REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.

HL Deb 09 July 1869 vol 197 cc1484-524

Amendments reported (according to Order).

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

rose to propose the restoration of 1871 in Clause 2, as the date on which the Act should come into operation. Their Lordships in Committee substituted 1872 for 1871, and he should be sorry to ask them to rescind any resolution unless it had been arrived at under some degree of misapprehension and without due consideration of the subject, or unless it was calculated to prejudice the working of the measure. He thought, however, that a mistake was made on this point, and he had good reason for thinking that a very large portion of the Irish clergy preferred the earlier date. There were times when a change of this sort ought to be made as gradually as possible; but there were also times when it should be made speedily, for under a certain amount of pressure and the stress of necessity prompt and decided action was often secured. Delay would, in this instance, involve the risk of irritation and jealousy, and differences of opinion might crop up and widen, so as perhaps to lead to serious schemes. He was aware that the extension of time originated in a feeling of kindness, and in a wish to soften the inevitable pain and difficulty of the transition; but he thought it was mistaken kindness, and even if it came to the worst, it would always be in the power of Parliament, supposing any bonâ fide case to be made out, to give an extension of six or twelve months. He submitted the Amendment entirely in the interest of the Irish Church, believing that it would prove advantageous.

Amendment moved to leave out ("two") and insert ("one.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, he saw no reason for rescinding a resolution which was arrived at after full consideration. His information on the subject from Ireland differed entirely from that of his noble Friend, inasmuch as all those Irish gentlemen with whom he had been in communication expressed their preference for the date 1872 to that of 1871.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that there were obviously arguments both in favour of preventing unnecessary delay and in favour of allowing the Irish Church fair time to prepare for the great change which it was proposed to effect. He suggested on a former occasion that the most convenient course would be to adhere to the alteration in Committee, and before the Report to ascertain the view generally entertained by those interested. He had accordingly endeavoured to ascertain that view; but he had found that a considerable difference of opinion existed. Under these circumstances he would suggest a course to which the Government might possibly accede. The date originally fixed was the 1st of July, 1871, and in Committee it was deferred for twelve months. Now, as their Lordships might be aware, the half-year days in Ireland were the 1st of May and the 1st of November, tithe rent-charge and rents on lands held under lease being then payable. Now, the tithe rent-charge would have to be paid up to the day of disestablishment, and fresh arrangements would then have to be made. It would be convenient, therefore, and probably conflicting opinions would be reconciled, if the 1st of May, 1871, was fixed as the date; this would only prolong by four months the period originally proposed by the Government.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the longer the date was delayed the more disadvantageous would it be for the Irish Church, since every month would detract from the stimulus both as to arrangements and as to the assistance to be rendered by the laity in the shape of voluntary contributions. He should, therefore, prefer a reversion to the date originally proposed by the Government.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, he was willing to accept the middle term suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns), a very valid reason having been given for it, and he would alter his Motion accordingly.

THE EARL OF BANDON

said, as far as he was able to judge of the feelings of the people in his part of the country, he believed they would prefer the date to be postponed as long as possible. He should therefore suggest that the date be the 1st November, 1871. He thought that Clause 24, as at present worded, would enable any incumbent to stop the commutation, not merely in his own case, but universally. This could not be intended.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

supported the suggestion of his noble Friend in respect to the date being 1st November, 1871.

Amendment (by leave of the House)withdrawn.

Then it was moved in line 20 to leave out ("January") and insert ("May,") and in line 21 to leave out ("two") and insert ("one.")—(The Lord Cairns.)

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that during the discussion in Committee he endeavoured as far as he could to bring the views of their Lordships into unison with those of the other branch of the Legislature; but while he was treated with more than usual personal courtesy, the suggestions he offered on the part of the Government with regard to the main provisions of the Bill were not in the least regarded. Under these circumstances he had felt that he ought not to take the initiative in any attempt to reverse decisions at which their Lordships arrived by a large majority. There was one other point connected with this clause. With regard to the retention of their seats in this House by the existing Irish Bishops, their Lordships would remember that he stated in Committee the reasons which had induced the Government to frame the clause in the form in which it appeared in the Bill originally, and that he appealed to noble Lords generally and to the Irish portion of the right rev. Bench to express their opinions on the matter before he took any decided step. He also mentioned that he had received a letter from a right rev. Prelate of the Irish Church, stating that he thought it very undesirable that any Amendment should be made. With regard to his appeal, he was told that he had hardly a right to expect an answer from the Irish Prelates whether they wished to retain their seats or not. One right rev. Prelate said that it was a very questionable been indeed to reserve to the Irish Prelates this right; and in conversation among Members of their Lordships' House he found that there was a general impression in favour of reconsidering the alterations which had been made. The appeal which he made to the Lay Lords was answered by all but one of those who spoke being in favour of the Amendment and against the proposal of the Government except his noble Friend (Lord Westbury), and he defended the clause in a way which was not satisfactory to the Government, for he entreated the right rev. Prelates to submit to what he called an injustice. Upon this he (Earl Granville) said that as there was clearly a great majority in favour of the Amendment, though the Government could not agree to it, yet he would not, under the circumstances, put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing, as doing so would lead to no practical result, and it was disagreeable to divide on what was almost a personal question. In conclusion, he now wished to say that, though he would take no initiative, he would support any Peer who should move the rejection of the Amendment that had been made, though he should regret in reference to individuals that the Amendment should be rejected.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he thought it somewhat singular that the noble Earl, having in Committee invited a general expression of opinion on the Amendment before making up his mind, and all the speakers, with the exception of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury), having supported it, should now almost insinuate that that invitation was a mere form, and that the unanimous view of noble Lords had produced no effect on his mind.

EARL GRANVILLE

reminded the noble and learned Lord that there was one new fact—the opinion of a right rev. Prelate that the Amendment was a questionable boon.

Motion agreed to; Amendments made.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he had given notice of an Amendment on this subject at the present stage which, as Chairman, he was unable to propose in Committee. To deprive of his peerage a man against whom no charge was made ought not to be allowed, and it was contrary to the privileges of this House that such a proposal should be sent up by the House of Commons. It was a precedent which might lead to much mischief.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, that it was the extension of the date and not the retention of seats in the House which was described by one of his brethren as a questionable boon. He deprecated this demand on his Irish brethren to express an opinion as to whether or not they should continue to be Members of the House. He could only say for himself that though, under similar circumstances, he should occupy his seat but very little, still that he should greatly feel the loss of it. He spoke rather from his own feeling upon the subject than from any instruction from the right rev. Prelates.

EARL STANHOPE

said, he had already stated that he had arrived with great regret at the opinion that the retention of their seats by the Irish Prelates after disestablishment would be irreconcilable with that measure, and would not be just. He had also stated that several noble Lords on his own side of the House concurred in that view. In accordance with those remarks of his, although not in consequence of them, a noble Lord sitting on that (the Opposition) side, and not now present (the Earl of Devon), had given, or would give, notice of an Amendment on the third reading which would bring this point under the consideration of the House.

THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL

, in the absence of the Bishop of Oxford, moved a clause of which that right rev. Prelate had given notice re- lative to the recognition of Irish. Orders by the Church of England. But after conferring with the Archbishop of Armagh, who did not wish that there should, appear on the face of the Bill a clause which, though really enabling, would appear to be of a disabling character, he thought it better to withdraw the clause.

Motion withdrawn.

Clause 2 (Dissolution of legislative union between Churches of England and; and Ireland).

LORD O'NEILL

, who had given notice of an Amendment providing that the Commissioners should hold office during "good behaviour" instead of during "Her Majesty's pleasure," said he would not press his Amendment.

Clause 10 (Prohibition of future appointments).

THE EARL OF BANDON

proposed an Amendment, with the view of providing that the cessation of appointments to vacant benefices should bear date from the first of January, 1871, instead of from the passing of the Act. After the decision of the House with regard to the period when the Bill should come into operation, he had little hope of success on this point, but his object was to give the Irish, clergy a little breathing time. The clause as it stood would prevent any vacancy being filled up except temporarily. Now, he feared it would be difficult to find clergymen to undertake temporary duty, and that much practical inconvenience would result. The present Government, moreover, had not filled up any vacancies in Crown preferments since their accession to Office—a course which was without precedent except one in the reign of James II. Objection, he was aware, had been taken to the creation of new vested interests; but this would only benefit the holders of curacies and small livings, who had naturally looked for preferment, and on whom the Bill inflicted great injustice. Unjust and cruel as this measure was, it had been carried out with unnecessary hardship.

Amendment moved, in page 4, line 28, to leave out (" passing of this Act ") and insert ("First day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one.") —(The Earl of Bandon.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

objected to the Amendment, as inconsistent with the general scope of the Bill. At the end of the Bill were ample provisions for temporary appointments, which were much better than the creation of fresh vested interests, and no inconvenience could arise under them.

Amendment, (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 12 (Church property vested in Commissioners under Act).

EARL GRANVILLE moved, in page 5, line 23, after ("passed") insert— (" (3.) On the death or cession of the interest of any archbishop or bishop aforesaid, the tenants then holding directly under any such archbishop or bishop where leases had been therefore customarily renewable, shall have similar rights of renewal of their said leases, and the said commissioners shall be under similar obligations and have similar powers and rights in relation to such renewals and the rents and fines thereupon as the tenants of sees suppressed under statute third and fourth William the Fourth, chapter thirty-seven, and as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard there to had and were under respectively immediately before the passing of statute twenty-three and twenty-four Victoria, chapter one hundred and fifty; every application for any such renewal shall be made within one year from the death or cession of the interest of such archbishop or bishop, and thereupon the commissioners shall once and for ever fix for the future the rent and periods of renewal and the fine to be paid thereupon, and in case of any difference in relation to such rent or fine the same shall be referred to arbitration as herein.")

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 (Ultimate trust of surplus). EARL STANHOPE proposed after Clause 69 to insert clause— Whereas the trustees of the Observatory at Armagh hold a lease of the rectorial tithes of the parish of Carlingford, customarily renewable by the See of Armagh, and under the provisions of this Bill such lease will cease to be renewable, and the aforesaid scientific institution be deprived of a portion of the annual income available for its support, it is hereby provided that the Commissioners shall pay to the trustees of the said institution such sum as shall appear to them to be a fair compensation for the loss of the said customary right of renewal. The noble Earl said, the Observatory was founded in 1791, and had ever since that time, through the liberality of successive Irish Primates, been allowed a renewal of the lease of these tithes without fine. It did great honour to Ireland, being the only Observatory in Ireland, with the exception of that erected by the late Lord Rosse; and in Committee the noble Lord (Lord Talbot de Malahide) than whom no man was better acquainted with, its merits, bore emphatic testimony to its services. He had not named any specific sum, those interested in the institution being quite willing to leave this to the judgment of the Commissioners, who were entitled to the fullest confidence. Notwithstanding the good intentions expressed on the last occasion by the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin), on the part of the Government, it would be more satisfactory if the Bill contained a distinct recognition of its claims, in the event of its not being entitled, under other clauses, to a continuance of the advantages it had hitherto enjoyed.

LORD DUFFERIN

said, that further inquiry had confirmed his belief that this endowment emanated solely from the private benevolence of successive Primates, and that it had no legal claim under this Bill. He could only repeat, therefore, that he fully recognized the great services it had rendered to the country, and that the Government would, at the proper time, be quite prepared to consider any claim which might be preferred on its behalf. If it could make out a title to a customary lease the noble Earl's object would be gained; but otherwise it would be difficult to treat this case exceptionally by recognizing a claim which had no valid title.

THE EARL OF ROSSE

said, that having for many years been acquainted with the gentleman who presided over this Observatory, he could speak in the highest terms of his scientific attainments and services. The Irish Church, as he understood, was to be disestablished and disendowed on account of its being the Church of a small minority of the Irish people; but for that very reason this institution ought to be maintained, since it benefited the whole Irish people and the cause of science generally. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would, accede to the clause.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the noble Earl's remarks must have been acceptable to their Lordships, since he believed he had a personal as well as hereditary right to speak on behalf of any scientific institution. The only objection to the clause was that, whatever the claims of the Observatory, they ought to be met not in this Bill, but in another manner.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he hoped so excellent an institution would not be allowed to sink into obscurity, or become impoverished. The Bill origin- ally provided for the maintenance of the Irish cathedrals, on account of their architectural and historical interest; and it was not unreasonable to provide for this institution as a relic of the liberality of the Irish Church towards science.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, he thought this Observatory should be maintained in the same way as the institution at Greenwich. The money ought not to be taken out of the property of the Irish Church, but out of the Parliamentary Vote for Science and Art.

LORD REDESDALE

remarked that, as it had been proposed to apply the surplus to the relief of the county cess, there was no reason why a small sum should not go to the relief of public taxation, and to an institution which would be a monument of the liberality of the Irish Church to science during the time it was allowed to retain its property.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, that if the Observatory had a legal claim it would not be interfered with by the Bill, and urged that otherwise it ought not to he recognized in this Bill. The noble Duke's (the Duke of Somerset's) suggestion would have the consideration of the Government.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

pressed for a distinct pledge from the Government to protect the Observatory from loss.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that he did not think the Observatory could, in point of law, sustain a claim to a customary renewal of this lease. He hoped he had not mistaken the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) in concluding that the Government were quite alive to the loss which the Observatory would sustain by the loss of an estate granted by the liberality of various Primates, and would consider favourably its claim for compensation. In Parliamentary language they would be prepared to submit a Vote in the Estimates for maintaining the Observatory in as good a position as hitherto, and he thought their Lordships should be content with that pledge.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

said, he had given no pledge, but had simply stated that the Government would consider the question.

LORD CAIRNS

explained that his remark had reference to the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin).

EARL STANHOPE

said, he feared that "consideration" was too vague a word.

LORD TAUNTON

said, he thought the Government had given a sufficient assurance, and remarked that the Irish Members of the House of Commons would be very well able to ask for the requisite Vote.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

objected to the recital, as affirming the existence of a lease customarily renewable of which no proof had been given. If, however, this was the fact, the Observatory was already sufficiently provided for. He did not wish to throw cold water on its claims, for he had been told by the President of the Royal Society that no Observatory in the world had been more useful to science.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he thought the Bill would not in any case provide for the Observatory, for it recognized rights of renewal as to lands only, and not as to tithes, which, indeed, would be extinguished at the end of fifty-two years. Through feelings of liberality the lease had been renewed annually without fine, but there was no legal obligation.

EARL STANHOPE

said, he was willing to amend the recital; but he was reluctant to withdraw the clause in the absence of a more distinct assurance from the Government.

EARL GREY

said, he thought the claims of the Observatory might safely be intrusted to the Irish Members of the House of Commons.

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON

wished for a more distinct pledge.

EARL STANHOPE

said, he felt himself in a difficult position, being charged with the interests of others; but having taken the advice of those round him, and trusting that the favourable consideration promised by the Government signified an intention to propose a grant, he would withdraw the clause.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 13 (Dissolution of ecclesiastical corporations, and cessation of right to sit in the House of Lords).

LORD COLCHESTER

moved to add at end of clause— ("And no persons from time to time exercising archiepiscopal or episcopal functions in the said church, or holding the office of dean therein, shall be liable to any penalty under the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter sixty, for assuming the style or title of any place or district within which they exercise such functions or hold such office.") The noble Lord said the more he reflected the more he felt confirmed in the view he had before expressed that this was a point which ought to be decided at once, and not to be left over for possible legislation. Unless some proviso was inserted in this Bill, similar to that contained in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act with regard to the Episcopal Church of Scotland, every Bishop who proceeded to exercise his functions in the usual way would be liable to penalties under the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. If their Lordships felt called upon by the exigencies of the times to disestablish the Church of Ireland, many noble Lords on both sides of the House would nevertheless be opposed to the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, as appeared from the discussions of last Session. At all events, there would be time enough to decide what should be done in the case of the Roman Catholic Bishops, and the better course to take would be, in the first instance, to prevent evil results to the Bishops of the disestablished Church. He believed the spirit which was opposed to his Amendment was very much of the kind which had been enlisted in support of the Bill, and that as the Roman Catholics felt in a somewhat uncomfortable position they wished not so much to raise themselves as to drag down the Established Church. The view which he took of this subject was also taken by many noble Lords on that side, and he must ask their Lordships to give a vote on this subject.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he had stated the other day the intentions of the Government, and he was not aware that the noble Lord had taken any new ground, or advanced any new arguments which should induce their Lordships to support the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

doubted whether, if the Bishops of the Protestant Church were to assume territorial titles, they would come within the operation of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, that neither noble Earl who had spoken from the other side had shown that Bishops who obeyed the law should be put on the same footing as Bishops who had disobeyed the law. The House had been reminded that if this Amendment was adopted the Roman Catholic Bishops would be the only persons subject to penalties. That would be perfectly true; but it was because they had deliberately placed themselves under the Act by introducing an authority unknown to this country.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, that as far as he understood the Amendment, the courts of law would not be asked to give any recognition to the Prelates of the disestablished Church, or to the titles they assumed, but the Prelates would be relieved from penalties. That was a very different thing from giving them a legal right to assume titles.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that this was a question of general importance, and ought not to be dealt with in this manner. The Bill provided that every present Archbishop, Bishop, and Dean of the Irish Church should, during his lifetime, enjoy title and precedence as if this Act had not passed, and—according to the decision of their Lordships —the Bishops were to retain their seats in that House. He thought it would be sufficient for them to deal with the matter in the future—a future which he hoped was far distant. If they were to keep in mind the principle of equality, it could hardly be acceptable to numbers of the Roman Catholic Bishops to place them in a different position from other Bishops. Many arguments might be urged for placing both classes of Bishops on a perfect equality; but it seemed to him that this was a disadvantageous moment for considering the question.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, that the Government, by opposing this Amendment, refused to put the Bishops of the Irish Church even on the same footing as that occupied by the Episcopal Church of Scotland. He could not understand the reason for so acting, because it was not a question of prelates nominated by a foreign prince, as was the case which led to the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but simply a case of Bishops elected by a recognized Church Body in communion with our own Church.

EARL GREANVILLE

said, he regretted that he had not earlier repeated what he said the other day upon this subject, when he admitted the difficulty of the case, but said it must be met in a more comprehensive manner than by a single clause in this Bill.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that if this Bill were to operate immediately with regard to the question of the titles of the Prelates of the Irish Church, he should be of opinion that it was absolutely necessary to accompany their legislation with a clause of this kind; but they must remember that the clause in the Bill could not possibly come into operation before the 1st of May, 1871. He thought, therefore, it would be unwise on the part of their Lordships to anticipate a discussion with regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill until the proper time arrived for the consideration of the whole question. He disproved of dealing piecemeal with what was a very large question.

THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY

said, that as the noble Lord (Lord Colchester) proposed to divide the House, he would move an Amendment to the Amendment, so as to make it general in its operation. He moved that the words "in the said Church" be omitted from the Amendment.

After short discussion, Amendment and original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LORD REDESDALE

On the second reading of this Bill I expressed an opinion that it would be possible and desirable to adopt certain suggestions I then made. The question is of extreme importance. I introduced it simply on its merits and without any party feeling; I have not asked any noble Lord to support it, nor do I know the opinion of any noble Lord upon it, except in the case of some half-dozen who have expressed approbation of it to me privately. The subject is important, because it affects the Prerogative of Her Majesty as regards the appointment of persons to sit in this House, and unless the Government approve my proposal, I shall not press it; but I thought it right to lay the matter before your Lordships for your consideration, as I am convinced that it would improve the character of the Romanist clergy in Ireland, and induce persons in a higher class of society than that from which the ministers of that Church are now chiefly supplied, to enter into Holy Orders. I have taken special care in dealing with this question to insure that the persons nominated to sees should be duly chosen as fit to sit in this House, and at the same time entitled to the confidence of the rulers and members of their Church for sound- ness in faith and doctrine; but I know that the terms of my proposal are not such as, at the present moment, would receive the approbation of the Roman Catholic Church, because I believe that the Ultramontane party, now so powerful and active, object to anything approaching temporal interference with the appointment of their Bishops. The proposal, however, is not contrary to Roman Catholic practice in other places, and must be accepted if those Prelates are to be admitted here, because it is obvious that unless the Bishops chosen are so chosen subject to Her Majesty's approval, the Pope would virtually be empowered to nominate persons to this House—an unconstitutional proceeding which cannot for a moment be entertained. But if the Prelates were chosen in the manner my clauses define, there would be no objection to their sitting in this House; indeed, their presence here would be followed by advantages of a material character. The adoption of this Amendment would bring a representative body into your Lordships' House, and I do not think that would be any disadvantage to the House itself; while I think that the plan of appointment which I propose would lead to very great care being taken in the selection of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, and subject those chosen to a new and and most useful sense of responsibility as Members of this House in the discharge of their Episcopal duties. These are the general grounds on which I submit the Amendment, in the framing of which great care has been taken. Your Lordships will see that by what would be a 2nd clause I prescribe a form in which I require each person who gives his vote to declare solemnly, on the true faith of a Christian, that he believes every one of those whom he proposes to be a fit person to hold the office. If such care is not taken three persons might be proposed of whom it would be impossible for the Crown to appoint more than one. According to the plan I propose the Bishops, both of the disestablished Irish Church and also of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, would be made in a manner the like of which I confess I should be glad to see adopted in the appointment of Bishops in England. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first of the following clauses;— If at any time after the passing of this Act the representative body which the members of the Church in Ireland are herein-after empowered with the approval of Her Majesty to appoint, or if the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland shall separately resolve that the archbishops and bishops of their respective churches shall be thenceforth appointed by a synod to be established for that purpose in each province, diocese, or ecclesiastical division of their respective churches, such synod to elect three persons fit for any such holy office, when vacant, in the manner herein-after provided, from whom Her Majesty shall select one, who shall thenceforth be considered archbishop or bishop elect, and when report shall have been made to Her Majesty by the aforesaid church body or Roman Catholic authorities that the person so chosen by Her has been duly confirmed in such office, and Her Majesty shall be pleased to resolve that it is expedient that the church or churches acting in the manner aforesaid should be represented through their prelates in the House of Lords, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to issue summonses to the prelates of the church so acting in such order of rotation as is herein-after provided, and every person so summoned shall be qualified to sit in the House of Lords as archbishop or bishop of the Irish Catholic Church or of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, as the ease may be. Every member of the aforesaid synods shall on the occasion of such elections vote therein by signing the following declaration:— 'I A.B. do hereby recommend CD., E.F., and G.B. as proper persons to be appointed to the office of archbishop or bishop [as the case may be]; and I solemnly declare, on the true faith of a Christian, that I believe each and every one of those persons to be fit and duly qualified to fill that holy office, and that to such one of them or to such other person as may be duly elected and recommended to Her Majesty by this synod for appointment to the same I promise, when he shall have been duly confirmed therein, to render all due canonical obedience during such time as he shall lawfully continue to hold the archiepiscopal or episcopal authority [as the case may be] thereby committed to him.' And the said voting papers shall be sent by the synod to the Lord Lieutenant to be submitted to Her Majesty. Her Majesty may refrain from issuing any summons as aforesaid until both of the said churches shall have agreed to their prelates being appointed in the manner aforesaid, or She may issue them to those of either church which shall have done so: Provided always, that if the prelates of one of the said churches shall have been so summoned, those of the other church shall be also summoned whenever they shall have agreed to adopt the aforesaid mode of appointment: Provided also, that if after having so agreed to such mode either church shall determine to abandon the same, or shall appoint any archbishop or bishop in any different manner, the aforesaid right of the prelates of such church to be so summoned shall thenceforth cease and determine. When Her Majesty shall have resolved to issue summonses as aforesaid they shall be directed to one archbishop and to two bishops of each church, entitled to receive the same in each ensuing ses- sion of Parliament, in the following rotation and succession: a list shall then be made of every archbishop and of every bishop of the church to which summonses are to be issued, on which the name of each archbishop and bishop shall be placed in order according to the date of their respective consecrations as archbishop or bishop, and if at any time any addition shall be made by such church to the number of archbishops or bishops, the person so added shall be placed at the bottom of such list, and whenever any one of those so entered shall die or cease to hold the same, office the name of the person appointed in his room shall be inserted in the same place, and the summons to be issued for each successive session of Parliament shall be directed to the prelates next on such lists to those summoned to the last preceding session.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

said, he must protest against the clause moved by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. It was one of the most objectionable of all the objectionable Amendments that had been proposed to this Bill. The effect of passing the Amendment would be to alter the whole order of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and no one could believe that the Catholic body in Ireland would consent to such a proposal as this. He believed that the real object of the noble Lord in desiring to have this clause added to the Bill was, not to render the Catholic Church more efficient, but to afford facilities to the Prelates of the disestablished Church to sit in their Lordships' House. If only the Prelates whose Churches consented to the conditions laid down in the Amendment would be eligible to become Members of this House, as the Catholic Church would not be in a condition to do so, the only body that could accept those conditions would be the synods of the disestablished Church. That he believed to be the whole object and scope of the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

said, he wished to second what had been said by the noble Lord opposite. If the Bill passed he should not be at all satisfied to see the appointment of Bishops in the hands of the noble Lords on the Treasury Bench.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that in some Roman Catholic countries a plan had been adopted something very like what he proposed.

THE EARL OF GRANARD

Where there is a Concordat.

LORD REDESDALE

said, that might be so; but it proved that it was not contrary to the principles of that Church; and if those from whom the selection was to be made were to be nominated by a purely Roman Catholic body it was impossible to suppose that persons who were not duly fitted for the office could ever be recommended to the Crown for appointment. If it were wished that Catholic Bishops should sit in the House they must come in by the appointment of the Crown; and it would be an honour to the Roman Catholics to be so represented in the House. He had asked no one to support his clauses, and, as they were not received with the favour which he believed they would ultimately command, he was prepared to withdraw them.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 14 (Compensation to ecclesiastical persons other than curates).

LORD CAIRNS

said, the clause provided that the Commissioners should ascertain and declare the amount of the yearly income of each ecclesiastical person, after making certain deductions; and in order to make it clear what those deductions were, he proposed in page 6, lines 2 to 8, to transpose the words, so that they might stand as follows:— ("Deducting all rates and taxes, salaries of curates employed under obligation of law, payments to diocesan schoolmasters, and other outgoings to which such holder is liable by law, but not deducting income or property tax, or the tax on clerical incomes now payable to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland, or payments for visitation fees, or for the maintenance of registries and ecclesiastical courts; and")

LORD NORTH BROOK

said, that the 17th clause provided compensation for diocesan schoolmasters and clerks and sextons; but whilst the salary of the diocesan schoolmaster was to be deducted from the income of the clergyman in estimating its value, the tax paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was not to be deducted. As it was out of the proceeds of that tax that the salaries of clerks and sextons were in part provided, and as these salaries were guaranteed daring the lives of the present holders of office, it appeared to him that the amount of the tax should be deducted precisely in the same way as the payments to the diocesan schoolmaster.

THE BISHOP OP PETER BOROUGH

said, that, as he understood the argument, it was that, as the clergy received certain benefits for the tax paid to the Commissioners, of which benefits this Bill was to deprive them; therefore, they should not be compelled to pay the tax. The noble Lord said that the Bill pro- vided for the payment of the parish clerks; and, he presumed, the inference was that the clergy derived benefit from the tax. He would admit the fairness of the argument if the noble Lord would satisfy him that the parish clerk was of the least possible advantage to any clergyman or any human being except him- self. His function was to say for the people that they were ''miserable sinners," and of whatever other earthly use a parish clerk could possibly be, he could not say. So far from the clergy regarding the expenditure upon parish clerks as being of any benefit to themselves, they regarded the payment of these parish clerks by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as a very great grievance, and a very serious misappropriation of the funds of the nation. Therefore, it was a mockery to treat the clergy as if the clerks were of any advantage to them. The true test was, whether the clergyman, in the new disendowed and disestablished Church, would ever think of setting up a parish clerk? His belief was that he would, in his disendowed and disestablished state, just as soon think of setting up a carriage and four.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he thought that the right rev. Prelate had been to some extent guilty of ingratitude towards the parish clerks, because it frequently formed a portion of their duties to call the whole or nearly the whole of the congregations to church. He saw no reason for the Amendment.

VISCOUNT LIFFORD

said, that he believed he was the only parish clerk who had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House. The fact was that the former clerk in the church which he attended was so intolerably useless that, on a vacancy occurring, he got himself appointed to the post.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

observed that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) had, in the course of his argument that evening, cut from under his feet the ground upon which he had urged the Committee the other evening to assent to his Amendment. On that occasion, the right rev. Prelate argued that this tax ought not to be deducted from the income of the minister, because he derived advantages from its expenditure which he would now lose, and because it was now returned to him in another shape. Out of the sum which this tax produced, however, the parish clerk was paid; and now the right rev. Prelate declared those parish clerks were nuisances, and instead of being benefits, were simply encumbrances. Another right rev. Prelate, the other evening, in support of the proposal, suggested that the money should not be deducted from the income of the clergyman, but that the clergyman should receive the money and be regarded as the trustee for its proper expenditure—this plan of the trusteeship having been invented when it was seen that the arguments urged by the right rev. Prelate would not hold water.

THE BISHOP OF PETER BOROUGH

said, that the noble and learned Lord had unintentionally misrepresented his argument. It had been urged that the clergyman would still derive advantage from the deduction of this money, because he would still receive the services of the parish clerk; and to this he replied that the services of the parish clerk were of no value. What he contended was, that the clergyman, in return for the money, derived advantages, under the present system, which he would, in the future, be deprived of.

Motion agreed to.

Clause amended accordingly.

Clause 21 (Existing law to subsist by contract).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he believed it was the desire of noble Lords, on both sides of the House, that the new Church should be entirely untrammelled, and be absolutely free to manage its own affairs. He thought this freedom would be curtailed by the wording of the proviso introduced by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) in Clause 21. By that proviso, alterations in the Articles, doctrines, and rites would not be binding "on any ecclesiastical person" who should signify his dissent within six months of the making of those alterations. He believed that ample security would be attained by giving this permission to ecclesiastical persons in benefices, because, as the words now stood, any clergyman, for instance, in England, might,. if he had expressed his dissent within the necessary time, at some future period, on being appointed to the Irish Church, act with entire independence of the Governing Body. As the proviso, with its present wording, was likely to create anarchy, he trusted that the noble and learned Lord would re-consider it, with a view to its amendment.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he thought the suggestion of the noble Duke was worth consideration, and he would bear it in mind.

Clause 27 (Enactments with respect to burial grounds).

LORD CAIRNS

said, that, as the clause stood, if the burial-ground was separated from the church by any public highway, it was not to be handed over to the Church Body, but was to be vested in the Board of Guardians. When it was not so separated, it was to go to the Church Body. He thought it would be advisable to remove the distinction. In cases where new churches had been built they had been purposely erected at some distance from the burial-ground, in order that there should be no encroachment on the latter. He moved an Amendment in page 14, line 23, to leave out the words "but not separated therefrom by any public highway."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he could not see what interest the Church Body could have in the possession of the burial-grounds. A provision under the Act of last year, secures the burial-grounds for the use of the entire population, without regard to religion, subject only to the appointment by the clergyman as to time; but he thought it was desirable for the future that the clergyman should be as little mixed up as possible with this subject, and that the burial-grounds should be placed under the control of a neutral body.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences).

VISCOUNT GOUGH moved, as an Amendment, to add these words to the end of the clause— ("Provided always that where any such ecclesiastical residence is so vested in the said representative body by order as aforesaid, such representative body shall have the like rights, powers, and remedies for recovering any sums due for dilapidations, and from the same persons, as the successor of any archbishop, bishop, or incumbent would have had if this Act had not been passed.")

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the Amendment would be just in cases where there were no building charges, but unjust otherwise.

LORD CAIRNS

suggested that the Amendment should be brought forward in a better form on the third reading.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 28 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences).

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, for restoring to the Bill the words omitted in Committee, and thereby depriving the clergy of the Irish Church of their residences, subject to the life interests of the present incumbents, as originally proposed in the Bill, said: My Lords, the words which I propose to restore to the Bill were struck out by a very large majority when this clause was under discussion in Committee. The numbers of that majority, however, do not show altogether its real character. Several Members of this House besides myself voted, as I think we had a fair right to do, in favour of the Amendment for omitting the words in question, because we understand that the Amendment was brought forward in anticipation of other changes that we thought would probably be made in the Bill. I and various other noble Lords had given notice of Amendments for giving the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian ministers, and Dissenters generally, residences upon the same conditions as the clergy of the Established Church; and we had every reason to hope that your Lordships would have accepted an arrangement which was in strict conformity with the main principle of the Bill-—namely, the principle of religious equality. Therefore we voted for the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), as we thought that it opened the way in that direction, and would enable us to benefit equally the clergy of the different Churches. But what have you now done, my Lords? Your Lordships have refused that equality which we hoped would be accomplished, and we are therefore placed in an entirely different position. The main feature of the Bill, as well as the position in which we ourselves stand, has been entirely changed by the subsequent vote of your Lordships. I would ask you to look at the position in which you have placed yourselves by your decision upon the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland). The first part of this Bill relates to the disendowment and disestablishment of the Irish Church. On the day fixed by the Bill the whole of the Church property of Ireland was decreed to pass into the hands of three Commissioners, and you had then tabula rasa; you began a re-distribution in whatever way you pleased of this property. The first condition you have enforced upon the Commissioners in carrying out that redistribution is the preservation of vested interests and certain other interests provided for in the Bill; and you then proceeded to provide for the disposal of the surplus. And what did your Lordships do when you came to that portion of the Bill? You immediately hoist the old Orange flag of Protestant ascendancy, and say that there shall be one Church, and one only, that shall have emoluments, and the clergymen of which shall receive anything from the State, and you give funds to that Church, whilst distinctly excluding all other Churches from any advantage whatever arising from the re-distribution of the Church property. Now, my Lords, though I have often heard persons defend the existing state of things in Ireland, I never heard any man, however earnest a friend he might be to the Protestant Episcopal Church, say that if he had to re-constitute the ecclesiastical arrangements in Ireland he would place them once more upon the footing of an exclusive Protestant ascendancy. That is what is done by the Bill in- its present shape, however, and therefore I earnestly trust that your Lordships will not pass this Bill as it now stands. I know that it is supposed by some that the clause in its present form will benefit the Protestant clergy of Ireland; but I ask whether the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), and those who act with him, can really seriously believe, after what has happened within the last year and a-half, that the country or the House of Commons or the Government can possibly accept a Bill containing this condition? Is it possible that that which has been the first principle of the Bill, the establishment of religious equality in Ireland, should be departed from; and that, after having established equality by the first part of this Bill, you may establish inequality by its subsequent provisions? It is an utterly wild and incredible hypothesis to suppose, after the votes of both the late and the present House of Commons, and after what occurred at the General Election, that such an alteration —I cannot call it an Amendment —of the Bill as I am describing will be accepted in "another place." And if it were not so accepted, in what a position will your Lordships' House be placed by the rejection of my present Amendment, which is intended to correct a glaring anomaly and a gross inconsistency? Your Lordships' House will be placed in the humiliating position either of appearing before the country as wishing to maintain that religious inequality in Ireland which it is the main object of this Bill to do away with —or you must give way to the decision which will doubtless be given in the other House, otherwise the Bill will be lost this year. And I ask —without supposing any extraordinary action on the part of the Government —whether, after the result of the elections, you believe for a moment that the Government or the Parliament will ever consent to re-enact the gross inequality between different persuasions which the Bill as it now stands will re-produce? If not, what will be the consequence? Why, that you will have another Bill brought in without this clause at all; you will have no chance of getting the residences free of charge for Roman Catholics or Presbyterians; and least of all will you have a chance of getting it for the Protestant Episcopalian body. You will therefore be in a worse condition then than you are in now. I trust your Lordships will give your consent to the Amendment I have proposed.

Moved, at end of clause, to insert — ("Upon payment to the commissioners of such sum as is herein after mentioned, that is to say; where there is no building charge affecting the same, upon payment to the commissioners of a sum equal to ten times the amount of the annual value of the site of such ecclesiastical residence estimated as land, and of the said garden and curtilage, such value to be determined in case of disagreement by arbitration; and where there is a building charge affecting the same, on payment to the commissioners of such one of the two sums herein-after mentioned as may be the smallest, that is to say, either the amount of such building charge or a sum equal to the value of such ecclesiastical residence, with the garden and curtilage thereto, taken at ten years' purchase of the annual value as estimated by the general tene- ment valuation, such payment to be made, if there be no life estate or interest subsisting in such residence, to the commissioners at the time of the making of the said vesting order, but if there be a life estate or interest subsisting therein, then to be made to the commissioners or persons entitled thereto, in place of the commissioners, immediately after the determination of such life estate or interest. Where the payment of the amount of any building charge or sum as aforesaid is deferred in pursuance of this section, the amount thereof shall be deemed to be a lien on the said ecclesiastical residence, and the garden and curtilage thereto, in the nature of a lien for unpaid purchase money, but it shall not bear interest until the same becomes payable in pursuance of this section." —(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As I had the honour of moving the Amendment which my noble Friend proposes to reverse, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word in its defence. In doing so I would observe that, as far as I am myself concerned, I entirely concur with all that my noble Friend said on the subject of concurrent endowment. [A laugh.] I mean the giving of ecclesiastical residences to the clergy of different denominations. "Evil communications corrupt good manners;" and I own that it is difficult in these discussions to preserve that purity of expression which is always desirable. But I entirely concur with my noble Friend as to the propriety of giving similar advantages in this matter to the Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian bodies; and, if opportunity offers, I hope I shall be found ready to support my opinion by my vote. At the same time, I cannot follow my noble Friend in all that he has said this evening, or in the propositions he has laid down. My noble Friend tells us that no one within his knowledge has ever proposed this mode of settling the Irish Church question, by giving to the Protestants alone their glebes and glebe houses. I think, however, that my noble Friend has left out of his calculation one person whom it is very difficult to forget, and that is Mr. Bright; for that is exactly the proposition which I heard Mr. Bright make in the House of Commons last year. Although I have read the extract from Mr. Bright's speech before, perhaps I may be allowed, under the circumstances, to read it to your Lordships again.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

explained that what he had said was that nobody that he knew of had ever declared that if he had to make entirely new ecclesiastical arrangements in Ireland, he would give these advantages to the Protestant Episcopal Church exclusively.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then I understand that the noble Marquess referred only to the possible case of an abstract Church in Ireland. But we have to deal with a concrete Church, and I adhere to the opinion expressed by Mr. Bright last year —that religious inequality was not in any way interfered with by giving to the Protestants their churches and parsonages. That was the distinct statement made by Mr. Bright in the House of Commons last year. It is not necessary to repeat his declaration in further detail; but it is upon that statement, and upon statements to the same effect by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) and the Prime Minister, that I venture to claim this concession, both as being in accordance with the wishes of the constituencies, and as an act of justice to the future Church of Ireland. I do not think it necessary, however, at this time to argue the case, which really was very fully argued before. I will only say that I cannot consent to the Amendment of the noble Marquess. If, however, this particular form of benefit to the Church of Ireland is supposed to convey any insult to other bodies, and if it is thought that there are any other means of giving a similar amount of benefit to the Protestants of Ireland, which will not be open to the imputation of destroying religious equality and offending the feelings of other religious denominations, no man would be more willing than I should be to assent to such a substitution. My object has been to obtain what I thought an act of justice to the Church to which I belong; but in the selection of the terms of the Amendment I have sought, as far as possible, to avoid either injuring the rights or wounding the feelings or prejudices of other religious bodies in Ireland. I believe that the House generally has been animated by the same desire; and I contend that there is nothing in my Amendment of this clause, or in the measure, which in any way violates the principle of religious equality, or which will seriously interfere with that policy of conciliation which the Government claimed to have adopted in bringing forward this Bill.

EARL GREY

I entirely agree with my noble Friend near me (the Marquess of Clanricarde). I voted for the Amendment striking out this clause, which it is now proposed to restore, because I believed that it was highly desirable that ecclesiastical residences should be provided for the clergy of the different denominations. I hoped that the Amendment which went to relieve the Anglican Church from the payment to be imposed upon it for the houses of the clergy would be followed up by another, giving such residences to Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, as well as to the clergy of the Protestant Church. It appears to me, however, that, having rejected that proposal, we now stand in a totally different position. If there is one object more important than another to be attained by this Bill, it is that we should convey to the people of Ireland the determination of Parliament that no superior advantage or favour should be given to one denomination of Christians over another, but that all should be put on the same footing. Now, my Lords, as we have deliberately declined to allow residences and glebes to be assigned to the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, it appears to me utterly impossible that Parliament can provide that, after the expiration of existing life interests, a permanent endowment of these houses and glebes should be given to the successors of the existing clergy, who are priests of the Anglican Church. It is impossible to grant that privilege to them, while refusing any similar privilege to the Roman Catholics, without making it apparent to every man in Ireland that one measure of favour is being dealt out to Protestants and another to Roman Catholics. The effect of this will be to to destroy whatever advantage might otherwise be derived from this Bill. I am glad, therefore, that my noble Friend is going to enable me, by the vote I give to-night, to show that on a former occasion, in the vote I gave, I had no intention of showing a favour towards the Anglican Church which was not to be extended to the other Churches in Ireland.

LORD CAIRNS

I wish to correct an observation made by the noble Earl which may otherwise mislead some of your Lordships. The noble Earl has spoken of this clause as a clause which gives to the future Church the residences and glebes which you have refused to allow to priests of other denominations. Now, the clause does not do so. It deals in no way with glebes. On the contrary, by another clause in the Bill, if a glebe of over thirty acres is required, it is to be paid for by the Church at its full value. I can quite understand that when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and the noble Earl (Earl Grey) voted for the Amendment of my noble Friend (the Duke of Cleveland) the other evening they had in view another Amendment which was to be proposed, and regarded both as parts of one large question. But I wish to remind the House that that was not the view of the great majority of those who gave that vote. Let me remind the House, too, that if the arguments of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess are correct they go quite as much to the question of churches as to that of residences. If we are to have this abstract, perfect, arithmetical, and mathematical equality, which the noble Earl seems to desire, it is impossible to justify the transfer to the new Church Body of the churches which are to be given over to them by this Bill. We supported the Amendment of my noble Friend on the grounds of justice —justice as to the churches and the residences. We suggested it also on the ground of the express declarations of Members of the Government, including the most unequivocal declaration by the Prime Minister, upon which the issue, as I believe, was taken before the country; and I further believe that if the country had been told that the intention was to take away from the Church its churches or parsonages, it would have risen against any such proposal. I must make one other remark upon the statements of Members of the Government last year. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) put a colour on those statements the other evening. He said that at the time Members of the Government wore not aware of the existence of the building charges upon these houses. Of course, I accept that statement as a matter of fact; but if declarations of policy made by the Government were to be altered by circumstances of that kind —which I do not for a moment admit — how do the Government justify the proposal in the Bill, before its Amendment, that all residences should be paid for, whereas there are, at least, 400 residences upon which there is not a single shilling of building charges? Though I do not deny the statement of the noble Duke, I cannot help thinking that the argument of the building charge was an after-thought, and that it was only brought into play when it became necessary to justify that very strong provision made in the Bill; because, if that were really the reason of the change, it is clear the payment should only have been demanded when a charge, was made, and not otherwise.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble and learned Lord is quite right in stating that the Bill gives residences and not glebes to incumbents; but, though the proposal to give glebes to the Protestants only would have been still more objectionable, I think that as a question of justice the grant of residences cannot be maintained. Nothing is more likely to produce a sense of inequality in Ireland than the sight of a comfortable residence handed over to the Protestant Church on the one side, while on the other side the priest lives in a cabin or a hovel. With regard to the building charge, which has been made an element in this question, I may remind your Lordships that, in referring to this subject last year, Mr. Gladstone pointedly guarded himself with reference to details, and when we came to look into details there were several peculiar circumstances which had to be considered. We had also to consider the irritation which was sure to be produced if we gave those residences gratuitously to one Church only. No doubt we proposed to give them to the Protestant Church on very reasonable terms; but still they would not be given gratuitously, and that would be the answer made to any complaint on the subject. Now, I am not going to argue this question over again; but I must protest against the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that by adopting his Amendment the House has not in the slightest degree departed from the principle of religious equality among the various denominations in Ireland. I believe that the contrary is the case. I have received a remarkable amount of information to the effect that this particular Amendment with regard to residences has already in different parts of Ireland produced the greatest possible irritation. I think, therefore, that the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland) is justified in regretting that he abandoned his own way of dealing with this question, and I am glad that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) has now come forward, in fulfilment of the honourable understanding existing among some of those who supported the Amendment, to show that a large portion of the House does not agree with the proposal as it stands.

THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND

When I submitted to your Lordships another proposal in connection with this subject, it was with a view to establish perfect religious equality in Ireland. That proposal, I am sorry to say, did not meet the approbation of your Lordships; and that being the case, I, for one, cannot refuse to accept the principles which have been advocated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) and the noble Earl (Earl Grey). I entered into an arrangement with certain of your Lordships upon the general principle. Only one part of that principle has been accepted, and the other has been refused. I cannot, therefore, do otherwise than agree with my noble Friends the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, that as the principle of this Bill is equality, we must restore that provision of the Bill which provides equality. I can only repeat the statement we have already heard to-night, that when in Ireland you see on the one side the residence apparently of a wealthy person, and on the other side a cabin, and know that these are the houses of the Protestant clergyman and the Catholic priest, you will have a visible token of the inequality that exists. I think we are bound in justice to all parties to restore the Bill to its original shape in this particular, and I shall therefore support the Amendment now proposed.

EARL RUSSELL

When this measure was first brought before us I voted for it with a view to establish religious equality; and although that has not been perfectly secured, I cannot turn round now and. vote against the clause because it does not assert the principle of equality. The Bill in its original form did not do that, because it allowed the clergy to retain their residences at a price greatly below their value. Whether you give a man £100, or whether you give him for £200 that which is the value of £300, you equally do that which is fatal to the principle of equality. I voted for this Bill as a matter of policy. At the same time I wished— as I stated on the second reading—that the Roman Catholic clergymen and the Presbyterian clergymen should also have residences provided for them. But I do not give up that hope. I refer to the Notice which my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) has given that on the third reading he will propose that the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic clergymen should also have residences. I trust that Amendment will be carried, for if it be there will then be equality.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

said, he would not detain their Lordships more than two minutes. With reference to the discussion fixed for Monday on what was now called co-ordinate endowment, he thought it right to correct an impression which he gave rise to in addressing their Lordships the other day. He stated that he had reason to believe that if a co-ordinate grant to the Roman Catholic clergy was offered, as a matter of justice, it would be accepted. He had since informed himself that a meeting had been held of the Roman Catholic Bench of Ireland, when, for particular reasons, which would be explained on Monday next by his noble Friend (the Earl of Granard), it had been resolved that it could not be accepted if offered.

On Question? — Their Lordships divided:—Contents 56; Not-Contents 91: Majority 35.

CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Halifax, V.
	Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
Cleveland, D.	Torrington, V.
Norfolk, D.
Saint Albans, D.	Belper, L.
	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Ailesbury, M.
Normanby, M.	Calthorpe, L.
	Camoys, L.
Camperdown, E.	Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)
Chichester, E.
Cowley, E.	Churchill, L.
De Grey, E.	Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Denbigh, E.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Fortescue, E.	De Tabley, L.
Granville, E.	Fingall, L.(E. Fingall.)
Grey, E.	Foley, L. [Teller.]
Kimberley, E.	Leigh, L.
Lichfield, E.	Lurgan, L.
Minto, E.	Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)
Morley, E.
Sommers, E.	Methuen, L.
Spencer, E.	Monson, L.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Mostyn, L.
Northbrook, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Petre, L.	Stratheden, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]	Sudeley, L.
	Suffield, L.
Romilly, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Saye and Sele, L.
Seaton, L.	Vernon, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, Archp.	Bangor, Bp.
Dublin, Archp.	Derry and Raphoe, Bp.
	Lichfield, Bp.
Beaufort, D.	London, Bp.
Buckingham and Chan dos, D.	Peterborough, Bp.
	Tuam, &c, Bp.
Manchester, D.
Richmond, D.	Abinger, L.
Rutland, D.	Bolton, L.
Wellington, D.	Cairns, L.
	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Chelmsford, L.
	Churston, L.
Bath, M.	Clarina, L.
Bristol, M.	Cloncurry, L.
Exeter, M.	Colonsay, L.
Salisbury, M.	Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]
Tweeddale, M.
Winchester, M.	Congleton. L.
	Delamere, L.
Bandon, E.	Denman, L.
Beauchamp, E.	De Ros, L.
Bradford, E.	De Saumarez, L.
Brooke and Warwick, E.	Digby, L.
Brownlow, E.	Dunboyne, L.
Derby, E.	Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry.)
	Fitzwalter, L.
	Foxford, L. (E. Lime rick.)
Harrington, E.
Harrowby, E.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Home, E.
Kellie, E.	Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Lauderdale, E.
Lucan, E.	Headley, L.
Mansfield, E.	Hylton, L.
Morton, E.	Leconfield, L.
Nelson, E.	Northwick, L.
Portarlington, E.	O'Neill, L.
Powis, E.	Ormathwaite, L.
Romney, E.	Penrhyn, L.
Rosse, E.	Rayleigh, L.
Russell, E.	Redesdale, L.
Selkirk, E.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Tankerville, E.
	Saltoun, L.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clan carty.)	Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)
De Vesci, V.	Silchester, L. (E. Long ford.)
Gough, V.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]	Sinclair, L.
Hood, V.	Southampton, L.
Lifford, V.	Talbot de Malahide, L.
Strathallan, V.	Wynford, L.
Templetown, V.

Resolved in the Negative.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Your Lordships will remember that when this measure was brought forward in the other House of Parliament the private endowments of the Church, up to 1660, were estimated by Mr. Gladstone at about £500,000. An Amendment was made in your Lordships' House that the date for private endowments should be fixed at 1560 instead of 1660, and then the noble Earl (Earl Granville) proposed that the sum of £500,000 should be accepted as an equivalent for the private endowments up to 1560. I now propose to your Lordships that that offer should be accepted, and your Lordships will, I think, see that this is a payment to which the Irish Church is justly entitled in lieu of her private endowments. I will say a very few words on the general question of the endowments reserved for the Irish Church. There has been such an amount of exaggeration on this subject that I think it right to recall your Lordships' attention to the real state of the ease. I believe that we could maintain our right to all these sums on the simple principle of this Bill —reserving private endowments, and that which seems to me to stand on the same ground as private endowments —namely, the possession of houses which have been built greatly at the expense of members of the Church; and lands immediately adjoining the houses, which have acquired their whole value from the sums spent upon them by the clergy of the Church. But without entering further into details, I wish to put before your Lordships this simple case. According to the calculations of the Prime Minister, the property of the Irish Church is worth £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. The very largest amount that will be retained for the Irish Church when this Bill is passed and existing interests are paid off is £3,000,000 out of these £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. Now, I put it to your Lordships, and through your Lordships to the country, whether it is not a generous offer that the Irish Church has made to surrender all but one-fifth, or less than one-fifth, of the whole of its revenues, in order to conciliate those who are irritated by its existence. I will prove the matter in another way. It is granted that the income of the Irish Church is between £500,000 and £600,000 a year. Now, the very utmost which is claimed for the Church by the Bill, as amended by your Lordships, is about £120,000 a year, and thereby more than £400,000 is sacrificed in order, as I have said before, to conciliate those who are irritated by the existence of this Church. Now, I wish to say that in this calculation with respect to money we are entirely influenced by the fact that it is through the retention of some small sums such as those I have indicated that the Irish Church will be able to provide for the poor peasantry in distant places who cannot be attended to on the voluntary principle, and whose interests we consider it to be right to secure by this very moderate endowment. I believe that there is in the country a strong feeling that the Irish Church is not to be trampled on; and I believe that the system which would deprive it of this small and reasonable endowment would be trampling upon it. I cannot believe, my Lords, that the other House of Parliament will, for one moment, object to allow the Irish Church, —having sacrificed its political ascendancy —having sacrificed four-fifths of its income —having descended from the high position it has maintained for centuries —I say I cannot believe that the other House of Parliament will object to allow it to be carried on in the same way as a moderately endowed colonial Church is carried on in any of Her Majesty's colonial possessions. I believe further that in retaining this small and moderate endowment for the Irish Church we are fully carrying out the principles of this Bill, because Her Majesty's Government and the other House of Parliament have themselves secured for it an endowment, though very moderate indeed in character, and we only join issue with them on the question as to what increase on that moderate endowment is indispensable for carrying on the Church so as to provide for the welfare of the poorest of our Protestant brethren in Ireland. I say I believe that the other House of Parliament will not grudge this very moderate request; but I would further say that I believe it does not so much depend on the other House of Parliament as upon Her Majesty's Government whether this moderate endowment shall be conceded. I cannot believe that those with whom we are associated in this House, whom we know, some of them, to be the most trusty and valued sons of the Church of England, will object to the proposals which your Lordships have made and laid before the country. But I will go further, and say that I believe it depends not so much on Her Majesty's Government as on one man, and I can- not believe that that one man, for so many years the most trusted son of the Church of England, will oppose the moderate provision of this Bill in order to gratify the monstrous and unnatural combination that has been formed against the Church of Ireland.

Amendment moved in page 16, line 29, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("when") in page 17, line 23, and insert — In lieu of any real or personal property becoming vested in the commissioners by virtue of this Act which may consist or be the produce of property or monies given by private persons out of their own resources, or which may consist of or be the produce of monies raised by private subscription, and without prejudice to any life interests preserved or secured by this Act, the com-missioners shall, on the application of the representative body of the said church, pay as at the end of six calendar months after the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one to such representative body the sum of five hundred thousand pounds sterling." —(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

EARL GRANVILLE

I wish to say a very few words on the present occasion. I did make the proposition which the most rev. Primate has embodied in this Amendment, but I also said that it was made in connection with other Amendments to which I strenuously objected. I took that opportunity to say to your Lordships that I thought it fair to say that we would most strenuously oppose the Amendment that stood next in order with regard to the Royal grants. But notwithstanding this your Lordships immediately proceeded to argue the question of the Royal grants, and you carried their retention by a large majority. Now the most rev. Primate, after the Royal grants had been introduced into the Bill, treats it as if there were no objection to it, and trusts that this is a matter on which the House of Commons will yield. But I must plainly tell your Lordships that after what has taken place Her Majesty's Government feel themselves free to deal with the whole of this amended clause as they may think fit. Now, what is the point in dispute between us? The most rev. Primate has said that your Lordships produce no inequality whatever by proposing to give £3,000,000 to the Church over and above the life interests of its present members, and he is quite convinced that the country will be in favour of such a course. Now, in arguing on the second reading of the Bill, notwithstanding the protests of myself and my Colleagues, many of your Lordships contended that a distinction had been made between disestablishment and disendowment when the question was before the country. I could never see the slightest distinction between the one and the other. Disendowment was fully brought forward last year, not only in the suspensory Resolutions, but on the Motion of Lord. Stanley. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) said the other night in arguing against concurrent endowment, that we ought to look to the language that was held contradictory to it on the hustings. Now, though it is true that the candidates on one side did strenuously resist concurrent endowment, the candidates on the other side said nothing at all. But with regard to disendowment, I can hardly find a single place where candidates on our side did not argue for disendowment as well as for disestablishment; while there was hardly a single candidate of a Conservative character who did not blame the scheme of the Government as one of robbery and spoliation. I cannot conceive, therefore, that, the verdict of the country was not given for disendowment as well as disestablishment. As to what the most rev. Primate hints about one Member of the Government, I may say that it does not depend upon us, but that the House of Commons will not accede to the proposition. To say that we are to have an institution to which we are to give all the churches —their houses at a reasonable rate, according to our plan —by the plan adopted by this House, for nothing at all —who are to have also an incorporation by which they may hold land, and then that, beyond all this, you are to give them £3,000,000 —I say, so far as I am concerned, if I were a Member of the House of Commons, that I should consider myself to be committing a breach of faith with the great constituencies of the country were I to assent to it.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTETBURY

What I said was that the £3,000,000 included the houses and the lands adjoining.

EARL GRANVILLE

At any rate, your proposition is to give the Church, beyond the life interests of her members, the sum of £3,000,000, and I say that I believe the Government would be guilty of a breach of faith with the country if they sanctioned such a scheme. I trust this is not the ultimate decision of your Lordships; if it be I shall regret it exceedingly, for reasons which your Lordships know, and because I believe it will not be accepted by the country.

LORD CAIRNS

I must express my surprise at what has just fallen from the noble Earl. Tour Lordships will remember what occurred the other night. The noble Earl made an offer that instead of the private endowments a sum of £500,000 should be accepted, which he said would obviate the necessity for litigation, and that it would be a very favourable compromise for the Church. I thought at the time that it was a very fair proposal; but we all were of opinion that the proper course would be to consider it before the Report, and to communicate with those who were interested in the question. But that was an offer which did not in any way depend upon the course to be taken by the House with regard to the next Amendment on the Ulster glebes, for the noble Earl said that this was altogether independent of the Amendment as to the Ulster glebes, which the Government would think it their duty strenuously to oppose. [Earl GRANVILLE dissented.] My Lords, I shall only say that I shall cease to believe any event for twenty-four hours if I have not correctly re-called what fell from the noble Earl on that occasion, and I was never more amazed than when I heard the noble Earl say that in consequence of the Vote of the House on the Ulster glebes the Government would feel at liberty to take any course they might think fit. If the noble Earl withdraws the proposal, why not oppose the Amendment of the most rev. Primate now? This Amendment naturally follows the acceptance of the noble Earl's proposal the other night; it is for the Government, if it thinks fit, to withdraw that proposal, but I cannot believe the noble Earl means to do so. I agree with the noble Earl that the proposal should be for a payment of £500,000 generally in lieu of private grants; but I protest against there being any misunderstanding whatever as to the fact that the offer made to us was made distinctly upon this question, isolated and without re- ference to any other question whatever, and it is upon that understanding we accepted it. "With regard to another point, the noble Earl certainly misunderstood me when he interpreted my remarks as regards declarations on the hustings. I said — If you want to know the feelings of the country with regard to nominal endowment out of the funds of the Church, look at what occurred on every hustings at the last election. Every candidate, or a great number of candidates, were interrogated by the electors as to whether they would consent to endow every denomination out of the funds taken from the Church, and the answer was distinctly 'No.' I never said that the candidates had pledged themselves to strip the Irish Church of every farthing she possessed; on the contrary, I remarked that they referred to what Mr. Gladstone had said —namely, that the Church was to go out with its churches and residences, and with some amount of property, described as amounting to between two-thirds and three-fifths, and they asked whether that was harshness. And I remember perfectly well that when, these people came back to the House of Commons they were shown what everyone before had overlooked, the words ''Or its members'' after the word "Church;" but nobody had ever dreamt that Mr. Gladstone intended interpreting an endowment of three-fifths of the Church property by life interests, which are of no value to the Church as such whatever. As far as the feeling of the country had been expressed, I believe the idea of total disendowment of the Church has never been approved in any form by the country. The noble Earl seems to be very much astonished at the most rev. Primate's calculation, and the noble Earl says that the idea of the property being preserved after the Church is disestablished is what the Government cannot accept; but Mr. Gladstone said there would be a benefit derived by the Church, after compensation of life interests, which he calculated from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. I never examined into the calculation, but that was the result stated; and I mentioned it because it is decidedly at variance with the statement of the noble Earl that no property should be preserved to the Church.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Really I and noble Lords sitting near are in doubt whether to believe our ears. The noble Earl comes down here one night and asks us to adopt a suggestion of his, instead of an Amendment which is before us, and then, when your Lordships have accepted that proposal, he conies down and asks us to alter it. I must ask the noble Earl, under these circumstances, to state really what the decision of the Government is?

EARL GRANVILLE

I must appeal to the words I used, and what I stated was this, that the course the House has pursued, both with regard to the Royal lands and the alteration of the Amendment, leaves the Government at liberty to deal with it as they think fit; and if your Lordships think I have gone beyond what I ought to have stated, I do repeat that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to agree to that clause in its entirety as it stands now.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I want to ask my noble Friend whether, instead of asking for delay for the purpose of considering the proposal, that when we agreed to the offer of £500,000 in lieu of all claims, he at once accepted it?

EARL GRANVILLE

That makes a very great difference; the bargain was not accepted. ["Oh!"] I really do not wish to say anything contrary to the feeling of your Lordships' House; but there is a great difference between dealing with a proposal of that sort made in precise terms, and postponing the matter for consideration altogether; and I repeat that, although there is no intention of the Government to withdraw that particular offer, yet I say it is quite impossible for me to pledge them to retain this clause as it is arranged.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

deprecated any attempt to depart from the original understanding.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he was willing to alter the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

stated that, in his anxiety for the fate of the Irish Church, when the present life interests were exhausted, he had made some calculations to show what the future of the Church would be. A fifth part of the Church's income, £112,000, was already placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would at once become the property of the Government. Then the £440,000, capitalized at fourteen years' purchase, the £266,000, the compensation to curates, and the £500,000 added together, would give only £120 a year for each person in Holy Orders. If every clergyman were to take out his life interest, the endowment would cease at once; but, if by an exercise of great self-sacrifice, while holders of livings of £100 a year were allowed to take them in full, holders of £200 should be taxed 5 per cent, of £300, 10 per cent, and so on up to the maximum of livings, say £1,000, which he would tax at 50 per cent, and the incomes of the Bishops by two-thirds, the proceeds would amount to £100,000 in the first year, and that could be saved by a corresponding exercise of self-sacrifice by the laity. He did not, therefore, think the Church could be regarded as too rich to enable the clergy to live as they are conventionally expected to live, nor too rich if all the incomes of the clergy were invested, or if, by the exercise of the self-sacrifice he had described, the incomes of the clergy were in some part saved and made good by the subscriptions of the laity. The Amendment was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, which was said to be equality, and which was, in fact, the reducing of all to a dead level of destitution, and making all as miserable as possible.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that in the debate on the 5th July, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) spoke of £500,000, though it was not in the Bill, as the amount of the private benefactions which Mr. Gladstone had stated he was prepared to yield. Thereupon the noble Earl (Earl Grey) asked whether the noble Earl (Earl Granville) suggested that he would give a lump sum of £500,000 to the disendowed Church as compensation for these claims. Up to this time not one word had been said about the Ulster glebes. Earl Granville replied that that was the case, but the question of the glebes was to be dealt with by an Amendment which would presently be discussed, and to which the Government would offer a most strenuous resistance.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that whatever might have been the exact words used, the facts were that when the date had. been altered from 1660 to the 2nd of Elizabeth, in order to bring discussion to a close the noble Earl (Earl Granville) proposed to obviate all difficulty about date by giving a fixed sum of £500,000 for all the private benefactions, provided no other claim were made in respect of private benefactions. And he added that the Government would not accept the Amendment with regard to the Ulster glebes. That being so, directly after the £500,000 had been offered, the Amendment claiming the Ulster glebes, which represented £1,000,000 more, was carried. It was, of course, impossible that the Government could take the view of the majority of their Lordships with reference to this large endowment of £1,000,000, and it was out of the question to suppose that they could give up £1,500,000 of private endowments. He maintained that, if their Lordships insisted upon having the Ulster glebes, they could not insist upon having the £500,000 too. The Government would adhere to their pledge, and give the £500,000; but they could not give up another £1,000,000 of private benefactions, and their Lordships must take their choice. The other day, when the Ulster endowments were asked for on behalf of the Church, the ground on which the claim was based was that they were private endowments, and their Lordships were now bound by the position which was then taken, and they must, therefore, allow the Ulster glebes to be classed with the private endowments for which the £500,000 was offered. The most rev. Primate asked how much was to be given up by the Church. The Church had nothing to give up; that which she held she held unjustly; and the Government proceeded on the basis that it was not just that 700,000 people should retain that which was intended for the benefit of 5,400,000. Therefore, the Government did not talk of giving up anything, but only of protecting life interests. There was nothing whatever for the Church to give up. So far from doing wrong, the Government believed they were doing that which was just, and right, and beneficial to the Church.

LORD CAIRNS

said, nothing could have been more easy than for the Government to have said, when they made this offer, that it was to be understood it was made conditionally on the withdrawal of the Amendment relating to the Ulster glebes. That would have been a plain, simple, and straightforward proposition, which would have been understood, and which it would have been for the Committee to accept or reject. But what happened was this. When they were discussing an Amendment which would have given them what they valued at more than £500,000 —namely, the right to trace back these endowments to the time of the Reformation, which their Lordships would have affirmed, they lost the opportunity of taking the opinion of a full Committee, and they did it on the faith of the promise made by the Government. He protested against the course now taken as contrary to good faith, good morals, and equity, and, least of all, should he have expected it from the noble Earl.

EARL GRANVILLE

said he had not the slightest objection to the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) changing and adopting the terms in which he originally gave notice of his Amendment; and, further, he had not the least objection to pledge the Government with regard to the £500,000 if the Committee did not insist upon the Ulster grants. The Government did not withdraw any proposal they had made, but they absolutely declined to promise to give £500,000 in lieu of private benefactions, and to couple with that whatever might be the value of the Royal grants.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that, after the explanations which had been made, the most rev. Primate had better withdraw his Amendment.

On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.

Amendments made: Bill to be read 3^a on Monday next, and be printed as amended (No. 182).

House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock,