MOTION FOR RETURNS. (Hansard, 11 February 1867)

THE BISHOP OF DOWN
, in moving for Returns respecting the Established Church (Ireland), said, he did not intend to open up the great question of the Irish Church at present—a question which must some day receive solution at the hands of Parliament—for the present, he would content himself with stating that the rulers of the Church were quite aware that there existed defects in relation to the Established 208 Church in Ireland which required remedy, and anomalies in its constitution, and in the distribution of its endowment, which required to be carefully considered and amended. No matter what the protestations of attachment to the Church might be, or however high the office he might hold in it, he could not look upon any one as a safe friend or a wise counsellor, who justified the one or palliated the other. As this question must sooner or later come before the Legislature, it was just, reasonable, and right that he should seek to place in their Lordships' hands reliable Returns, so that when the question came on to be discussed, their Lordships might be able to give their best attention to it. The enemies of the Church in Ireland sought its fall and destruction; but if the rulers of the Church would bring in a well-considered and wise measure of reform in the Church, their enemies' wild cry for destruction would awaken no response in the hearts of the people of Ireland, and would have no weight with thoughtful men. He would just add that he believed the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland disposed of the funds in their hands with great judgment and prudence.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN
said, he was not able to support the Motion of the right rev. Prelate; but that was not from any desire not to see all anomalies in the 209 Irish Church removed, but simply upon the ground that these Returns would involve a vast deal of labour to a large body of persons, and that even if they were made they would be superfluous, as the information sought for was already in their Lordships' hands. Most of it was to be obtained from the Annual Report furnished by the Commissioners; some of the facts were to be found in an Act of William IV.; and Returns made on the Motion of Captain Stacpoole in 1864 gave other portions of the information now asked for. Under these circumstances, he would request the right rev. Prelate to withdraw his Motion, or if he did not do so he should ask their Lordships to negative it.

THE BISHOP OF DOWN
wished to state that the most rev. Prelate was in error in stating that the Returns sought for were easily accessible, for the fact was they were spread over many years, and were set forth in different reports.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
thought the Motion ought to be acceded to. The only reason given why these Returns should not be given in the form set forth, was that they would cause extra labour to some persons, but that was in truth no reason at all. The Returns asked for ought to be presented to the House in a compendious form. He certainly could not understand how their preparation could cost much labour, for the right rev. Prelate who offered the objection stated in so doing that the greater part of the information sought already existed, though scattered in numerous miscellaneous papers. A right rev. Prelate had moved for these Returns, and it would seem strange to the public if they were refused at the instance of his most rev. Brother.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
was desirous that every necessary information should be furnished; but out of the eight queries presented by the right rev. Prelate, information had already been given in reply to seven; and a Motion for a Return was at present before the other House, which would be agreed to by the Government. That Return would furnish the necessary information asked for by the eighth query. It seemed to him to be imposing unnecessary expense and trouble to call a second time for information which had already been given in another form.

THE BISHOP OF DOWN
was surprised at the Government conceding to a popular assembly a demand which was refused when made in the higher branch of the 210 Legislature. The Motion, too, in the House of Commons, instead of referring to one point only, was of a most voluminous character.

§ LORD CRANWORTH
suggested that the right rev. Prelate should assimilate the terms of his Motion as regarded the information not already granted, with those of the Motion to be made in the other House of Parliament and which was to be given to the Government.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
had not the slightest objection to concurring in the right rev. Prelate's Motion if he would make it more agreeable to that moved in the other House. What he objected to was the furnishing the same information in different forms, a practice which would entail a great deal of unnecessary work upon the office.