Lords Sitting of 11 May 1847

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Howard de Walden.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Naval Service of Boys; Drainage of Lands.
Received the Royal Assent.—Customs Duties; Commons Inclosure (No. I); Prisons (Ireland); Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From James Haughton, of Dublin, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, and praying that all Revenue derived from so objectionable a Source may be relinquished.—From Bradford and several other places, in favour of the Factories Bill.—From Donegal, in favour of a Fixture of Tenure in Land, and for an Equitable Compensation for Improvements effected thereon by the Occupying Tenant.

SUPPLY OF FOOD IN THE COUNTRY.
The EARL of HARDWICKE, in rising to put the questions of which he had given notice, respecting the quantity of corn at present in the country, stated, that it was strongly impressed on his mind that the supply of wheat which we possessed was

671
not sufficient to sustain our population until the next harvest came in. He was led to this conclusion by the rapid decrease of wheat in his own county, and by all the inquiries which he had made as to the general supply throughout the country. In his neighbourhood, in Cambridge, Huntingdon, Ely, and Royston, the corn markets had been recently attended by buyers from France and Belgium, who had purchased so largely, that in one week corn rose from 96 s. to 120 s. per quarter; and, as a further proof of the correctness of the view which he took, he could refer their Lordships to a document which had been placed in his hands. It could not be considered official or authentic; for, unfortunately, they had no means of obtaining such information; but it appeared that some person or persons had endeavoured to ascertain an accurate statement of the condition of food in the country, and had written to accredited persons in the different counties for that purpose. From the statement that had been made in answer to those applications, he should select the places that were in the worst condition, though in selecting those he might assure their Lordships that the condition of the rest was extremely bad. Supposing that the harvest in Scotland last year was of such an extent that, at the commencement of autumn there was enough housed to last until the next harvest came in, as there were now two-thirds of a year elapsed, there ought to be in Scotland at present one-third of the supply of the whole year, or sufficient for four months' consumption; but from the document which he held in his hand it did not appear that such was the case. In Perthshire, it appeared, from the statement of Mr. Playfair, of the Carse of Gowrie, that there was only one-tenth of the wheat of last harvest left; in Lanarkshire, as stated by Mr. D. Gairdner, of Hamilton, one-eighth; in Mid Lothian, as stated by Mr. J. Finnie, of Swanston, there was little for disposal; in East Lothian, as stated by Mr. J. Bruce, of Waughton, the quantity much under the usual stock; in Fife, one-third; in Roxburghshire, one-sixth, according to the account of Mr. J. Brodie, of Hawick; in Wigton, almost all was gone, as stated by Mr. A. H. M'Lean, Stranraer; in Ayrshire, about one-eighth, as stated by Mr. Tennant, of Shields by Ayr; in Stirling, one-sixth; in Forfarshare, one-fourth. That was the state of the supply in Scotland as regarded home produce; and the following list, with the names of those on whose authority the
672
statements were made, showed the condition of England, if the accuracy of that account could be relied on;—Northumberland, stackyards very empty, Mr. John Grey, Dilston; Westmoreland, one-third, J. Crosby, Kirkby Thore; Yorkshire, one-sixth, H. Briggs, Overton, Wakefield; Lancashire, very little, E. Evans, Wigan; Lincolnshire, one-twelfth, R. Westland, Freeston Boston; Shropshire, nearly all gone; Rutland, probably one-fourth, S. Cheetham, Oakham; Huntingdon, nearly exhausted, P. Purvis, Kimbolton; Cambridgeshire, one-fifth, S. Jones, Ickleton; Suffolk, one-seventh, W. Green, Ashfieldplace; Monmouthshire, one-tenth, R. W. Puchas; Kent, very short, R. Matson, Wingham; Devonshire, one-eighth, S. Cornish, Kingsbridge; Wales, not one-tenth, E. W. David, Cardiff; and according to the statement of Mr. W. Edmond, Swansea, the stock in Wales was almost exhausted. That was the state of England, Scotland, and Wales, if the accounts in the document which had been placed in his hands were correct; and as it was the only information to which he could have recourse, he would ask Her Majesty's Government if they had any reason to think that those statements with regard to the supply of wheat were well founded? His own impression was, that there was not enough in the country to maintain our population until the next harvest came in; and if the buyers from the Continent were to continue purchasing corn in our markets, he would ask, was there a prospect of an equivalent importation on our part? The competition of the continental buyers with us in the markets of the north of Europe, and on the banks of the Vistula, as well as Odessa, and the ports of the Mediterranean, was such, that we had to look principally to America, and even there the quantity already purchased for Europe was very considerable. If what he had heard stated were true, the prospects for the country were most dismal; and although our condition might be so far irreparable, yet by a proper economy of our corn, and by putting the ship's company on half allowance, we should be enabled to tide ourselves over this trying period, and so arrive at the next harvest in health and security. It would require the greatest economy to effect that object, and it behoved them to lay aside all luxuries and indulgences, in order to accomplish it. Brown bread, made of the whole corn ground, might be used with the advantage

673
of a great saving of food, whilst a cessation from the consumption of starch would also be the means of increasing in a very considerable degree the supply of corn for food. He did hope and trust that the; landed gentry would take the case into their consideration, in their own counties, and take means to prevent the corn from leaving those counties, in order to enable the people to meet a time of emergency. He saw that a noble Lord opposite did not appear to concur with him.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that this course was calculated to encourage mobs —meal mobs as they were called in Scotland.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, his object was to prevent the stocks being purchased up by the large dealers, and then retailed at enormous increase of price to the people. He hoped that such of the landowners and gentry as had large supplies of corn would hold them in their own hands, so that they would be better able to meet the pressure when it arrived. He begged to ask the noble Marquess, whether he was aware of the quantity of corn then in the country; and if they had not a sufficiency, whether he was enabled to state that a sufficient supply could be procured from foreign countries?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas sure that the noble Earl, who had, in the exercise of his public duty, thought it right to put these questions, would feel that they were questions which related to a most perilous subject, and would feel also that he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) exercised a sound discretion in abstaining, on his own part, and on the part of the Government, from hazarding anything like an opinion which might have the effect of deceiving the public or any interest in the country. The noble Earl stated rightly, that in this great country there was no organized machinery by which they could become accurately possessed of the amount of stock in the country, or of the probable amount of demand as compared with that stock. Every individual had the same means of judging as he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had; every individual had the same means as Her Majesty's Government of collecting information on this subject; and he knew of no information which could be collected more carefully or with greater attention to accuracy—though, as he did not know the particulars, he could not speak to the entire accuracy of his returns —than by the individual to whom the
674
noble Earl had alluded, and who had recently printed the returns he had received. Any opinion, therefore, as to the amount of stock, he should decline to give; but thus much he might say for the satisfaction of the noble Earl—not subscribing to his opinion as to the amount of stock at the end of the harvest of last year—that there had not since the harvest been brought into the markets of this country a more considerable or a greater amount of corn than during the corresponding period of the former year; and, therefore, unless the deficiency of the last harvest was much more than the deficiency of the preceding, it must be presumed that a considerable quantity was now in stock. There he should have stopped, had not the noble Earl gone further; but he should now state to the noble Lord, what he was sure it would be satisfactory to him to know, that there had been an enormous and an increasing amount up to that moment of the importation of corn into this country, not announcing in any degree that diminution of supply at which the noble Earl appeared to be alarmed. In the month of January, in the present year, 661,000 quarters had been imported; in the month of February 557,000 quarters had been imported; in the month of March 929,000 quarters had been imported; and in the month of April 1,043,000 quarters had been imported: thereby indicating an increase proportioned to the amount of the demand, and that on the appearance of the deficiency, of which at an early period of the year the public were not aware, there were corresponding efforts made to supply the demand; and the result would be, if the supply were continued during the entire year at the same ratio as during the last four months, the amount of supply for the year would be 9,000,000 quarters. Another statement, equally satisfactory, he could make in explanation to the noble Earl, and one which, he conceived, was peculiarly satisfactory, as showing the complete command of the markets of the world which had been enjoyed by this country subsequently to the knowledge that there would be no interference here with the course of trade. The moment that was known, an increased and increasing activity was kept up; and the result was, that while, as was unfortunately too well known, other countries were labouring under the same affliction with ourselves, and whilst the demands of those large and populous countries were daily increasing, and

675
their deficiency was daily more and more confirmed, the whole exportation of corn from the United States to the whole world was 2,170,000 quarters; and of that amount not more than 500,000 quarters had found their way to all the rest of the world, leaving this country in possession or enjoyment of four times the amount exported from America to all the rest of the world. To this statement he could add, that he had no reason to apprehend that the supply from America was likely to diminish; on the contrary, the opinion of those most conversant with the subject was, that the present state of prices, which had unfortunately increased of late, was sufficient to secure not only the whole supply of corn which had been destined for this country, but that a portion of the corn intended for other countries would be diverted from those countries to this. These were the only facts it was in his power to state. He had felt it his duty to state thus much; but he abstained altogether from any anticipation as to what the amount of stock was, or what would be required. At the same time, he agreed that the state of the country rendered it an imperative duty on all persons, so far as their influence and power went, and, above all, in their own families, to inculcate, as a matter of feeling, as well as of economy, the strictest care in the use of food.
LORD ASHBURTONwas understood to say that he feared the largest portion of wheat from America had already arrived; there might still be some Indian corn to come, as the harvest of that grain was later; but he feared that the noble Marquess's anticipations of a large future supply, proportioned to what we had already received, would not be realized. It must be remembered that the cause of the deficiency which here had been the source of so much calamity, existed also over a great part of Europe, and it was the duty of the Legislature to open the eyes of the country to the possible consequences. He confessed that nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to see the favourable anticipations confirmed; but he could not entertain them, for inquiries among his neighbours had resulted in much the same information as that stated by the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke). The only question now was, whether they ought or ought not to place restrictions upon the exportation of corn; and he admitted that it would be with great reluctance that he could
676
agree to such a proposal. At the same time we stood in the singular position of being the only distressed country that did not restrict exportation: and there might come a case of necessity for such a step to be taken even here.
LORD BROUGHAMthought this to be a very important subject. Nothing could be worse than concealing the fact of a scarcity. Nothing, on the contrary, could tend more to prevent a dearth from becoming a famine, than to give timely notice of its approach; he therefore thanked his noble Friend for having brought the subject before the House. He wished he could say that he experienced no uneasiness in his mind with respect to the prospects of the country for the next two or three months. He was, however, quite clear upon one subject—that the advice of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was sound advice, and that it was the imperative duty of all in their Lordships' station and in the middle classses of society to practise and to inculcate in others the most strict and rigorous system of economy, especially in husbanding the great and fundamental resource that constituted the prime staff of life. With respect to the labouring classes, they unhappily required no stimulus to exercise economy, because the rise of prices imposed it upon them as a necessity, and in this respect a rise of price operated usefully to correct the effects of improvidence in a season of scarcity. He felt the great importance of what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) as to the very great impolicy of interfering with the export trade of this country in corn. It would tend at a time of pressure such as the country was suffering under to frustrate and defeat their own object, by preventing a sufficient supply coming to England from America; for he entertained not the least doubt that the immense supplies of corn which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had stated had arrived in this country within the last four months—amounting to between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000, of quarters—had been brought hither with the view to re-exportation. And all this corn had come from America, for it was impossible that any portion of it could have arrived from the Baltic, the cold season having shut up that sea. So great was the amount of importation, that within the last four or five weeks there had been sufficient to supply this country with one fifth of a whole

677
year's consumption. To what did he ascribe this? Undoubtedly much of it was to be attributed to the great demands for our manufactures, which were purchased by corn which was then bonded for re-exportation. He should be loth to draw a line between British corn and foreign corn; and if they were to attempt to allow the re-exportation of foreign corn and not of British corn, they would experience the greatest difficulty in distinguishing between the one and the other. He hoped their Lordships would give great attention to the subject before they ventured to interfere with the corn trade.

SOUP KITCHENS (IRELAND).
EARL FITZWILLIAM: Their Lordships would recollect that a temporary Act for the relief of the poor of Ireland, commonly called the Soup Kitchen Act, had been passed. He thought their Lordships ought to know how it had operated; he therefore begged to ask the noble Marquess whether the Government were prepared to give any information as to the extent to which the Act had been put into operation; what rates had been levied; how much had been received; and what amount there was in arrear?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcould inform his noble Friend that a statement had been lately received from Ireland respecting what had been done under the Act in question; but he certainly considered that more time was required for the Bill to work before any satisfactory information could be obtained upon the subject.

IRISH CLERGYMEN IN ENGLAND.
LORD MONTEAGLEpresented a petition from the Rev. Dr. Thorpe, complaining of the refusal by the Bishop of London, to authorize the appointment of an Irish clergyman as curate of Belgrave Chapel. In introducing the subject, he expressed his deep regret at the necessity he was under of remarking on the conduct of any right rev. Prelate. If the objections urged by the right rev. Prelate in this case against the appointment sought for had rested on spiritual grounds, nothing would have induced him to bring the matter under the notice of Parliament. As the objection taken was purely secular, and one on which a lay Peer was just as competent to form a judgment as any of the right rev. Bench, he had willingly consented to present this petition to the House. It came from a
678
gentleman with whom he had the honour of being but slightly acquainted, the minister and proprietor of a proprietor chapel near Belgrave Square, called Belgrave Chapel, in which he had officiated during thirty years. In the year 1846 the rev. gentleman was desirous of leaving this country for the purpose of spending two months on the Continent. He was desirous of appointing an additional curate to officiate during his absence; and, although he did not conceive himself either by law or usage bound to name to the Bishop of London the gentleman whom he intended to appoint as a curate, still, out of respect to his diocesan, he felt it necessary to communicate his name; describing him, at the same time, as a clergyman perfectly qualified for the curacy, and offering to submit his testimonials to the right rev. Prelate, if he desired it. This communication brought an answer from the right rev. Prelate, which was set forth in the petition. It was dated 20th July, 1846, and was couched in the following extraordinary terms:—" If Mr. —(naming him), who, I suppose, is an Irish clergyman, has been allowed to officiate in any English diocese, I am ready to admit him into mine; but, if not, I shall be under the necessity of declining to do so." Now this letter taken by itself, amounted to a general declaration on the part of the right rev. Prelate, that if a curate proposed to be appointed to a London parish were an Irish clergyman, and had not been previously admitted to discharge his functions in any other English diocese, the Bishop of London would refuse to admit him. If the objection had been taken on the ground of insufficiency in doctrine, morals, or knowledge, he should have said that upon all these points the Bishop was the proper judge; and he (Lord Monteagle) would have refused to present a petition complaining of such a decision. But the point now raised, and this in the year 1847, was not the disqualification of an individual on account of insufficient doctrine, morals, or learning, but his disqualification because he was an Irish clergyman. In calling the most serious attention of the House to this petition, he did not view the question as one concerning merely their petitioner and his diocesan; but one affecting the character, the feelings, and the interests of the whole body of the Irish clergy, as secured by the Act of Union. It was on this account that he recommended it to their Lordships' consideration. He must pause to ask what was meant by

679
an "Irish clergyman?" Did it mean Irish by birth, or Irish by education, or by the circumstance of having received holy order in Ireland? He recognised neither Irish clergymen nor English clergymen; he knew them both only as clergymen of the Established Church of the United Kingdom. He did not recognise, neither did he admit the right of any man to recognise, such distinctions; and least of all when drawn for the purpose of establishing an invidious, unjust, and, he would add, an illegal inferiority. Such distinctions, he must say, were not only invidious, but at the present moment were most peculiarly inapplicable. When their Lordships considered the state of the Irish Church in past and present times, there never was a moment in which the clergy of Ireland were more entitled to respect and gratitude. At an earlier period the Irish Church had been considered a sort of appanage, out of which young English clergymen were to claim the richest and highest endowments. But better examples were also to be found. Even in times less pure than our own, the Church in Ireland, however, had not only been made the mode of making provision for the clergy of this country, but it had been connected with some of the most glorious and dignified names that belonged to the United Church of the two countries, or with the Christian Church of the world. He did not regret that the episcopal bench of Ireland had so often been distinguished by the appointment of so many Englishmen, when he remembered that even before the Union the Church of Ireland had derived from the Church of England men whose character and attainments shed upon it the highest lustre; and that the Irish branch of the Establishment had been adorned by the pious eloquence of the English Jeremy Taylor, as well as by the learning and faith of the Irish Usher; by the meek devotion of the English Bedell, as well as by the imaginative philosophy of the Irish Berkeley. The most reverend Prelate whose turn of duty brought him to attend the services of their Lordships' House this year, who was second only to the ecclesiastical head of the Church in Ireland, was an Englishman. He did not regret the appointment of his most reverend Friend (the Archbishop of Dublin); on the contrary, he rejoiced and triumphed in it. It strengthened his argument. But if the Master of Albion Hall was held deservedly
680
fit to be Archbishop of Dublin, an Irishman could not as such be unfitted to be a curate in Belgrave Square. As a distinguished man in the Irish House of Commons, Sir Boyle Roche, once said, "A bargain should not be made in which the mutuality was all upon one side." In vain might he examine the English Church for the promotion of any eminent Irish divine. He did not now stop to complain of this; but he did complain that there should be on the part of any Englishman a disposition to draw an invidious and disparaging line between the inhabitants of two countries which ought to be in all respects united, and to say that an Irishman should not be allowed to enter freely and honourably wherever an Englishman would be received. This miserable spirit of exclusion had been manifested on other occasions. He could not but feel that with respect to appointments in other professions besides the Church, Irishmen had just reason to complain. He could not forget that one of the most eminent men who had ever sat in either House of Parliament—a man whose noble and masculine eloquence would live as long as the records of English Parliamentary proceedings were permitted to endure—he could not forget that the present Lord Plunkett, on his appointment of Master of the Rolls in this country, had been opposed by a wretched professional cabal, on the sole ground of his being an Irishman. Now, he regretted that his noble and learned Friend had not braved the paltry prejudice, and had not overcome it, as his force of character and dignity of mind and pre-eminent abilities would have enabled him to do. But the clamour had been allowed to triumph. Yet who was the person who had been appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland on the first vacancy which had afterwards taken place? Why, it was Sir Anthony Hart, an excellent and able lawyer, no doubt, but a member of that very English bar which had refused to recognise the appointment of Lord Plunkett to the office of Master of the Rolls in England. Now, he again begged to repeat that he was far from objecting to the appointment of Englishmen to office in Ireland; on the contrary, he wished to see the most competent persons appointed to office in either country without any reference to the particular part of the empire in which they might have been born. He would earnestly warn their Lordships against the imminent danger of drawing a distinction between

681
the two branches of the Established Church, even if it were assumed or conceded that a distinction between the inhabitants of the two countries were justifiable in any other case. He believed there was no safety for the Church in Ireland for one hour, if the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, as it was termed in the Act of Union, were not considered one and indivisible in the two countries, No statesman could defend the Irish branch of the Church for one single moment if they were to regard it as a separate establishment. Its strength consisted in its union with the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country; and anything that shook that union would seriously endanger its stability. How, he would ask, could its stability be more endangered than by drawing a line of invidious distinction which would recognise the two Churches as separate establishments? The Fifth Article of the Act of Union provided that, "The Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be hereafter united in one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland." Now, he should observe, that if there ever was a time in which they would be justified in drawing a distinction between two Churches so united, the present was not that time; for if any Church had ever entitled itself to general respect and admiration, it was the Church of Ireland at the present day—a Church which had shaken off the ancient dross arising from her peculiar position in a country professing a faith different from her own, and which had become reformed and improved in a manner seldom or never paralleled. Nor was this all; the exertions made of late by the members and ministers of the Church of Ireland to meet the fearful exigency which had overtaken that country, entitled them to public gratitude, if civil services were ever entitled to that gratitude. He had no hesitation in saying, that the position in which the ministers of the Church of Ireland had lately placed themselves, had not only commanded the admiration of their friends, but had reconciled to them some of their most bitter political and religious opponents. He had himself seen the priest and the clergyman working together for good, and he had seen Roman Catholics, who in remote districts had few, if any beside, to look up to; he had seen them respect and venerate in the Protestant minister of religion, not their spiritual guide, which he could not
682
be, but their firmest support, their parent, and their friend. He had stated at the outset that if the objection taken to the licensing of Irish clergymen was one of an ecclesiastical character, he should not have alluded to the subject. But it might be supposed possible that it was not to Ireland as a place of birth, but as a place of education, that the right rev. Prelate had objected. He found that such could not be the nature of the objection taken by the right rev. Prelate, as he had himself expressed an opinion in writing to the effect that the course of study pursued in the University of Dublin, as a theological school, far surpassed the course in Oxford and in Cambridge, and that he earnestly desired to see that very Irish system substituted for the course pursued in the English Universities. In conclusion, he wished to observe, that if in the remarks he had just made, a single word had dropped from him inconsistent with the highest respect for the right rev. Prelate and for his order, he wished it unsaid, and he begged leave to apologize for his indiscretion. But the subject was one of the highest importance. It involved the first principles of justice; it likewise involved the interests, the feelings, and the character of the clergymen of Ireland. He therefore deemed it his duty humbly but firmly to beg of their Lordships, and to demand from the public, that no right, or dignity, or authority belonging to the branch of the Established Church in this country should be withheld from the corresponding branch in Ireland, or from the humblest of its members.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid: My Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships with only a few observations in reply to the speech of my noble Friend; but by those few observations I hope to be able to satisfy your Lordships, that in the course I have pursued in reference to the matter of this petition, I have not been guilty of any intentional disrespect towards the Irish branch of the Established Church. I must, in the first place, return thanks to my noble Friend for the manner in which he brought the petition under your Lordships' notice. Not a word that fell from him was calculated to give me the slightest pain, except in so far as his remarks showed that he had been led to think that I did not do justice to the Church in his country. My Lords, no person is more ready than I am to do justice to the merits and claims of that Church; and I fully participate in the feelings of respect and sympathy

683
which my noble Friend has expressed, for that meritorious and unhappily now suffering branch of the Church of the United Kingdom. I believe that no panegyric can be too high for the conduct of the Protestant clergy in Ireland, and pre-eminently for their conduct during the last few months. Your Lordships must not suppose that the regulation to which the petition refers is a regulation adopted by me within the last few months, or even within the last few years. It is a regulation that has been in operation for the last twenty-three years; and yet this is the first time that any complaint with respect to it has been made. When I was Bishop of Chester, I certainly found it necessary to discourage the influx of Irish clergymen into that diocese. I discouraged it on more grounds than one; and two of those grounds in particular appeared to me to be valid. In the first place, I did not think it right that young men educated for the service of the Church in Ireland, and ordained for that service, should take an early opportunity of quitting that Church, especially considering the difficulties which surrounded it, and should come over to England to seek for other and less irksome duties. I conceive that, far from being guilty of any disrespect towards the Irish branch of our Church, I was showing my sincere regard for it by discouraging the emigration of her young and active clergymen from a field of ministerial duty in which all the energies of her best, and wisest, and holiest servants were urgently required. Another circumstance which influenced me in the course I took, with respect to candidates for ordination, was my knowledge of the state of theological education in the University of Dublin at that time—an education which has since been greatly improved, and which now deserves the highest praise—as well as my knowledge of the practice prevailing among young men engaged in business of going over to that university from England, passing a short time there, and then obtaining their degrees, and returning to this country with a view to obtain those situations in the Church here, to which young men, educated in the English universities, at considerable expense, naturally looked forward, and to which they might be considered more fairly entitled. I therefore thought it my duty to discourage the immigration of Irish clergymen into my diocese. The rule, however, was at no time rigidly adhered to, and I never refused to
684
license Irish clergymen when I was satisfied that there was any good reason for their coming over to this country. I believe there are at the present moment in this diocese nearly, if not quite, as many Irish clergymen whom I have licensed, as there are Irish clergymen to whom I have refused licenses. It is a remarkable fact, that, although this regulation has been generally known for the last twenty-three years, I never heard a word of remonstrance or expostulation upon the subject from any of the Prelates who adorn the Irish bench. Now, I must say that if Dr. Thorpe, who is a clergyman in my diocese, and who is bound by his canonical vows to respect me as his bishop—I must say that if he thought he had any reason to complain of any regulation of mine, as imposing any restrictions on his countrymen, inconvenient to himself and injurious to the Irish Church—he ought, in my opinion, to have laid his grievance in the first instance before the Primate of that branch of our United Church. And I have no hesitation in saying, that if that eminent and admirable person had thought fit to express an opinion to me that the regulation in question was inconsistent with those bonds of friendly and intimate connexion which should unite the two branches of the Established Church, I should at once have acquiesced in that opinion. But what did Dr. Thorpe do? Why, instead of referring to me, or to the Primate of the Irish Church, in a case which he called an intolerable assumption of authority, he brings me before your Lordships by means of a petition, which has not been read to you, but which indulges in far stronger language than any which my noble Friend has thought proper to employ. I believe that the fact of my not having refused to license any Irish clergyman who showed good cause for his being licensed, is sufficient to exonerate me from the charge of having intended to cast even a shadow of disrespect on the Irish branch of the United Church—a branch for which I entertain the most cordial esteem and regard. If anything else were necessary to show that I did not mean any disrespect to that branch of the Church, I might state that I have conferred some of the most valuable and important livings in my gift on Irish clergymen, and that I have given to an Irish clergyman one of the dignities of St. Paul's Cathedral. I must observe that the conduct of Dr. Thorpe towards me, as his diocesan, had

685
not been of a kind to render it a matter of obligation with roe to show him any particular favour. When Dr. Thorpe proposed to me the licensing of the clergyman referred to, I wrote the letter which the noble Lord has read. I afterwards found there were reasons which made it not improbable that I might without difficulty license that clergyman, and I told him that he might at all events go and officiate in Dr. Thorpe's chapel, and that when Dr. Thorpe returned from the Continent it would be time enough for me to determine about the licensing. Dr. Thorpe then wrote his letter charging me with an assumption of power, sotting me at defiance, and threatening me with an appeal to your Lordships. I felt, under the circumstances, that I could not consistently with what was due to my own authority, license the clergyman in question for Dr. Thorpe's proprietary chapel; but, from information I afterwards received, I told that clergyman that I would be ready to license him to any other curacy. He did not, however, accept the offer, although he thanked me for having made it. Since that time I have licensed Irish clergymen. But the general regulation alluded to continues, and will continue, for the reasons I have stated to your Lordships. I beg leave once more to declare that nothing could be further from my mind than an intention to show any disrespect to the Irish Church. On the contrary, I entertain a deep attachment and regard towards that Church, while I feel unwilling to take from it any of its ministers, well knowing, as I do, that the number of those ministers is already too small, and that the difficulties they have to contend with have of late been greatly increased. My Lords, I now beg leave to thank you for the kindness with which you have heard me. I believe I have done nothing unlawful. I have acted under a regulation made public during the last twenty-three years, and on that regulation I shall, with the blessing of God, continue to act, until some competent authority shall have declared it to be illegal.
The EARL of CLANCARTYcould say without fear of contradiction, that the Irish clergymen generally were distinguished for all those qualities the possession of which was necessary to constitute Christian ministers. He deprecated the system of exclusion, which under the statutes of some English institutions prevailed, with regard to the admission of Irishmen. Such a
686
system of exclusion in any respect, particularly in a case like that then under consideration, was most inexpedient, and particularly at a time like the present, when everything ought to be done to unite the two countries more closely; and he regretted that such a distinction should be drawn or persevered in as the right rev. Prelate opposite had stated. He lamented that any distinction of race should be brought forward in such matters. Any Englishman who had ever visited Ireland could bear testimony to the manner in which he was received there, whether filling any office in the Church, the State, or the Law. Now, though others had filled situations of various kinds in Ireland, no Irishmen were promoted to similar offices in England or Scotland. Though this distinction of race was most reprehensible in all matters, it become particularly so in those connected with the Church.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELsaid, he was gratified to perceive from the speech of the right rev. Prelate that he had nothing to urge condemnatory of the character of the Rev. Dr. Thorpe — a gentleman whom he esteemed most highly for his great talents and elevated character. He concurred fully in the prayer of the petition, as it was clear that if all the Prelates of the kingdom were to adopt a similar system of exclusion as that followed by the right rev. Prelate, Irish clergymen would be kept out of England altogether.

LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEmoved that the report on the Landed Property (Ireland) Bill, with the Amendments, be received. The first of these Amendments was with respect to farm-buildings. He admitted, that the extensive improvements contemplated by the Bill could not be completely carried into effect without a power being given for the erection of buildings; and he would beg to move, therefore, that the erection of such buildings be allowed in all cases where the Commissioners should think them necessary and essential.
LORD MONTEAGLEbegged to ask whether any provision was proposed to be adopted, in accordance with the suggestion of a noble Duke on a former evening, for requiring the insurance of buildings to be erected under the Act?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid,

687
the next Amendment which he had to propose was, that all mills and farm-buildings erected under the Act should be required to be insured during the payment of the instalments under the Act. Another Amendment was to give the Commissioners power to extend the time for the completion of the works to a period not exceeding two years beyond the period first fixed, when they should think it was impracticable to complete them in the given time. He next came to the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke for the payment of labour in all cases in the current coin of the realm. He had communicated with a great many persons on the matter, and he was sorry to say that they agreed with him very generally in opinion, that it would be impossible in every instance to carry such an enactment into execution. At the same time, he was so desirous of seeing the principle carried out, that he should propose to introduce words in the Bill recognising that principle, by declaring that in all works undertaken under that Bill the labourers employed should receive payment in money to the full value of the stipulated wages. He could not, however, hold out any promise to the noble Duke that the clause would not in many instances be evaded. In fact, he could mention two or three instances, at the moment, in which it would be impossible to guard against such evasion.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONobserved, that his entire object would not be obtained by the enactment under this measure proposed by the noble Marquess. His object was to produce an alteration of the present system generally throughout the whole of Ireland, by means of an enactment. His opinion was, that the greater part of the evils of Ireland had been occasioned by the course followed there with respect to the labourers; and he was anxious so to change the system that those labourers should be paid wages in money, either by the day, half-day, or week, as might be arranged. The evil at present consisted in paying labour by means of land, out of which the poor labourer was forced to raise his subsistence, and the rent imposed upon the land. This evil was felt in Ireland more than in any country in the world. It was one fatal to its prosperity, and he wished to apply a remedy by substituting for such a practice the payment of money wages. The proposal now made by the noble Marquess, though it did not provide against the whole evil, yet would
688
do so to a certain extent; and he therefore thanked the noble Marquess for having brought it forward. He was firmly convinced, however, that till they came to a final arrangement as to this matter, and provided a full remedy, they would not attain the object they had in view with reference to the labourers of Ireland, or raise them to the same condition with the labourers of this and other countries; and he repeated, that this never could be done till the system of keeping them, as at present, on the land, there to raise the means of subsistence for themselves, was abandoned, and the mode adopted of paying their labour in wages.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHadmitted that the practice so strongly condemned by the noble Duke had tended, in a very great measure, to reduce Ireland to that condition in which she now suffered; but at the same time he doubted if any direct enactment like this would meet the evil. It was unquestionably the interest of all the proprietors of the soil to do away with the conacre system, for no one possessing his senses would let his land in conacre. Those only who wanted to get a turn out of the land had recourse to such a system, and the only remedy was to prevent the rent being recoverable by law.
Amendments agreed to. Report received.
House adjourned.