allusion to him. He had often heard the noble Earl address the House, and allude to a variety of topics in rather a desultory manner, therefore he did not feel surprised at the noble Earl having mixed up his name with the question of Portugal. The noble Earl wished to censure him for attending a meeting relative to Captain Napier. Differing from the noble Earl as he did in sentiment, he declined to take a leaf out of his political or diplomatic epitome. He was ready to answer to the country for what he did, but would not be dictated to by any man. He had attended the meeting because an attempt was made to crush the national feeling of pride expressed at the conduct of Captain Napier, and he wished to bear testimony to that gentleman's private character. The noble Earl said he spoke as a soldier; he (the Duke of Sussex) respected soldiers, but he was somewhat jealous of them, and conceived that when any man put his blue coat on and walked through the streets, he had a right to entertain his private opinions without being influenced by professional motives. He had stood forward to show respect to an individual of great merit and ability, who had achieved an action which he hoped would soon set the question of the sovereignty of Portugal at rest. He would act precisely in the same way if the thing was to be done again. He was responsible to no man; and if be had acted contrary to public opinion, he should not have been worthy of the seat which he held in that House.
The Earl of Eldoncould not admit that the illustrious Duke, or any other noble Lord, was at liberty to counteract the determination of the Sovereign to maintain strict neutrality between this country and
110
Portugal, No man on earth more respected and admired the gallantry of Captain Napier; but he had subjected himself to dismissal from his Majesty's service, and, therefore, it did not become the illustrious Duke, or any other Peer, by supporting that individual, to assist in counteracting his Majesty's declaration.
The Duke of Sussexhad done nothing to counteract his Majesty's wishes; he merely attended the meeting to express his opinion of the bravery and high character of Captain Napier. Would the noble Earl tell him, if this event had not taken place, that there were not Peers in their Lordships' House who would have enlisted officers and men to assist the opposite party in Portugal? He had heard reports to that effect, and he believed that they were perfectly well known. ["Name, name."] He was ready to name the steamer that had been engaged and the officer who was to command it.
The Marquess of Londonderry: The illustrious Duke spoke of Peers, will he have the goodness to name them.
The Earl of Eldonamidst cries of "Order," told the illustrious Duke, that anybody who pleased might countenance acts of disobedience to the Sovereign, but he would resist from first to last any such attempt.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, the illustrious Duke had stated that there were Peers in that House, who were ready to enlist forces to serve on the other side. He called upon the illustrious Duke to name those Peers. The illustrious Duke had expressed an opinion in which he begged leave, with all respect, to differ from him. The illustrious Duke said, that he respected the army and navy, but was jealous of the army; adding, however, that he thought when a man had put on his blue coat, he had a right to act and think as his private opinion should dictate. He combated this proposition, and asserted, that no man belonging to army or navy, whether he were a blue or a red coat, had a right to do any act contrary to the law of the land. The illustrious Duke's argument went to this—that, in defiance of the Sovereign, any man in the army or navy in a blue coat, had a right to do whatever he thought expedient according to his private opinions. He submitted that was a very false and untenable doctrine, and against the law of the land.
The Duke of Sussexwould be the last

111
man in the kingdom to indirectly encourage a violation of the laws of the land. He thought his character placed him above such an insinuation as that thrown out by the noble Earl; and he must say, that he thought the attack of the noble Duke unfair. It was contrary to the rules of debate to introduce the name of the Sovereign irrelevantly; and yet it was done that night over and over again. When he first became a Member of that House, such informalities would not be sanctioned. He repeated what he had stated before—namely, that his presiding on a recent occasion was merely to testify his admiration of the chivalrous valour of British seamen. He also repeated, that he had only referred to the reports which were bruited abroad respecting the interference of Peers on the side of Don Miguel; and not being cognizant of the facts themselves, he did not feel authorized to name the Peers referred to.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, if the illustrious Duke disavowed the meaning which those who heard him attributed to his words, he, of course, was bound to believe him; but certainly the impression of his auditors was, that he distinctly alluded to certain Peers.
Earl Greysaw not on what grounds the present Motion was founded. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that foreign powers at war with a power at peace with us had, again and again, sought and fitted out armaments in this country; and all that the Government did was, to preserve a strict neutrality. Then they were all aware that it was by no means unusual for meetings to be held, and subscriptions to be entered into, in favour of some foreign object appearing meritorious to the parties, and not meetings on one side only, but on both sides, according to the views of the parties. They must recollect the meetings which had been held in favour of the Poles, when that brave but unfortunate people were engaged in their struggle against despotism; when every encouragement was held out to men engaged in a just cause. The great principle for the Government to observe in all these instances was the preservation of strict neutrality; and this they had observed in the contest between Don Miguel and the Queen Donna Maria. Both parties had fitted out armaments in our ports, and certainly, at least, as much zeal was displayed by the agents of Don Miguel,
112
as by those of Don Pedro. With respect to the question of the blockade, all he need then observe was, that it would be contrary to the law of nations if a blockade was declared which could not be enforced; and though it certainly appeared impossible at present to enforce the blockade along the whole line of coast, it should be recollected that Don Pedro held Oporto in the north, while the array of Donna Maria held the south of that country. He could not say then, whether it would be convenient to produce the papers; and, therefore, trusted the noble Marquess would not press his Motion.
The Marquess of Londonderrywould, certainly, press for the production of the papers.
The Duke of Clevelandsaid, that he merely rose to express his opinion and feelings of admiration of the conduct of his Majesty's Government in regard to their general policy, but more especially in regard to their foreign policy. He had frequently heard unqualified attacks from the other side of the House made upon the Government on the subject of Portugal; but he did not conceive, under all the difficulties with which they had to contend, that they could have acted differently from what they had done; and he thought that their conduct in regard to that country redounded much to their honour. He took that opportunity, not only as a Peer of the Realm, but as an individual having some property at stake, and as an independent man, to thank them for keeping the country at peace. It frequently happened that party feeling was mixed up with the debates in that House, to the exclusion of the consideration of the advantage or disadvantage of the country; and he thought that such was the case at present. He was a friend to the Government, and should be happy to be able on every occasion to support the Ministers; but if their measures were likely, in his opinion, to be injurious to the interests of the State, he would not give them his support. And he believed that it was to the neutrality observed by the Government in the dispute between the two parties in Portugal that the country was indebted for being now in peace. If any infringement of that neutrality had taken place, he was convinced it would have involved us in war. He thought that Ministers, therefore, deserved great credit for the policy which they had pursued.
Earl Greywished to state that he had received no notice of the intention of the noble Marquess to move for these papers, and therefore, was not prepared to grant them.
The Marquess of Londonderry, after the observation of the noble Earl, would withdraw his Motion.
The Lord Chancellorwould trouble their Lordships with a few words in connexion with what had fallen from the noble Earl regarding the blockade. He would beg of them to remark that a blockade might be merely notified to the Government of a country without being an effective blockade; or it might be notified to individuals, or it might be a complete and effective blockade, and all this might be made a question in considering whether captures made in consequence of such blockade were legal captures according to the laws of nations or not. It was admitted on all hands, that in order that a blockade should be legal, and all vessels captured in consequence of it should be captured legally, the blockade itself should be an effective blockade. But notice of a blockade having been given to a Government, that Government should always be ready to communicate the notice to individuals who might be injured from ignorance of the blockade; and it would always be better to give notice even when such notice was unnecessary, than to lead individuals into a mistake by not attending to the notice given, from the supposition that the blockade would not be effective. The mere notice, however, would not make the blockade legal, nor the capture legal, unless the blockade was at the same time effective.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that notwithstanding the brilliant victory achieved by Captain Napier, the whole of the regency fleet could not effectually blockade Lisbon. It was, therefore, to be regretted, that the notice had been given, as the effect would be, that the whole of the trade with Portugal would be suspended, without there being an effectual blockade after all.
Motion withdrawn.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved the third reading of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
The Marquess of Headfortconsidered this to be a conservative measure. It had
114
been argued on the other side that this was a measure of spoliation. Upon a balance of evils it could not be so considered: for if such a Bill were not passed, much greater spoliation would take place. He would give the Bill his cordial support.
The Earl of Eldonspoke from the experience of a long life when he said, that the prosperity of this country was inseparably intervoven with the maintenance of an established religion. The Protestant religion he considered to be the best form of religion: and he had no more doubt than he had of his own existence, now drawing very near to a close, that the present Bill was calculated to undermine the established religion of this country. He had not formed his opinion without exercising the most careful consideration; but, having formed it, his duty was to act fearlessly upon it. Having given the best consideration in his power to the subject, he was convinced that it was the duty of every subject to maintain the Established Church of the country as an institution which was material to the benefit of the State. Such was the opinion he had formed, and if there was any mistake in it he had not been able to find it out. The destruction of this Church could not be effected without the consent of Parliament, and he, for one, would never give his consent. He hoped the argument that this was a measure calculated to strengthen the Church by its liberality would not prevail in that House. He held religious belief to be a thing between God and a man's own conscience; but it must, at the same time, be allowed that a man having acquired the liberty of his own conscience, was not therefore permitted to disturb the national peace and the national conscience. If he had not misread history, it was the opinion of men as pious and learned as any now existing—men too who were Dissenters from the Established Church, that the best protection of the Dissenters was the existence of an established form of worship. Now, his first objection to this Bill was, that it removed the payment of the Vestry-cess, and placed it upon a different class of persons. He objected to this as taking from the country the liability to give that support to the Church which, he contended, every man was bound to give. Whatever might be the opinion of their Lordships as to the religious feeling of the community, they might rely upon it that if the

115
principle of non-payment of rates because of a difference in religious belief were once established, many would be found to leave the Church for the purpose of evading the burthen. If that Bill had, as he thought it had, the tendency to support the Catholic Church of Ireland, then he must say, that the Union between the two countries never would have taken place if this measure could have been foreseen. The Protestants of Ireland never would have given their consent to the measure of the Union if they could have anticipated such an attack upon the Established Protestant Church. This Bill, he contended, was a direct fraud upon the Protestants of Ireland; he could give it no other name. His next objection to the Bill was, that it laid a tax upon the clergy. Nothing could be imagined more unfair or more destructive to the Church than such a course. An Established Church was a prop to the State; and if that prop were taken away, the State itself would sink. He contended that by this Bill they were taking away the main prop of the State; and they were acting in fraud of the Protestants of Ireland, who never would have assented to the Union could they have foreseen the introduction of this measure into the united Parliament. He could not help looking back to the Bill of 1829, the Catholic Relief Bill, introduced by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), as the cause of the present measure. He had opposed that Bill with the utmost sincerity. With the same sincerity he opposed the present Bill. Whether he was right in his views or not it was not for him to pronounce; but he must say, that he could not help feeling that that Bill of 1829 was the cause of the present one. Looking at the present state of Ireland, and especially to the number of Roman Catholic Bishops in that country, he must add, that he would rather increase than diminish the number of Protestant Bishops. Year after year sums of money were very properly voted for the building of churches in India. Protestant churches were erected with this money. But if Dissenters were not to contribute, how was the money henceforth to be raised? He would say nothing upon the subject of the Coronation Oath; but, he declared that he would rather forego his existence than support a bill which, in his opinion, was calculated to destroy the established Church of Ireland.
The Earl of Longfordadmitted, that when the Bill came into the House it had some good points, and that it had acquired others in the Committee. But it proceeded upon principles which he maintained were perfectly unjustifiable. He was persuaded that if it came into operation, it would not do the good that was expected from it, and would do material injury. He should like to see a new bill brought forward, comprehending all the good, and excluding fill the bad parts of the measure; to the third reading of this Bill he would give his hearty opposition.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he would not be drawn into a discussion on the Catholic question in consequence of what had fallen from the noble and learned Earl (Eldon). The noble and learned Earl attributed the present measure to the Act of 1829; but many events occurred between 1829 and 1833, and even previous to 1829, which might account for the measure. He would not, however, discuss the question at that moment, and therefore would proceed at once to the Bill before the House. When the Bill stood for a second reading, he stated that he would not object to it going into a Committee, although he objected to its principle in many respects. The measure had undoubtedly been improved in Committee, as his noble friend and relation (the Earl of Longford) had stated, in some material points; but there still remained much objectionable matter in the Bill, and much to which he was decidedly opposed sin principle. In the first place, he objected decidedly to the Repeal of the assessments for Church purposes. He doubted very much whether the assessment ought to have been repealed, though the mode of levying it might have been altered. It had been found difficult, if not impossible, to levy the assessment, principally on account of the conspiracy which existed in Ireland against, not only that assessment, but every description of Church-property, and which the noble Lords opposite were much deceived if they thought they had got the better of. It was true that overt acts of disturbance were put down by the measure which Parliament passed in the spring; but he doubted much whether the conspiracy had been got the better of, and whether the Government yet felt themselves strong enough to carry into execution those measures which were necessary to restore to

117
the clergy and the laity that description of property hitherto known under the name of tithes. At present tithes were annihilated in Ireland, owing to the existence of the conspiracy to which he had alluded. He thought, that the Church-cess should be continued and levied on the land instead of the people. It was, however, most unjust to make the ministers of the Church themselves pay all the expenses attendant on the performance of divine worship, and he was certain that this object could not be carried into execution as the Bill now stood. He objected strongly to the sale in perpetuity of Bishops' lands. This was a circumstance which would deteriorate the position of the Church. Another objection which he had to the Bill was, that it put an end to more bishoprics than were necessary, even for the purpose which was professed by the measure. He freely confessed that it might be desirable to put an end to certain dioceses; but to put an end to them for the purpose of raising money in order to relieve the country from the payment of Church-cess was a thing of which he never could approve. But the worst provision of the Bill was that which went to levy a tax on the clergy on a graduated scale. The noble Lord opposite had said, that this system of taxation was founded on the First Fruits; and that the amount would be nearly that of the First Fruits, according to a new calculation. If that was really the object, nothing could be worse contrived to carry it into effect. According to the system of First Fruits, every clergyman paid the value of his living for the first year. If the value was 300 l., he paid 300 l.; if 500 l., he paid 500 l.; if 1,500 l., he paid 1,500 l. But according to the Bill, a clergyman whose living was of the value of 300 l. would pay only two and a-half per cent; while a clergyman whose living was of the value of 1,500 l. would pay fifteen per cent. If the noble Lord wished to relieve the lower ranks of the clergy, let him do so; but it ought not to be at the expense of the higher, or in any other way than in a fair proportion. To any just measure of augmenting small livings, he should have no objection; but to the present he certainly did object. It was a matter of importance that men of education and character should be induced to enter the Church by the hope of obtaining some of the large prizes; but if clergymen were to be subjected to a
118
lax of fifteen per cent, and the number of bishoprics should be reduced from twenty-two to twelve, this inducement would no longer exist, particularly as, from the various compositions which had been adopted, no large amount of tithes could now be levied, if indeed tithes should ever be paid again. He could not but feel that the Bill was, in a variety of its details, injurious to the clergy, and he had no doubt that sooner or later it would be found necessary to adopt some measure in order to relieve the Church from some of the burthens which were imposed upon it by the present Bill. Although, however, he disapproved of many of the provisions of the Bill, it was impossible for him, with the opinions which he entertained of the necessity that existed for some measure of this description, to concur in a vote against the third reading of the Bill. The more he considered the situation of the Church of Ireland, the more he was convinced of the necessity of agreeing to the present measure in the absence of a better. For three years past, the ministers of the Church of Ireland had received no tithes, and they were now depending on the Government, and a vote of the other House of Parliament, for their subsistence. Owing to an arrangement which was made last year in the other House of Parliament, the Bishops had not this year received their fines, which formed two-thirds of their income. It might be asked whether the measure was likely to ensure security and tranquillity to the Church. It was impossible for him to answer that question; but of this he was certain—that sooner or later the measure must be altered in order to afford relief to the Church. For the present the Bill would give the Church breathing time, and enable it to continue its beneficial labours for some time longer. Many persons thought, that as the Bill was not likely to produce all the benefit which the noble Lords opposite predicted, it ought upon principle to be opposed; but his opinion was, that they ought to do that which was best for the Church, and which would enable it to continue in existence.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it was painful to him to differ from his noble friend who had just addressed the House; and though he admitted that the Bill had been in some respects improved in Committee, the objections which he entertained to it were not in the slightest degree removed, for he

119
objected to its principle. He thought the measure was one of injustice as well as impolicy; and great as might be the danger of rejecting it, he contemplated no danger so great in the present position of the House and the country as that which would result from their acting with injustice. They were told that the Bill was a measure of relief to the Irish Church—he wished he could consider it so. It was unusual, at least, to tax those whom they professed to relieve. In what particular was the situation of the Irish clergy to be improved? They were at present by law entitled to their tithes, but they were deprived of them by the state of Ireland. Would this Bill improve the condition of that country? Would the Catholics be conciliated by the paltry boon of five farthings in the pound? They had frankly declared, that they would take any boon, however small, on account. They undoubtedly valued the present Bill; but for what? For the principle which it contained, and which they thought dangerous to the Church of England, and therefore useful to themselves. He considered the Bill a delusion, and that it would not answer the expectation of its framer. He was convinced, from the consideration which he had given the subject, that there would be a material deficiency in the financial results anticipated from the measure. It appeared to him that the noble Earl's estimate of the revenue that would be obtained under the operation of the Bill was too much by 36,000 l. a-year. In consequence of lessees having the privilege of referring the question to arbitration in cases where they considered the Bishop's fines too high, he believed not half the number of purchasers in perpetuity would be obtained. The present Bill was not brought forward as a measure of Church Reform—it came before their Lordships as a rider to a money Bill. The Bill would conciliate nobody. Whoever heard of injustice and violence being conciliated by concession? The Bill was a bill of ransom—a payment of black mail to the agitators. There was no security that the measures would be adopted, after the passing of the Bill, which ought to have been adopted before. He said it with regret, that he felt no security that the resolution which had passed the Commons for insuring the clergy payment for the tithes due during the last three years would be reduced into a law. After
120
the manner in which the Government had abandoned a most material part of the West-India measure, to which they were pledged, he could no longer place confidence in them, or in the House of Commons which sanctioned their proceedings. The Bill was a triumph to the Catholics, and an act of humiliation, if not spoliation, to the Protestants. In the present position of public affairs, there was no other hope of safety but in acting firmly and, above all, justly. From justice he never would depart, and he feared their Lordships would long rue the day when, in the apprehension of danger to the Church, they were induced to depart from the line of true policy, which was that of justice.
The Duke of Gloucestersaid, that he had not opposed the second reading of the Bill, in the hope that it would be so amended in Committee as to enable him to vote for it being passed into a law. Although he must admit, that the measure had been considerably improved in Committee, yet he felt that it was not sufficiently amended to enable him conscientiously to vote for the third reading.
The Duke of Buckinghamhad come to a determination to oppose the third reading of the measure upon the arguments stated in its favour by the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington). He wished to know on what grounds the measure had been brought forward? They were told, that it was to support the Church of Ireland, but the Church of Ireland shrunk from the measure. They were told that it was required by the interests of the Protestants of Ireland, and the Protestants of Ireland eschewed the measure. Then they were told, that it was for the benefit of the Church of the United Empire, and the Church of the united Empire rejected the measure. What single petition had come before their Lordships in favour of the passing of this Bill from either of those parties he had yet to be told. He had certainly thought, that not a voice had been raised, not a hand had signed a petition, calling upon their Lordships to pass this measure which was so indispensable to the support of the Church of the United Empire. Upon a former occasion, when there was a vociferous call for another measure, their Lordships were told it must be passed, because the people demanded it. Now they were told this measure was unavoidable, and the people were silent. He maintained, that either the arguments of

121
his Majesty's Government were in the first instance wrong, or their position must now be false. He had before called the measure one of spoliation, and he repeated, that it was spoliation. He objected to it also, because it had been publicly declared—avowed—to be but a preliminary step; and that too on high authority, on authority which he thought had been too much attended to. He would ask, when they had passed this Bill for Ireland, what right would they have to refuse to adopt the same principle in England? The Dissenters would soon tell them that they would not pay Church-rates if the Catholics were to be relieved from it. Nay, the resistance had already begun; in the very metropolis it was at this moment in operation. Combinations had been effectually entered into to prevent the payment of rates, and when the principle should have been sanctioned by the passing of that Bill the extent to which it must soon spread might be easily conceived. With this evidence before him it was impossible for him to suffer the Bill to pass without opposition, and he trusted the House would do its duty and take the same course. If the Church must fall, let it at least be after a defence had been made for it worthy of such an institution. If it must be swept away with everything else that ought to be sacred when the torrent of innovation overspread the land, let it not be by the delinquency of those whose duty it was to be its natural defenders. Upon these grounds he should move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The Marquess of Lansdownobserved, that the noble Duke had been under the necessity of adverting to topics which were not even remotely connected with the argument. When the noble Duke talked of the opposition made by the Dissenters to the payment of the Church-rate, did he remember, that that opposition was made and followed up long before there was any probability of a Bill like the present? He would ask the noble Duke in his turn, whether he did not think that the throwing out of the Bill would have the effect of redoubling the opposition of the Dissenters to the payment of the Church-rate? It was not a measure of spoliation, but, in his conscience, he believed a measure of a protective character; a measure which, he hoped, might enable the Church of Ireland to regain its just position. The
122
noble Duke had adverted to a former argument that the expression of public opinion was necessary to any great measure. To public opinion attention ought certainly to be paid; but the vociferation of that opinion was by no means requisite. The removal of Church-cess was indispensable to the quiet of Ireland, and yet the noble Lord got up to tell them that this Bill was not called for, and that the abolition of Church-cess was a measure of spoliation. He quite agreed with the noble Duke that any tax to be levied on the present incumbents should be an equal tax. But the fact was, that no such tax on existing incumbents as that adverted to by the noble Duke, was contemplated. The argument of the noble Duke, therefore, fell to the ground; for surely there could be no injustice committed against future incumbents, who would accept their livings with the perfect knowledge of the charges to which they were subject. After the abolition of Church-cess was provided for, no other portion of the property of the Church was diverted from ecclesiastical purposes; but, on the contrary, was to be applied solely to the purpose of giving greater efficiency and security to the Church Establishment; and yet this was the measure which was branded as a measure of spoliation. He was convinced that the tendency of the Bill would be to rally all Protestants round the Church Establishment, and that even the respectable portion of the Roman Catholics would no longer hesitate to pay towards the support of a church, the abuses of which were cut away, and the pastors of which would no longer stand in the objectionable position which they at present occupied. It was, therefore, his earnest hope that this Bill might pass into a law, convinced as he was that its passing would facilitate the progress of those other measures which he agreed with the noble Lord opposite were essentially necessary to the security and welfare of the Established Church of Ireland.
Lord Wynfordagreed in the propriety of getting rid of the Church-cess, but objected to the mode in which it was proposed to be effected. He thought it most unjust to relieve the land of that impost and throw it entirely on the clergy. The only argument which he had heard at all calculated to induce him to vote for the Bill, was one which dropped from aright reverend Prelate opposite early in the debate—namely, that

123
the passing of this measure was the only mode of securing a provision for the Church of Ireland. He was certainly most anxious to secure this provision; but he felt confident that this Bill would by no means secure it. In his opinion the Bill was a violation of the Articles of Union, and he should feel it his duty to give his vote against the third reading.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that if he could agree with the noble and learned Lord who had preceded him in thinking that the Bill under consideration contained a violation of the Act of Union, or if he could agree with other noble Lords in thinking that the Bill contained a violation of the Coronation Oath, he would most certainly oppose it, even at that stage, and at whatever risk. He could not however; concur in either of those positions. The provisions of the Bill did not appear to him to involve, a violation of the Act of Union. He admitted, that the Bill altered the fifth article, but he contended, that the alteration was not such as to call for or justify the setting up of the Act of Union as a bar to the passing of this measure. The course he had taken in the Committee clearly showed his opinions of the Bill. He regarded it as unjust, unwise, and unnecessary. Undoubtedly he concurred in thinking that some of the great principles of the Bill were just; but they were most injuriously carried into effect. He thought it most desirable that the mode of levying the Church-rates should be altered. He thought it most prejudicial to the stability, and to the usefulness of the Church in Ireland, that Church-rates should be levied upon the Roman Catholic pauper; but that was no reason why the wealthy noble and the landed proprietor in general should be relieved from the burthen, and the payment cast upon the clergy. If the burthen had been thrown to a fair and just extent upon the landed proprietor, then there would have been a fund for providing for the building of churches, and increasing the stipends of the, poorer parochial clergy. He would say also; that upon ample information, and upon a declaration from the Prime Minister, that he had consulted with the Prelates of the Church in Ireland and that they agreed with him in thinking that some of the emoluments of the hierarchy might beneficially be reduced and applied to the other purposes of the Church, although he should have regretted
124
such a course, he still would have adopted the recommendation. But when he saw, without any information at all, that half the hierarchy were to be suppressed, and that a fund was to be created, which might better have been supplied by other means, he could not but protest against the measure It was true the Bill might have been worse it might have contained an attack upon vested interests; it might have applied the property of the Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes, and by so doing have become a most dangerous precedent for an interference with all private property. And if it had contained any such provisions he was quite sure it would have been rejected. The Bill then was not so bad as it might have been, but it was bad enough to induce him to reject it had it been presented in ordinary times. They, however, lived in times when reason was to be without power—when they were called upon to reason and to adopt a measure, not because in their judgment they approved of it, but because it was laid before them. A great deal had been said against their Lordships doing any thing which might render it necessary for the Ministers to resign office. Upon that subject too much had been said. The matter had been pressed too far. Indeed it had been carried to such lengths as to have made doing anything prejudicial to the political existence of the present Ministers an offence. The plan to compass the King's death was high treason; but now a new doctrine had sprung up, which was, that it was a political crime to destroy the political existence of the present Ministry. But he must say, with all his respect for the noble Lord opposite that consideration would not have operated on his mind, urged even as it had been, to induce him not to reject this Bill. And he must say, with reference to that argument in favour of the measure, that he could not conceive a more mischievous or a more dangerous mode for a Ministry to adopt to preserve themselves in office. Their Lordships had also been told of the great danger of a collision with the House of Commons, and that the rejection of this Bill would lead to such a collision. Few men were ready to sacrifice more largely than he was to avoid all such collision, for he was desirous of giving to the new Constitution a fair trial; but he would never consent to the abandonment of great fundamental principles for the

125
accomplishment of that object. That House must be independent—that House could not consent to be degraded—and therefore, if there were no other extraneous dangers pressing upon his mind than that of a collision with the House of Commons, that would not have been sufficient to induce him not to vote for the rejection of this Bill. They had heard to-night, and at other times, of the existing state of the Church in Ireland. He confessed he had not courage enough to look that question in the face, and vote against the Bill. The Bill did not give an accession of strength to the Church in Ireland but he looked for the preservation of that branch of that Church to other measures which were in progress. Could they hope that those would pass if this were rejected? He feared not; He had heard enough to know, that the greatest anxiety prevailed in Ireland for the passing of this Bill, for it was apprehended that if it did hot pass, those other measures intended for the relief and permanent prosperity of the Church might also be lost. These were the alternatives between which he had to choose; and he would fairly confess, bad as the Bill was, he had not courage to reject it in the face of such great dangers. There were precedents in the Bill which might prove injurious to the Church in England; but what were all those precedents to the destruction of the Church in Ireland? From what he had said it was impossible for him to utter "content" to a Bill with which he was not content at all; and therefore, when the question was put, he should shelter himself, although it was a course he would never follow but on extraordinary occasions by retiring.
Lord Bexleyopposed the third reading. It had been contended, that the Bill was favourable to the Irish clergy; was it favourable to impose on them a tax which properly belonged to the land? Was it favourable to place the management of ecclesiastical affairs, and the control of ecclesiastical property, in the hands of a lay Commission? He denied that the Bill did justice to the clergy of Ireland. He agreed with preceding speakers, that it was a breach of the articles of Union; and the reduction of the revenues of two Bishops, merely because it was assumed that their property was too great, was so much like an Agrarian law, and implied a principle so objectionable, that he could never assent to a Bill mentioning such doctrines.
Their Lordships divided on the Motion, that the Bill be read a third time. Contents (Present 70; Proxies 65) 1;
Not-contents (Present 50; Proxies 31) 81 Majority 54.
A clause was added by way of rider, and the Bill was passed.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

PRESENT.

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Cumberland

Arbuthnot

Gloucester

Strathallan

Beaufort

Sidmouth

Newcastle

Combermere

Buckingham

ARCHBISHOP.

MARQUESSES

Canterbury

Bute

BISHOPS.

Westmeath

Oxford

EARLS.

Gloucester

Winchilsea

Lincoln

Westmoreland

Rochester

Shaftesbury

Exeter

Dartmouth

BARONS.

Abingdon

Hay

Beverley

Gage

Mansfield

Rolle

Digby

Ormonde

Longford

Boston

Mayo

Kenyon

Eldon

Redesdale

Airlie

Ellenborough

Belmore

Bayning

Beauchamp

Bexley

Rosse

Colchester

Orford

Tenterden

Vane

Wynford

Charleville

Penshurst

Limerick

PROXIES.

MARQUESSES.

St. David's

Exeter

Bristol

Thomond

Durham

EARLS.

Carlisle

Graham (Montrose)

Bath and Wells

Poulett

Bangor

Guilford

Clonfert

Onslow

Ossory

Brownlow

BARONS.

Clancarty

Willoughby de Broke

Bradford

Carrington

Enniskillen

Churchill

Powis

Roden

O'Neil

Walsingham

VISCOUNT.

Manners

Exmouth

Sheffield

BISHOPS.

Loftus

Salisbury

Feversham

The following Protests were entered against the third reading of the Bill.
I.
Dissentient—1. Because the repeal of the

127
Church-cess, without any other provision for its necessary purposes than a partial charge on ecclesiastical property only, is calculated not only to establish in Ireland the principle that the service of the Established Church is not entitled to receive any support from the State, but to introduce the same false and pernicious opinion into other parts of the United King, dom.
2. Because the tax intended to be imposed on ecclesiastical benefices as a substitute for the payment of first-fruits is excessive, in proportion to the charge from which the clergy will be relieved, burthen some and oppressive in its amount, especially in the case of the more valuable benefices, and by the adoption of a progressive scale of taxation, encourages the project of a general equalization of property.
3. Because the proposal to invest certain Commissioners, of whom a large proportion may be laymen, and a great majority is to be appointed by, and removable at the pleasure of the Crown, with extensive powers over the whole property of the Church of Ireland, is in principle violent and arbitrary; the authority to be given to the Commissioners oppressive and inquisitorial; and the influence they will possess, both over the clergy and the tenants of Church lands, highly dangerous and unconstitutional.
4. Because the said Commissioners will supersede the functions of the Board of First Fruits, by which more than one-third of the benefices of Ireland has, since the Union, been provided with churches, and will, under the 117th clause, have the power of stopping the presentation to a considerable number of livings; and, therefore, may not only prevent the increase of Protestant places of worship, but permanently deprive many parishes of the benefit of a minister.
5. Because the proposed reduction of the number of Bishops in Ireland is not only highly injurious to the influence and authority of the Established Church, which, from the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, more especially requires support, but is in direct violation of the treaty of Union, and endangers the stability, of the Union by the precedent of a breach of its provisions.
6. Because these dangerous and alarming infringements of long established rights and property will be so far from satisfying those who aim at still greater change, that they will only stimulate the desire for, and facilitate the introduction of, yet more fatal innovations.

BEXLEY

ERNEST

KENYON

ORFORD

WYNFORD

S. ROCHESTER

COLCHESTER

PENSHURST (for the 5th and 6th reasons.)

II.
Dissentient—1. Because his Majesty being bound in his executive and legislative capacity
128
by the Coronation Oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established, within England and Ireland, and the territories thereto belonging, and to preserve unto the Bishops and clergy of England and Ireland, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them; and this Bill being a fundamental alteration of the discipline and government of the Irish Church, and directly invading the rights and privileges of the clergy, it appears to us, that such Bill cannot be passed into a law with a proper observance of the Coronation Oath.
2. Because such Bill is opposed to the wishes and interests of the great body of the clergy in England and Ireland, whilst the people at large have not petitioned or expressed any desire for its adoption.
3. Because it is contrary to all justice and equity to exempt those hitherto properly liable to the payment of the Church-assessments in Ireland, and to impose such burthen arbitrarily on the impoverished Protestant clergy of that country.
4. Because the imposition of a tax on all parochial livings of a certain value in Ireland interferes with the vested rights of the owners of advowsons, by lessening the value of that species of property which they had acquired without such diminution of value.
5. Because the abolition of ten Irish bishoprics appears to us to be an act of spoliation, and to afford a fatal precedent for the future destruction of the whole Protestant hierarchy in that country.
6. Because this Bill in its principles and enactments appears to us as tending to advance the Roman Catholic, and to weaken the Protestant religion in Ireland, both in a temporal and spiritual point of view; and while it prepares the way for future acts of injustice, hardship, and oppression, towards the Protestant clergy there, it gives to the enemies of the Reformed Church increased strength to degrade and impoverish its ministers, to impair its efficiency, and, finally, to establish the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, predominant in wealth and influence.
(Signed)
ERNEST.
III.
Dissentient—1. Because the Bill imposes upon the clergy of Ireland, already defrauded of their rightful property, the new charge of the Church-cess, heretofore borne by the land, which is at once a mockery and a wrong.
2. Because this charge will absorb so much of the fund to be provided by taxing the clergy, that for many years no part of that fund, and at no time any considerable part of it, will be applicable to the proposed improvement of small livings; so that to injustice is added delusion;
3. Because the Bill suppresses ten bishoprics,

129
not for purposes of Reform, but for purposes of finance, in order to supply the deficiency created by an act of injustice.
4. Because the Bill, affording an unworthy triumph to the Roman Catholics over the law they have distorted, and the clergy they have persecuted, encourages future aggressions; while, failing in its professed objects by the inadequacy and fallacy of its financial provisions, it humiliates the Protestants without contributing to the future efficiency of the Established Church.
ELLENBOROUGH.