Sitting of 10 June 1824

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY—TRIAL OF MISSIONARY SMITH.
Mr. Grenfellpresented a petition from Falmouth, complaining of the unwarrantable treatment of the late Mr. Smith, at Demerara. The hon. member observed, that it was too much the fashion now-a-days to apply the epithets of methodist, fanatic, and saint, to any body who thought proper to complain of the hardships of the negroes in the West-Indies. He was neither a methodist nor a fanatic, and most certainly not a saint; but, as a member of a religion, inculcating peace and good-will to all men, and teaching the
1168
precept of doing to others as he would wish to be done by, he would fearlessly declare, that he did not believe the declarations which had been made respecting the good treatment of the negroes. On the contrary, he thought that these poor creatures were the most wretched of the human species, and suffered under an infliction which was every way aggravated by their task-masters. He also believed that there was in Demerara a rooted objection to permit the slaves to be taught the doctrines of the Christian religion; nor did he wonder at it, when that religion could only inculcate more strongly the heinousness of their treatment. Entertaining these opinions, he should tomorrow give his cordial support to the motion of his learned friend.
Mr. Robertsoncould assure the House, that there were many in the West-Indies who highly recommended the diffusion of instruction by missionaries, and who thought that the Christian religion could be best imparted to the negroes, by that meritorious class of persons.
Sir I. Coffinsaid, that the blacks were contented and happy, as long as they were left alone, and without having their heads stuffed with nonsense, which they did not understand. He had seen thousands of negroes as fat and as jolly as the hon. member himself.
Mr. Warreprotested against the wanton cruelty which had been inflicted by the recent commutation, as it was called, of the sentences of some of the black prisoners. To give a man his life, and then to torture him to death, was a singular sort of commutation. Yet such was the fact. What else could be called the sparing a man from being hanged, to inflict upon him the military execution of a thousand lashes? He hoped that while the government at home were so laudably engaged in discouraging and abolishing that species of torture, they would express such an opinion upon its infliction in the colonies, as would prevent a repetition of these acts.
Mr. Manningdeclared, that when he was in the West-Indies, he had seen no instance of the infliction of exorbitant punishments; and he could add, that pains were taken in the colonies to promote religious education.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—CORK PETITION.
Mr. Hutchinsonrose to pre-

1169
sent a petition on the subject of the Catholic Claims from the Catholics of the county and city of Cork. The petition was signed by 900 Catholics; and lest it should be supposed from the smallness of the numbers, that the Catholics were indifferent to the subject, he begged to state that there never was a time when they were more unanimous on the subject. The petitioners approached the House with respect, but with a deep sense of unmerited oppression and sufferings under the existing law. They preferred their claims on the broad principle of justice and political equality; they laid it down as an axiom', that equal and impartial justice should be dealt out to all members of the same community; and they asserted as to Ireland, that the empire could never enjoy peace and prosperity until all religious parties were placed on an equal footing. As parliament was to be prorogued in a few days, he was anxious to know what excuse could be offered, for the negligence which had been shown on this subject. In what manner it was to be explained that the ministers had not felt it to be their duty to direct the attention of the House to this great, and he might say, imperial, quest ion. Should he turn round on the Catholics, and say, that it was to their apathy or misconduct that this neglect was to be attributed? He could not, in his conscience, say so. He had witnessed the loyalty of the Catholics, and their devotion to their sovereign, convinced as they were, that nothing but the advice of ministers was necessary to cause the fullest justice to be done to them. When he found them taking an oath of allegiance, unexampled in its nature, disclaiming all the abominable doctrines imputed to them; when he found them approaching parliament respectfully with their petitions; when he found them performing unexceptionably all the political duties to which they were admitted—as electors, jurors, grand jurors, and magistrates; when he looked into the page of history, and saw the battles that had been won by their valour; he could not say that the Catholics had, either by their indifference or their misconduct, merited the neglect which had been shewn towards them. He should appeal to the example of the other governments of Europe, under none of which was conscience made a cause of exclusion. If the ministers refused to bring forward the question at the time which was most auspicious for the discussion of it, they would be forced
1170
into the discussion of it, when concession would look like fear, rather than justice. It was a question which must, for the general safety of the empire, be put an end to one way or other, and speedily too; and he was convinced that many of those Protestant gentlemen in Ireland, who had opposed the Catholic claims, would be glad to compose the distraction which they saw prevailing in Ireland, by a concession of the question.
Mr. W. Beckersupported the petition. He was glad of any opportunity of expressing his opinion on this great question, though this was not the occasion for entering into a full discussion of it.: All the friends of the question could do was, to induce the House to come coolly to the consideration of it, and to be in no manner prejudiced on account of the alleged misconduct of a few persons, on whom the injustice of the present laws operated most severely, and who could not be expected to feel or to express themselves respecting them, in the same manner as indifferent spectators. The manifestation of feeling on the part of these individuals was only an additional proof of the necessity of the repeal of the oppressive laws.—In a land of general freedom, no law could be made against a particular body of subjects which they would not be able with success to evade. What would be the conduct of the people of England, if the major part of the population laboured under the same disabilities as the Catholics of Ireland? If the people themselves were indifferent, would not persons of weight and consequence be found endeavouring to rouse them from a lethargy so disgraceful, and the most respected of those who now heard him would be branded with the name of agitators.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SMALL DEBTS IN SCOTLAND.
Lord A. Hamiltonrose, for leave to bring in a bill for the extension of the small debts act in Scotland. In doing so, he observed, that he did not act from individual feeling. In the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Scotland, it was stated, that the commissioners and the justices of the peace were unanimous in wishing for the extension of the act. Numerous petitions had also been presented in favour of the measure; from which it appeared, that creditors in Scotland often gave up debts of moderate amount altogether, ra-

1171
ther than go to the expense of suing in the superior courts; whilst, in many cases, persons to whom 7l. or 8l. were due, reduced it, so as to come within the provisions of the Small Debts act. As the present session was so far advanced, he wished only to bring in his bill, and have it printed. The noble lord sat down by moving, for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 39th and 40th acts of the late King, cap. 46.
The Lord Advocatedoubted, whether the feeling in Scotland was so favourable to the noble lord's measure as was supposed. The bill looked only to the interest of the creditor; but that of the debtor deserved also to be considered. Here was a new facility to be given to the recovery of small debts, carrying of course with it a fresh encouragement to the giving of small credits. More than three-fourths of the persons now imprisoned in Scotland were imprisoned for small debts; and the bill gave a power of summary confinement to the creditor, beyond that which he possessed already. He had no objection to the bill being brought in and printed: but, upon examination, it would be found, that heavy objections existed against it. It Was worth while to observe the mode of doing business in those courts, of which it was now sought to extend the jurisdiction.
Mr. Maxwellwas favourable to the principle of the bill, but wished that something could be done to get rid of the system of imprisoning for small debts.
Mr. Humewished to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in question to 15 l., and to get rid of all imprisonment for debt, both in Scotland and England.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

IMPRESSMENT OF SEAMEN.
Mr. Humerose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. It was his intention, he said, to have moved for a select committee, as the best mode of inquiring into the means of remedying the evils of Impressment; but having, in the early part of the session, undertaken another inquiry in a committee, he; felt he could not have done justice to either had he brought both forward at the same time. He had been compelled, by the necessity of attending to his own convenience, and to the convenience of other members, to drive it off to this late period of the session; and he should not
1172
now satisfy himself, if he did not bring the subject under the notice of the House, He meant, therefore, to ask it for a pledge fully to discuss this question next session, and to move for such information as would enable the committee to inquire into it with effect. He was aware that the opinions of many gentlemen around him differed from his; but if those gentlemen would consider the measure in detail and view it without prejudice, they must, he thought, come to a conclusion, that the present system ought not to be supported unless the salvation of the country could he shewn to depend upon it. No man was more anxious than he was, to see our navy pre-eminently great, the just pride and boast of the country, and cherished as our best arm of defence, and he, therefore, would never propose any measure which would cripple it, or render it less powerful. Entertaining this opinion, his object was, not to cripple our navy by the measure he meant to propose, but to render it strong and irresistible; which, under the present system of coercive service, it never could be. Like other services, he thought the men might be engaged voluntarily for the navy. An opinion had lately been expressed as to the great advantages which voluntary service of every kind had over coerced service. That opinion was advanced, indeed, with regard to the slaves in the West Indies; and he was sure that all those who supported that opinion would agree with him in placing the navy on the principle of voluntary service instead of the principle of coercion of the most obnoxious kind—a coercion, too, which had not had the effect which individuals attributed to it; and which by estranging the hearts of our people, and making them shun the navy as a plague, or as a pestilence, instead of procuring seamen, had banished them both from the fleet and the country.
If such was a plain statement of the case, was it not worthy of the House to go into a committee to inquire, even though the result of that inquiry should be to shew that no alteration could be made in the present system without danger to the country? If such should be the result, would they not at least have the satisfaction of having attempted to remedy evils which were acknowledged to exist, and which were inflicted by a system opposed to the general principles of our government; which was founded on respect for individual rights? I Impressment had certain-

1173
ly existed a long time; and opinions were divided as to whether it was legal or not. In his view of the matter, it was of no consequence whether it was sanctioned by five hundred acts of parliament, or by as many precedents, or not. In either case it was still unconstitutional. Those statutes and precedents might make it legal; but that which was legal was not always constitutional. In times of necessity they all submitted to pass laws and make things legal which were quite unconstitutional; which shewed that the two things were not the same. He had endeavoured to make himself master of the various opinions on the subject; and he knew that, if judged by precedent, impressment by common law was warranted and proper. He found, by a reference to one of the ablest arguments which was ever delivered on the subject—he alluded to that of judge Foster, though he did not agree with him—that there were no statutes in favour of this practice. That opinion was delivered in the year 1743, on occasion of a press-gang going to board a vessel at Bristol, and one of the crew, named Alexander Broadfoot, fired, and killed one of the gang. On that occasion Mr. Serjeant Foster (afterwards made a Judge, perhaps for the very arguments he stated that day) attended. The man was brought in guilty of manslaughter, because there should have been an officer in the boat and there was none. The argument which Mr. Serjeant Foster, delivered on that occasion, was the best he had ever met with; and he admitted, that there was no statute then in force expressly empowering the government to impress seamen, but that it was founded on immemorial usage of the king's prerogative. But, if this principle was not repugnant to any statute or precedent, it was contrary to the principles of public utility. He knew there was a difference of opinion among both civilians and gentlemen of the navy—whether this practice were useful or not. But if the committee were appointed it could ascertain this, and satisfy the country whether it was beneficial or hurtful.
The hon. member then referred to another opinion of Mr. Justice Foster, which he had formed by mistranslating an act of parliament; as had been shewn by Baron Maseres, whose work he recommended to the gentlemen opposite. Since that time there had been no decisions to alter the character of impressment at com-
1174
mon law; nothing had occurred either to support or weaken its legality, which still rested only on immemorial usage. He thought it was a proper subject for the consideration of the House, whether it was useful or not, and whether it was so pre-eminently useful, that, to continue it, all the rights of our sailors ought to be trampled under foot. It was curious to observe, that there was no class of men who were more praised—none whose actions were more held up to general admiration—than the seamen of England: and yet there was no class of subjects whose rights were so much encroached upon on the ideal plea of necessity. He found many records on the books of the House, of the alleged existence of this necessity. In the 5th of Anne it was stated, that the practice was absolutely necessary for the defence of the realm. This necessity had, at all times, been the plea of tyrants; but it was necessary for those who made such a plea to prove that it existed. He should show that it did not. In the year 1739, an attempt was made to bring in a bill to mitigate the evil; but he would, before he came to this, just mention the fact, that the ships which composed Admiral Blake's fleet were manned with volunteers. If in that instance, voluntary service had obtained seamen for the navy, the practice ought to have been kept up; but it seem ed to be soon afterwards abandoned. The attempt to which he had before alluded, as having been made in 1739, had completely failed. The argument the government had then used was this—In time of war we will not act, as it is likely to endanger the country; in peace we will, but then there is no evil to be remedied. The subject had been again brought forward in 1749, 17.58, and in 1777, when a bill was brought in by a gentleman, which excited considerable sensation; and it was brought in at the recommendation of a lieut. Tomlinson, who had published a very clever pamphlet on the subject. The bill did not succeed. He would further allude to an attempt which had been made in 1696 to register seamen, by which 30,000 were always to be made available for the public service. This scheme was suspended, on account of the expense it caused; but it was repealed before there was time to experience its effects.
No other efficient measures had ever been tried. On many points, such as the pay and the provisions of the seamen, there had been a great amelioration in the

1175
service; but in spite of all these improvements, there was among the sailors, up to the latest period of the war, as strong a dislike of the naval service as ever, and as strong a disposition to desert. Desertions, in fact, constantly took place: the seamen mutilated themselves, and ran any risk rather than remain. To shew what was the state of the seamen's minds, he would read an extract from an excellent pamphlet published by captain Marryatt, which would fully prove that their hatred of the service was not lessened at the close of the war. The hon. member then read an extract, stating, that, in 1814, capt. Marryatt was appointed to the Newcastle; that while he was on board, some of the men, in view of the sentinels, and in presence of their officers, got down the ship's side, took possession of one of her boats, and though they were fired at with ball-can ridge, succeeded in gaining the shore and effecting their escape. From every opportunity which he had of judging, he observed, that this disposition to desert did not arise from a dislike of the treatment by their officers, but from their natural abhorrence of compulsory service. Captain Marryatt also stated, that when the Newcastle was in chase of the American ship the Constitution, she had one hundred men less than her regular complement.
This, then, was a proof of aversion existing, up to the close of the war; and he thought it was a rational object of inquiry to ascertain why that aversion existed. Why, he wanted to know, did this aversion exist among the seamen when there was no aversion among other classes Why, he wanted to know, when we got plenty of admirals, plenty of captains, and plenty of midshipmen, why was it that we could not get plenty of seamen? Why was it that there were no men to be got for the navy, when there were plenty of men to be got for every other situation? One reason was, that they were not sufficiently paid. The labourer was worthy of his hire; and why should not the seamen be paid like other men? There were many advantages in the kind's ships which the seamen in the merchants' service had not. In every man of war the men had the best medical attendance; and there were good hospitals to receive them when they were sick, which men in the merchants service had not. Their provisions also were better, and abundant. They had a regular supply
1176
of liquor, to which sailors attached great value. Then, they had the chance of being made petty or warrant officers, and in that capacity, there were pensions for their widows. When the navy possessed all these advantages, certainly it was a curious subject for inquiry, what could make our seamen mutilate themselves, and subject themselves to all kinds of misery. rather than enter the service. He was satisfied no sophistry could solve this question. It was necessary that there should be an inquiry to ascertain what were the advantages and what the disadvantages of this system. If it was the coercion of impressment which made all its other advantages be overlooked, was it not right to ascertain the causes of this aversion? The House would not do justice to themselves, or the country, if they refused the inquiry which he should propose. If, in that inquiry, the absolute necessity of the practice could be proved, why then a great good would be done; but, if it could be shown, that the evil might be altogether avoided, surely no man would contend that it ought to be continued.
He had mentioned that seamen of the royal navy possessed many advantages not enjoyed by merchant seamen. He would now mention some of the disadvantages under which they laboured, and which, in addition to the forced service in the first instance, created such a repugnance to enter our ships of war. In the first place, he would mention the irregular mode of payment to our sailors. He would admit, that a considerable improvement had been effected in this respect by lord Melville, by what was called the Allotment act; but, that the system was far from being perfect would appear from this—that in many instances, five, six, and seven years, and in others ten, twelve, and fourteen years; were allowed to pass over, before a seaman was paid his wages in full. In the interim, he received only an occasional pittance, which did not serve his wants for the time being. Was it possible that men who had earned their money with so much labour should be satisfied with such a system? He might here mention the small amount of the seaman's pay on board a king's ship. In the time of William the 3rd, the pay of the seamen was 24 s per month. It was at present not more than 32 s. How could they be satisfied with such pay, when they found that men in the merchant service obtained 3, 5, 7, and

1177
sometimes 11 guineas per month? Let the House look to the condition of the American navy. There was no impressment. America, the only nation which could attempt to rival us on sea, had no impressment of sailors; and, if they could man their navy efficiently without that practice, why might not we? If we should hereafter meet America in hostility on the seas, we should have to contend on very unequal terms. It would be a contest of freemen against slaves: for, under the present system, our seamen were not freemen; they were as completely slaves as any galley slaves that were ever chained to the oar; and were far worse than the slaves in the West Indies. America purchased the voluntary services of her seamen; and why should not England do the same? Why should America, a poor and an infant state as compared with England, pay her seamen double or treble the wages that we paid ours? In America, too, the sailors were regularly paid every two months; while in our navy the poor seamen, after returning from some distant voyage, were sent to India, or to some other remote station, for five or six years, during which time they did not receive a single shilling; and on their return were paid what was due to them in a mass, to be thrown away, as under such circumstances might naturally be expected. All this might be easily and completely remedied.
The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, the indefinite length of service. They had heard a great deal lately, and very properly, on the subject of negro slavery. They had heard a great deal of the cruelty of dragging negroes from their families on the coast of Africa, to work on our sugar plantations. He, for one, would never end his support to negroe slavery; but he for one, would also contend, that the-reasoning which was applicable to the natives of Africa, was equally applicable to the natives of Great Britain. The House could not refuse to impart to British seamen the protection they were disposed to grant to African negroes; especially when they recollected, that the latter were not natives of a country in which they were promised protection and freedom, but from which they were dragged by a press-gang. The manner in which British seamen were sometimes seized for the naval service, he would not attempt to describe. He had himself, on arriving
1178
in England during war time, seen the alarm excited among the crew of an Indiaman. No sooner was the vessel in port than she was boarded by a man-of-war's boat, and men who had been absent three or four years from their country were at once disappointed of their hope of revisiting their family and friends, and carried off perhaps to some station as distant as that from which they had just returned. Was not this a state of things which ought to be put an end to? At any rate inquiry ought to be instituted into the practicability of putting an end to it.
There was another great cause of complaint among the sailors; namely, the being deprived of leave to go on shore when their ship arrived in any port. He was quite aware that when men were taken compulsorily into the service they would, like birds confined in a cage, endeavour to escape. But that was an. additional reason for putting an end to a system of coercion, which thus involved, in its consequences volunteers, as well as pressed men, and subjected them all to a sort of imprisonment. He was persuaded that this disposition to escape would not evince itself under better circumstances. Other countries felt no difficulty in that respect. The American sailors evinced no disposition to desert; although, they were allowed, on the arrival of their ship in port, to go on shore, and make their, own markets. The fact was, that sailors were just like other men. A few of them might be very bad, and rendered worse perhaps by that degrading treatment which prevented them from having any thing like fair play. It seemed, however, to be supposed by many persons, that sailors were quitedifferent from other men. But he was quite satisfied that they might be made whatever it was tried to make them. The fact was, however, that we had mistaken the manner of managing our sailors. As far as he had had experience of them, sailors were blest with as good qualities as other persons, and were as kind, as faithful, and as brave as any class in the community; and yet they were treated with a description of discipline applicable only to felons, and the most obdurate characters. Let any hon. member change places in his own mind with a sailor, and consider how he would feel under such treatment. Sailors might be repressed by physical force; but it was contrary to human nature to suppose that they could be otherwise than dissatisfied.

1179
Another point to which he wished to speak, was the mode of punishing sailors, and the severity of the punishment. This might be thought a delicate subject; but it was one that ought not to be passed over. But, first, he was anxious to say a few words on our code of maritime law. The articles of war appeared to him to require much revision. At present, they subjected every man to whatever punishment the whim of an officer, or the sentence of a court-martial, might inflict. One great object of the inquiry which he proposed to institute, would be, the nature of our maritime code, and the practicability of improving it, and of getting rid of the odium that at present attached to it. With respect to the punishment of sailors, it appeared to him to be so objectionable, that he appealed with confidence to a government which had shown so much sensibility towards black, to evince a little of it towards these white slaves [hear, hear!]. Notwithstanding that cheer, he repeated it, that they were white slaves, and he was prepared to prove that they were so. What was it that his majesty's government had done in favour of black slaves? What was it that was intimated to the governors of our West-India colonies in the circular, commonly called lord Bathurst's letter? After directing that legislative measures should be proposed in the colonies having legislatures for preventing the punishment of flogging in every case where the offender was a woman, and pointing out the necessity of prohibiting the use of the whip in the field, lord Bathurst proceeded to say, "I have now, in addition to those instructions, to direct, that you will cause some effectual law to be submitted to the legislature for preventing any domestic punishment whatever, until the day following that on which the offence may have been committed, and even then, except in the presence of one free person, besides the person under whose authority the punishment may be inflicted. If the punishment should exceed three lashes, it should be provided that a regular entry should be made in a plantation-book, to be kept for that purpose." What he submitted to his majesty's government and to parliament was this: If they prohibited the slave-owner in the West-Indies from inflicting one single lash, except on the day after the offence, by which time the passions might have time to cool, would they permit British seamen to be punish-
1180
ed, not with three but with two or three dozen lashes, without any court-martial, or other inquiry into his culpability; on the order of his officer, and at the instant when passion might be presumed to influence the judgment? Surely, it was impossible that they could continue to subject British seamen to the whim and caprice of individuals in power over them, while they thus interfered on behalf of the black slaves of the West-Indies. An end ought to be put to all immediate punishment. No punishment ought to be inflicted but by the sentence of a court-martial; and then not until that sentence had been approved; a proper time having been allowed for its consideration, as in the army. He did not speak of offences in the presence of the enemy. Those, of course, must always be dealt with in a summary manner. But, in general, immediate punishment ought to be put an end to.
With regard to the punishment of flogging, he had been told, that it would be impossible to carry on the naval service without it. He believed, however, that some of the best officers in the navy were of another opinion. No doubt there was some improvement on this point. There were times when corporal punishment, in the navy, was carried to an excess, the contemplation of which must make every benevolent man shudder. Even at the present moment, notwithstanding the checks which the Admiralty had endeavoured to interpose, by directing that returns should be made of the number and extent of punishments, &c, excessive punishments occasionally occurred. In proof of this, it was only necessary for him to refer to the trials of several naval officers for the infliction of severe punishment on their men. Some of those officers had been reprimanded, others had been suspended. The fact was, that when men were vested with unlimited power, it was impossible to foresee what they might be tempted to do. Well might the hon. member for Bramber say, that no man ought to be trusted with absolute power. He had been anxious to ascertain the facts of some of the cases of what was called "starting," &c, to which he had adverted. One of those cases was that of the captain of the Dispatch. It appeared that during one voyage there was scarcely a man on board that ship who had not received corporal punishment. On her return into harbour the

1181
Port Admiral went on board, and investigated the matter, and was so satisfied o. the fact, that he superseded the captain. A single instance of such a nature occurring, notwithstanding all the checks interposed by the Admiralty, proved the insufficiency of those checks, and the necessity of some legislative interference. He had received a letter from an individual, in which the writer offered to be examined at the bar of the House, and to give his evidence with regard to the general treatment of sailors, and to the system of flogging in the navy. Returning to England in an Indiaman, this individual was pressed, and sent on board the Lion, of 64 guns, captain Rolles, and carried off to China. The account which this individual gave of the discipline on board the Lion was, he believed, a specimen of what frequently occurred. In the first place, with regard to provision, the crew were placed on short allowance. It appeared also that, besides extra days, captain Rolles had two regular flogging days, Thursdays and Sundays. On Sundays, after prayers and a sermon by the chaplain, the men were ordered to be turned up, and an extensive flogging generally took place. If it were proved, that any man had one dirty shirt in his chest more than he ought to have, no matter how many clean shirts there might be, he was flogged to a certainty. There was every reason to believe, that on board the Hermione, the crew of which frigate rose and murdered the officers, the discipline had been much too severe; for it was stated by a writer on the subject, that the character of her captain was the opposite of humanity. He was persuaded that a very different system would be introduced, if strong measures were adopted on the subject. Hitherto, officers who disobeyed the instructions of the Admiralty respecting it, although they had been dismissed, were speedily reinstated; so that their punishment was merely nominal. That a different system was practicable was evident, from the conduct of several officers—conduct in the highest degree honourable to them. He had been informed by as intelligent and as zealous an officer as any in his majesty's Navy, who had served as a lieutenant for 18 months onboard the Bulwark, of 74 guns, that during the whole of that time he had not known of a single corporal punishment on board that ship; although in discipline she was so complete and efficient,
1182
that she might on that point challenge any ship in the fleet. In a pamphlet on the subject, it appeared that on board the Larne, captain Tatham, there had not been any corporal punishment for a long time. When captain Stewart took the command of the Dictator, in the North Sea, after in vain trying flogging in various degrees, he had recourse to putting offenders on bread and water for two or three days; by which means he made the Dictator a most orderly ship.—Lieutenant Standish Hayley, serving under captain Gower, now admiral bower, stated, that in captain Gower's ship there was no corporal punishment. Such was the general result of his inquiry into the subject. What had been done in one instance, if only one instance instead of so many had been adduced, was sufficient to prove the practicability of an amelioration of the system. Unfortunately, however, our men of war were too frequently commanded by young and inexperienced officers; and many excellent seamen were, in consequence of their apprehension of the treatment from such persons, induced to avoid the navy, as they would a pestilence.
Another, and the worst of all evils to which it was desirable that the inquiry should be directed, was the system of impressment. It was well known to every individual conversant with naval affairs, that the manner in which press gangs acted placed the whole naval community in a condition perfectly repugnant to the spirit of freedom. The bringing of men by coercion into a state of imprisonment was a system which ought not to be persisted in in this country. These were some of the grounds on which he rested his motion. He feared that he had trespassed on the patience of the House, but it was necessary to render the subject intelligible. Taking them altogether, it appeared to him that they loudly called on the House to enter into an investigation, in order to ascertain if a mode could not be devised, by which the navy might be regularly supplied with volunteers. There was no occasion to give any great encouragement to our naval officers. Plenty of captains might be obtained without bribery. He objected, therefore, to the mode of distributing prize-money, and still more to the profits which the captain of a roan of war derived from the freight of specie, plate, &c. Why not distribute the prize-money principally among the

1183
class of men who were unwilling to serve, as an inducement to them to enter? By the present distribution of prize-money, the captain had three-eighths, the lieutenants, master, &c. one-eighth; the warrant officers, one-eighth; the petty officers, one-eighth; and the foremastmen one-eighth among them. Thus, if a vessel, with a compliment of 450 men, captured a prize worth 1,000 l. the captain received 375 l while the whole of the seamen shared only 250 l. among them. If they wished sailors to enter the navy, was that the way to induce them to do so? Then, with respect to the allowance for carrying specie, he had no objection to it, when the money belonged to private individuals; but when it was public property, the practice appeared to him to be a solecism.
There was another question of great importance to be considered, and that was, in the event of a war, how we should stand with America, and with the naval powers of Europe, with respect to the right of search for British seamen—a right we had never relinquished? The system we had adopted of visiting foreign ships, in order to take out our own men, had cost us ninety-six millions in the late American war; for he laid the whole of that war, and the expense arising from it, at thedoor of the practice of impressment. If we had not had any impressment, we should not have had that war. The practice of searching foreign vessels stood number one among the causes of discontent against this country cherished by foreign nations: and especially by the natives of the United States. No man who had not inquired into the subject, could be aware of the immense importance which had been attached to this question in America. He held in his hand a copy of an American account of men taken from their ships by the British, which had been published throughout America and had greatly contributed to fan the flame of indignation against Great Britain. He believed the paper in which it had been published was called "The Olive Branch;" a name certainly not very indicative of its character and object [the hon. gentleman here read one or two of the cases mentioned]. These casesmight be overcharged—he had no doubt that they were overcharged; but still they had had the effect of exciting great discontent in America, and proof ought to be given, that there was a necessity for persevering in the system in which that discontent originated. Should
1184
our system of pressing be persevered in, what security could we have that, in the event of war, our seamen would not flock to Holland or to Fiance, or still more to America, where the language was the same as their own? The mischief resulting there from might be incalculable; and the present was undoubtedly the most proper time for considering a national question of so much importance. What was the practice in America? There was no impressment in that country. Every sailor was a volunteer. On entering he received a liberal bounty; and his term of service was limited.
One point which it was expedient on our part to discuss was, whether, even if we were obliged to adhere to coercion, the term of service ought not to be limited. But, if impressment was justifiable at all, it could only be on some very extraordinary emergency. He was quite aware that the present subject was not agreeable to many who heard him. The details would appear tedious to some: to others, whose opinions had been previously made up, those details were of little consequence. But to him, when he contemplated the melancholy circumstances that might result from a pertinacious adherence to our existing system, they appeared to be of the highest importance. What was the practice of France? There the system was, in some degree, one of conscription, chiefly of sailors belonging to the merchant service and of fishermen; but it was for a limited term of service, and exempted the individuals from subsequent service in the army. It was very desirable to ascertain the exact practice of France and of other naval countries in this respect. Whatever they found expedient approximated to a parity of reasoning in favour of the adoption of a similar plan by ourselves. For his own part, he certainly had imagined a plan, which he could without difficulty submit to the House. But he thought it would be presumption in him to do so, without previous inquiry and examination of details. He thought that he should act more wisely, and in a way more calculated to produce a good effect, by proposing a parliamentary investigation by a committee, in which every description of plan might be fully considered. He had stated what the evils were: he now called upon them to devise a remedy; and thereby to place British sailors on a footing with every other class in the community. By various means,

1185
by holding out inducements to tradesmen and other landsmen to enter the navy, by granting greater remuneration and more extensive privileges to sailors, and by other devices of a similar kind, it appeared to him that there would be no difficulty in establishing a volunteer instead of a coerced marine. The expense of the present system might be most advantageously converted into one of the means of effecting so desirable an object. That expense was very considerable. He understood that during the late war the number of men employed in the impress service exceeded 3,000; and that the expense of that service amounted to between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. per annum. Upon the grounds he had stated, he really thought no hon. gentleman, however disposed he might he to vote against the motion, could, in honour or justice, refuse to vote for such an inquiry as a committee might institute. He was most anxious that such a committee should be appointed; but at present he asked only that hon. gentlemen would pledge themselves to such a measure in the ensuing session. He would now conclude by moving,
"That this House, being well aware of the difficulty of manning the Navy in a time of war, and of the evils of forcible impressment of seamen for that purpose; and considering that a time of profound peace will best admit the fullest and fairest examination of that most important subject, will, early in the next session, take the subject into consideration, with the view to such regulations as may obviate the evils consistently with the efficiency of the Navy, and the best interests of the country."
Mr. Robertsonsaid, he would second the motion, because he thought inquiry was a good thing; but he was by no means satisfied that such a committee as the hon. gentleman recommended would effect the purposes which he appeared to anticipate from it. For his own part, he was not sure that there was not much less disposition to desertion in the navy than in the merchant service. He did not believe it possible to do without the impressment of seamen; but being willing to see whether any thing, and what, could be done towards attaining the objects which the hon. gentleman had in view, he would support the resolution.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, he found great difficulty in following the hon. mover through the very extended range which
1186
he had taken in his speech: for though the hon. gentleman had stated, in the commencement, that he would confine himself to the question of impressment, he had digressed, at a considerable length, into the subject of the discipline of the navy. In his answer, it would be necessary for him to divide his observations into two parts; the first relating to impressment. Indeed, the subject of impressment had been almost got rid of by the very seconder of the motion: who had asserted his belief, that impressment could not be done away with. Now, in the case of an evil of this description (for an evil he admitted impressment to be) if it could not be got rid of, it was much better that no hopes should be improperly held out. He was satisfied, however, that he spoke the sentiments of every naval officer in that House, when he said, that they would be delighted, if it were possible to carry on the service without continuing the practice of impressment. Every body would feel how unpleasant it must be for officers to command men who had been brought by force to serve under them, and whom they were to take into battle. But still he must declare, that his own moral conviction was, that there was no possibility of maintaining our naval strength and superiority, without maintaining also the law of impressment. He called it a law, though he felt how unequal he was to argue a point of law to the House; but the hon. gentleman might have told them, that lord Mansfield, when a seaman who had been impressed was brought up before him by habeas corpus, finally disposed of the case by saying, that the man had not shown sufficiently that he was exempted by the statute, and had not proved any common law right against the impressment: and therefore he sent him back to the ship to which he belonged. Lord Kenyon, in a judgment on a similar case, had extended the liability to impressment to all persons exercising employments in. the seafaring line. Now, there was one other clear reason why, as he thought, this power of impressment could never be parted with—the country could never have a sufficient number of men to man both the navy and the merchant service, unless the same number of men were maintained in time of peace as in war. It was quite clear that, at the conclusion of a war, when 100,000 seamen were brought into our ports and paid off, there could be little or no employment for them, and they

1187
Would disperse in every direction. But, supposing they got employment of a different sort, what would be the consequence? He appealed to all his gallant naval friends who heard him, to say whether the trade of a seaman, like every other trade, did not require constant employment to keep him effective. Even if they were all kept in barracks together on shore, the effect would still be the same; not to mention the enormous expense that the country would be put to. The fact was, however, that our ports were full of merchantmen, manned (no thanks to the hon. member for Aberdeen) from the full war complement of our navy. What, then, would be the state of the country at the breaking out of a war? These men could all be got at, and made available: for our merchantmen were full of them. But, on the other hand, in war, our navy took charge of the merchantmen; and for a merchant ship, landsmen, old invalids, and ordinary seamen would suffice; therefore, though it could not be denied that the system was liable to objection, yet it must be allowed that it worked well; and that no difficulty was experienced, except that which arose from taking the men by force, in-stead of receiving them as volunteers. Unless this system had been ascertained to be tolerably effective, could any one suppose that, in the state in which Europe was, even only a year ago, our men of war could have remained quiet in their harbours? Before, however, volunteers could have been got, our naval force must have been enlarged to such an extent as would have enabled it to cope with the navy of France, at least. As it was, however, our ships remained quietly in port, without any additional expense to the country and yet a sufficient number of hands might at any time have been got out of our merchantmen in any corner of Europe. He did not know whether the hon. member for Aberdeen was aware, that seamen were impressed in time of war only, and not in time of peace. It was only in cases of emergency, as at the breaking out of a war that the power of impressment was exercised. The very preamble of the press-warrant recited this emergency. Now, the House would recollect that during the whole of the war we had a larger commerce than even during the peace, for we had in our own hands the commerce of the whole world. But the hon. gentleman had talked a great deal
1188
about the superior facilities of manning the American navy. Why, it must be obvious, that to man our navy, which had the whole of our vast commerce to take care of, and which was enlarged to a force of 800 vessels of war in service, was a much more difficult thing to do than to man half a dozen American frigates. Yet this increased difficulty of manning our ships was brought by, the hon. gentleman as an argument against the service generally. It was not to be denied, that occasionally during the war, such a difficulty did occur: but, after the peace the difficulty had gone all the other way. He had received a letter, for example very recently from a friend of his on board an East India-man. The letter stated, that the India-man had been lying at anchor for six weeks, unable to proceed because of the number of her hands who had deserted into a man of war. Indeed, the Admiralty—perhaps, going beyond what they were strictly authorised to do—had found it necessary, owing to repeated complaints of the same evil, to issue orders to commanders on foreign stations not to take on board hands who offered themselves out of merchantmen. Yet by statute, it was very certain that every man had a right to enter himself on board a man of war; and, by doing so, he cleared his articles with the master of the merchantman. Notwithstanding this, so numerous had been the representations he spoke of, that the Admiralty had been compelled to direct commanders not to take merchant seamen in cases where their quitting was likely to distress the merchantman. It had happened to himself at St. Helena, to be under the necessity of making a similar order, upon many applications from merchants and masters. Now, the hon. gentleman had unfairly imputed to me British navy this defect—that the seamen were very prone to desertion; and this disposition the hon. gentleman attributed to the effect of impressment. He had then contrasted the case of the American navy, contending, that because their seamen were volunteers, they were to be trusted, and never deserted. Now, it was but a very little while ago that he (sir G. C.) had received a letter from a commanding officer on the Mediterrean station, in which the officer wrote to this effect—"I am now lying alongside an American 74. My men go ashore by themselves in divisions every day, and return always when their leave is out. Her

1189
men never go ashore without a guard over them, to prevent them from deserting; and they are constantly applying to be taken on board us as seamen." He would contend that the condition of a British seaman now on board ship, was perhaps better than that of any man of his class. The state of the country did not allow men enough to man both the merchant service and the navy; it was therefore our policy to keep up in time of peace a sufficient number of seamen to man the ships of war in commission upon the peace establishment. At the present moment, however, the commerce of the Country had become so extended, that it was thought necessary to make some addition to the complement of men allotted for the squadron which was maintained by tin's government. Beyond the number required for the merchant service, and that peace squadron, it would be impracticable to keep up any considerable body; for the effect of attempting to do so, would only be, to drive them into foreign service. To create a greater body of seamen than there was an actual necessity for, was to do mishief instead of good. His own mind was quite made up to oppose the hon. gentleman's motion; but more particularly as it went to give a pledge for the next session, which would be tantamount to a declaration, that parliament was intending to do that which it felt it would be improper to induce any person to expect.—Me now came to the second division of this subject—!he discipline of the fleet. The hon. gentleman thought, that one of the greatest defects of the service was the power given to captains to punish wrong-doers. Here, again, he (sir G. C.) conceived the power to be absolutely necessary; admitting, that those ships wherein it was least exerted were generally the best managed and the best regulated. But, let the House picture to themselves the case of a few officers—say eight or ten—perhaps strangers to the ship and crew, coming on board a ship of the line with a crew of, 800 men. whom they were destined to command, and about to sail with to the most distant latitudes. It was known that the very dregs of the people, the worst criminals even, were not unfrequently sent on board ship; and, could it be doubted that over such a crew, and under such circumstances, it was necessary to invest the commander with a power of punishment, calculated to strike a momentary
1190
terror, and to repress the dangerous disturbances that would be so likely to arise at a vast distance from their home, among a multitude of men, removed from the more immediate contemplation of the laws and tribunals of their country? But, while he was for preserving this power, he was for using it as seldom as possible. The very knowledge that it was possessed, might often deter men who were ill-disposed from the commission of violence, or from other misconduct. The hon. gentleman had suggested, that there should be some alteration in the mode of paying ships on foreign stations; and, when sailors had been long abroad in them, it was certainly desirable that they should be furnished with a part of the monies due to them. But, it was not to be forgotten, that much had been already done towards this end. By the allotment system, the sailor could leave half his pay to be taken up by his family at home; While at sea he had his victuals as much as he wanted his, wine, his cloathing, and all necessaries; and when he was ill, he had every medical attention; so that he could only want money for a "frolic," as it was called, on shore; and a very natural wish on his part it was. But, it was not to be denied, that if it was an advantage, that the seaman could leave half his pay, it was equally agreeable to him, on his return from a long cruise, that he could receive the other half all at once: for it was well known that a sailor at all times liked to have a "whack" of money, when he came home wherewith to enjoy himself. Without holding these up, however, as temptations to a service which required nothing of the sort, he would maintain, from his own information and experience, that, generally speaking, service on board an English man of war was the most popular service in the world. The statements which the House had heard from the hon. gentleman were very much exaggerated. At this moment British seamen were disposed to be contented, particularly since they had received from the liberality of parliament that boon in the "long service pensions," which would do them more good, and effect for the service a far more permanent benefit, than all the hon. gentleman's speeches. Every sailor, after 14 years' service, unless he deserted, was now entitled to a pension for life: and after 20 years' service, not only to a considerably increased pension, but to demand his discharge, the Admi-

1191
ralty having steadily refused to entertain the very numerous applications that had been made by seamen who had deserted, and wished to avail themselves of those privileges, to get the "R" taken from their names in the books of the Navy office. He was confident, that in a very few years, the crime of desertion would be more scarce in the British navy than in any other public service. He should therefore decidedly oppose this motion, and hoped to be in a large majority against it.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, he should not have spoken on this subject if the hon. mover had not called the navy the "white negroes." Now, the moment an impressed man was brought on board ship there was no difference between him and a volunteer, and more volunteers ran from ships of war than pressed men. He could enumerate a number of eminent persons in the navy who had been originally pressed men. There was old admiral Bowater, he was a white slave. There was admiral Mitchell, he was a white slave. There was sir T. Trowbridge, he was a white slave. There was captain Butterfield, who was impressed in 1793, and was a captain in 1798. There was captain Cook, one of the first of navigators he was another; and there were, he had no doubt, 20,000 of these white slaves. If the men were not otherwise to be had, it was necessary to press them; and if they had a good bellyfull of victuals, coats on their backs, and medicine when they were sick, they could not be called slaves.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that a man might have a good coat on his back, good victuals in his belly, and medicine when he was sick, and yet be the veriest slave that ever crawled. As to the expression which his hon. friend had applied to the navy, and which the gallant admiral had noticed, it was only intended to convey the assertion, that seamen were not in possession of the privileges of other Englishmen; an assertion which could not be otherwise than correct, while they were liable at any time to be taken from their family and friends, perhaps never more to be heard of. His hon. friend was not the first person who had found fault with the system of impressment. Hume had mentioned it as one of the three great anomalies of the English constitution—that an Englishman who was so free in the eye of the law, that the highest power in the kingdom could not arbitrarily imprison him for a moment, should be taken away
1192
for years. The gallant officer had confessed that the impressment was considered in the navy a great grievance; and had defended it solely on the ground of necessity. He had conversed with an officer of the navy, deservedly decorated with one of the orders, who said he was quite confident, that in the next war it would be impossible to carry press-warrants into execution—that from the increased knowledge which the people had of their rights, the resistance to press-gangs would be ten times more sanguinary than it had been. During the hot-press in time of war, respectable inhabitants of Westminster, who lived near the bank-side never stirred out except armed with knives, to resist the press-gangs. They knew the legal decisions on the subject; but all the decisions in the world would not prevent them from resisting this atrocious violation of natural right; for such he must call it, when a person was violently torn from his family and friends. As to the legal decisions on the subject, judge Foster was the first person who had ventured to say it was legal, though, in a qualified manner. Lord Mansfield had followed, and said, that impressment was so general a right that there must be a statute to exempt a man from its operation. This was a pretty specimen of the manner in which the liberties of the subject were treated by those who should be their defenders. The fact was, that there never was any thing like law on the subject. As to the necessity, there were but 140,000 men in the navy at the time of the greatest amount of our maritime force; and, of these, 30,000 were marines. So that in order to get 110,000 men, it was necessary, with a population of 17 or 18 millions, to resort to these violent and illegal measures, and to fill ships sometimes, it was said, out of gaols. Now, was not this a proof that some inquiry was necessary on the subject? The gallant officer had laid down two positions, which were extraordinary enough from a person so zealous in defending the character of the navy—first, that the navy could not be filled without force; secondly, that the character of British seamen was such, that it was absolutely necessary that they should be subjected to corporal punishment at the arbitrary pleasure of the commander. Now, the gallant admiral seemed to think that that House was not the fittest place for instituting such an inquiry. He seemed to imagine, that if an amendment

1193
were to be made in the present system of manning our navy, those who advocated such a measure must seek it elsewhere! If he had rightly heard the gallant admiral, he understood him to say, that parliament had done a great deal for the navy; that they had taken care to increase their pensions; and had, in fact, introduced measures more beneficial than any likely to be produced by his hon. friend's speeches. But if it was the duty of that House to take into consideration the pecuniary concerns of the navy, why should they not inquire as to whether that navy could not be manned without an infringement of the rights and privileges of British subjects. The mode of impressment into the British navy was a blot on our history, of which all writers had complained. And, whatever might be his opinion of that House, he felt it to be a place in which a man could lift his voice in defence of his country's honour and character, and in support of the rights and privileges of his fellow subjects. He was not vain enough to suppose, that any thing which fell from him could bring a single vote from the gallant admiral, or the gentlemen by whom he was surrounded; but he felt that by expressing his opinions there, he had an opportunity of forcing upon the attention of the country that which, if not expressed in parliament, could be no where expressed with effect. The hon. gentleman who seconded the motion, seemed to be of opinion, that inquiry was a good thing: but he went on to say, that he was not sure that the plans of the hon. mover could be agreed to. At all events, it was admitted by the hon. gentleman, that an inquiry was necessary; and that was all for which he and his friends contended. He was not aware that his hon. friend meant to enter into the question of punishment in the navy; but, in the event of the House agreeing to the appointment of a committee in the next session, he saw no reason why that part of the subject should not be entered into also. Was there any naval officer who would not own that the present system was a crying evil, and ought to be got rid of? And if so, how were they to get rid of it, but by a calm and dispassionate inquiry? The gallant admiral opposed the inquiry, on the ground that it would create discontent. It would do no such thing. It was the duty of that House to use every effort to rescue the people of England from this odious and disgraceful
1194
badge of slavery. He would ask, whether the navy were contented with the impress system; and whether they would not prefer an inquiry into a remedy of that abuse? The evil was acknowledged, and even its supporters were anxious for a remedy if it could be found.
Captain Gordondefended the system at present pursued in the navy; at the same time admitting, that the impressment of sailors could only be justified on the ground of necessity. He implored the House to consider well before they deprived the navy of a power which was necessary to its greatness, and the removal of which might be a death-blow to its safety [hear, hear!].
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that gentlemen opposite, while they admitted the evil, were determined to withhold the remedy. To him it appeared, that the discipline and interests of the navy were closely bound up with the present question. He would refer the House to what had been done for the army. The improvements made in that branch of our service were owing, not more to the exertions of the commander-in-chief, than to the eloquent addresses of the hon. baronet near him (sir F. Burdett). Not only the army, but the country generally were highly indebted to that hon. baronet for his unwearied exertions (hear, hear!]. He was decidedly in favour of his motion, as he felt that it could produce no harm, and was calculated to effect much good.
Sir G. Clerkcertainly thought the proposed inquiry would be most advantageously conducted by the Admiralty. The objections which the hon. member had started had not escaped the attention of that Board, and had been remedied as far as possible. With regard to the crying evil of pressing, he was ready to admit, that it could only be justified by necessity. But, how could they otherwise man a fleet in a case of emergency? It was objected to the impress system, that it dragged men to fight against their inclinations; but this objection would hold equally good against the most constitutional force of the country—the militia, into which every man, from eighteen to forty-five, was liable to be made to serve. As a proof, that men would not voluntarily relinquish their other employments and join the naval profession, he had only to state, that even now, in time of peace, there was not a sufficiency of men to fill up the merchant vessels, and to man the

1195
Email fleet maintained by the country. He could not see that any benefit would arise from the proposed committee.
Mr. Warreobserved, that hon. gentle-men on the other side, had treated this question throughout as one entirely to be decided by the opinions of professional men, and as one in the discussion of which other individuals were incapable of participating. With that view of the question he decidedly differed; and though he acknowledged the benefit of such opinions, he did not think that to them alone the decision of the question ought to be entrusted. There had been inquiries on subjects similar to the present, conducted by unprofessional men, without any disadvantage. He alluded to the board of naval inquiry and the board of naval revision, at both of which several civilians had sat as members. But, even supposing the opinion of those hon. gentlemen he had referred to to be correct, still that was not an answer to the present motion, as there were several members of the House who would willingly give their professional assistance in the investigation of the subject. It was notorious, that according to the present practice of impressment, individuals who had never been at sea before, were often seized and sent on board a vessel. He had heard of an instance of that kind, which, however ludicrous it might appear, was nevertheless true. A coachman had been seized by a press-gang, and in spite of his representations and remonstrances, had been sent on board the tender, where he remained all night, and on the following morning actually appeared before the officers in his coachman's habiliments. There was another circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that was, that this system was peculiar to England, and to England alone. Other countries had, like England, been distinguished for commercial enterprize and naval glory; one especially had sent large fleets to sea; and yet, as far as he was acquainted with the subject, he believed he might safely assert, that Holland had never resorted to this mode of manning her fleets. He regretted that any hon. gentleman should have introduced American affidavits, affecting the character of a highly meritorious officer, for he believed those affidavits were, at one time, an article of very frequent manufacture. One of these affidavits had lately been published by Mr. Cobbett in a number
1196
of his Political Register, under an article entitled "Blue and Buff;" and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was accompanied by most unjustifiable and unfounded remarks, and that in fact the whole article was as vile and calumnious as had ever issued from the pen of a vile and calumnious author. He thought it was desirable to adopt some measure to diminish a summary, and he might add, arbitrary mode of proceeding, which could be productive of nothing but disadvantage. It was admitted on all hands, that the House were dealing with an acknowledged evil; and though some gentlemen seemed inclined to defend the measure on the ground of policy and expediency, still, as he deemed such defence would prove untenable on examination, he should support the present motion.
Sir E. Harveycould testify, from his recollection of the first part of the American war, that the system of impressment was beneficial, in cases where it was necessary immediately to fill the complement of a king's ship. By that system having been then resorted to, many of the merchant vessels had been safely convoyed, which otherwise must have fallen into the hands of the enemy. He thought no probable good could arise from a committee of that House inquiring into a law of the land, which policy and long experience had fully justified.
Sir R. Wilson,as a friend of the navy, could not refrain from expressing a few sentiments upon this question. It had been said by some hon. members, that impressed men made the best sailors. Now, he would put it to the consideration of any person, whether such a statement was not founded in mistake—whether it was at all probable, that men who had thus been forcibly seized, and compelled to enter into a king's ship would accommodate themselves to its discipline, and heartily engage in a service into which they had been unwillingly dragged? But, the House had to determine, whether, in consenting to continue this system, they were not consenting to that which was clearly a violation of right. He knew that, by a fundamental principle of the constitution, every man was bound, in case of necessity, to fight in defence of the country; but he knew of none which justified their being thus forcibly taken from their other occupations, and put on board a ship of war. It should be recollected, that the service of the navy was

1197
peculiarly dreadful, on account of the length of time which men might be compelled to serve on foreign stations. He knew of a vessel that had been stationed at St. Helena for nine years, which, when about to return, had received an order to resume her station for three years longer. The feelings of the men on the receipt of this order might be imagined, when he informed the House that they had actually said, that it would have been kinder to shoot them at the muzzle of their own guns. It had been represented, that such was the anxiety of sailors to enter into the royal navy at the present moment, that it had been found necessary to issue prohibitory orders to prevent them. If that were so now, surely no one would say that, in time of war, they would be actuated by a different feeling. They would not act differently from a fear of danger; and they should be incited by a hope of better compensation. He was of opinion that, considering the casualties of climate and of service, a man ought to be regularly paid, so as to have a complete power of regulating his own expenditure. If such was the case, there would not be so many instances of thoughtless extravagance.
The House divided: Ayes 38. Noes 108.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Nugent, lord

Bernal, R.

Ord, W.

Blake, sir F.

Phillips, G.

Brougham, H.

Phillips, G. R.

Burdett, sir F.

Rice, T. S.

Bury, lord

Rickford, W.

Buxton, T. F.

Robertson, A.

Calthorpe, hon. F. G.

Robinson, sir G.

Evans, W.

Scarlett, J.

Gordon, R.

Smith, W.

Grattan, J.

Smith, John

Guise, sir W.

Stewart, W. (Tyrone)

Henywood, W. P.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Hutchinson, hon. H.

Warre, J. A.

Leader, W.

Webb, col.

Lennard, T. B.

Wilson, sir R.

Lushington, Dr.

Wood, ald.

Maberly, J.

Maxwell, J.

TELLERS.

Monck, J. B.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Newport, sir J.

Hume, Joseph

ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Brownlowrose, to move, that the petition which he had presented on a former evening, against the Catholic Association, be referred to the committee now sitting upon the state of Ireland. The ground of his motion was, that the Catholic Association was one of the principal
1198
causes of the disturbances which prevailed in Ireland. The members of that body had been very properly described as the bellows blowers, who fanned the bad passions of their countrymen into the flame of discontent. Seeking only the gratification of their vanity and self interest, they were utterly regardless of the success of the cause which they pretended to advocate. He had been accused of being actuated by party motives; but that was not the case. If he desired the Catholic cause to be brought into discredit, his wish could not be more easily attained than by allowing the Association to continue its present course.
Mr. Horace Twisssaid, he would support the motion, for the same reasons which would induce him to vote in favour of the motion of the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport) for referring the petitions against the Orange associations to the same committee; namely, that he considered both associations to be, in some degree, connected with the disturbances of Ireland. He highly disapproved of the proceedings of the Catholic association, and declared his belief that if the association continued in existence, the number of votes in that House in favour of Catholic emancipation would yearly decrease. He entreated the members of the association, if they were friends to the cause they professed to advocate, to anticipate the acts of the government and dissolve themselves.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he would support the motion, because he considered the association to be one of the subjects to which that committee ought to direct their attention. The proceedings of the Catholic association were so nearly balanced between legality, and illegality, that they required to be narrowly watched. But he felt no hesitation in fraying, as a minister of the Crown, that, as at present advised, it was not the intention of the government to propose any new law with regard to the association. He, however, entirely concurred in the advice which had been given to the association. He thought they Were pursuing a most dangerous course, without considering how nearly they exposed themselves to the extremity of the law.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he had the strongest objection to the motion. The object of the Catholic association was, to state the grievances of the Catholics. As to whether it was an illegal body or not, that was a

1199
question for the law officers of the Crown; but it appeared to him that there could be nothing unlawful in meeting to state their oppressions and grievances, and to bring them under the review of the public. Their proceedings were public; but it was otherwise with the Orange societies, who did every thing in secret, and were illegal in their constitution and purpose.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that if the motion should be agreed to, it would be impossible to refuse assent to the one which he should submit, for referring to the same committee the petitions against the Orange societies.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that the Catholic association usurped the functions of government, and did other unconstitutional acts, inconsistent with the peace and security of the country. He thought the House ought not to separate without ascertaining from the law officers of the Crown, whether the law, as it stood, was sufficient to put an end to the evil; or if insufficient, whether it was the intention of government to introduce a bill for the purpose of correcting its imperfections.
Mr. Peelsaid, it appeared to him a matter of course to send the petition up stairs as it had been alleged, that the present disturbances were in a great measure owing to this association, though it might be premature at present to express any opinion of its legality or illegality. He thought that all these secret societies should be put down, and would therefore support both propositions.
Mr. Spring Ricegave his hearty support to the motion.
Sir F. Blakecalled upon the hon. member for Armagh to use his influence in putting down the Orangemen, they having declared their determination to continue the same line of conduct.
Mr. Dawsondenied that any of the disturbances in Ireland arose from that body, and should give his consent to the motion, in order that the House might be satisfied of the fact.
The motion was agreed to: as well also sir J. Newport's motion for referring the petitions against the Orange lodges to the same committee.

IRISH POOR.
The Bishop of Raphoerose to call their lordships' attention to an important petition which he had to present—a petition which afforded satisfactory evidence of the harmony in which his majesty's subjects lived in that part of Ireland whence it came; namely, the parish of Kilmore, in the county of Armagh; for it was signed by the rector, the curate, the churchwardens, the Roman Catholic and Dissenting ministers, and a great part of the inhabitants. The object for which the petition prayed was, that their lordships would pass a law to enable the inhabitants of any parish in Ireland to maintain their own poor. The petitioners did not, however, wish that the enactment should be imperative. As the law now stood in Ireland, the poor, suffering from the infirmities of age or sickness, obtained no support but such as they might derive from the spontaneous charity of individuals, or from benevolent institutions. He should be doing great injustice to the Irish people, if he did nut acknowledge that they possessed a charitable deposition; but it was notorious that, notwithstanding the general exercise of charity, the extent of misery did not diminish. Though an alteration in the law was therefore desirable, he was, at the same time, ready to admit, that the introduction into Ireland of the system of poor-laws established in this country was by no means practicable; and if practicable, would by no means be desirable. The dread of the introduction of that system was consequently ideal; and he trusted that their lordships would not allow any apprehension of that kind to prevent them from giving their sanction to a measure of so much practical utility as that for which the petitioners prayed. Parish vestries in Ireland had frequently attempted to supply the wants of the industrious poor; but there existed no law by which they could properly accomplish that object. All that the petitioners prayed for was, that the power of attending to the distresses of the poor might be made, not a compulsory, but a legitimate part of vestry business. In the present state of the law, if a rate were to be agreed to at a vestry meeting, any of those fomentors of village discords with which the country abounded might oppose it, and render it nugatory. If the plan of every parish making a voluntary

1099
provision for its own poor were adopted, it would powerfully counteract that extensive vagrancy with which Ireland was at present so grievously oppressed. The present system formed a great officina of pauperism, and mendicity and vagrancy were consequently always on the increase. There was a great emigration of the male part of the Irish poor to this country in quest of employment. This had often been a subject of complaint; but these emigrants in removing left a great evil behind them in Ireland; for their wives and children remained in a state of complete destitution. To put a check to the misery which the present growing mendicity produced, was the object of the petition.
The Earl of Limerickwas greatly surprised that the introduction of such a measure as that recommended in the petition, should be proposed in their lordships' House; and he was still more surprised when he considered the quarter from which it came. That the establishment of a system of poor-laws should at this time be proposed for Ireland, was truly astonishing. He spoke in the hearing of many noble lords from that country, and he appealed to them whether they were not convinced, that such a proposition was calculated to spread horror and alarm from the apprehension of the consequences which must attend the adoption of any plan of the kind alluded to. He would, however, venture to suggest to his right reverend friend a course by which the object of his petition might be attained, without its experiencing that opposition with which the measure prayed for would be met. He had heard, that, according to the original institution of benefices, their profits were divided into three parts—one was for the incumbent; another was for the church; and the third was appropriated to the maintenance of the poor. Let this plan of distribution of the church revenues be tried before any new plan was proposed. He could not agree with the view taken of this subject in the petition; the only good thing in which was the union of the parties who had signed it.
The Earl of Darnley,though he did not approve of the object of the petition, did not regard it with the same horror as his noble mend. He would have no objection to voluntary contributions, were the matter to stop there; but as it was not likely, that such contributions would produce much, it was probable that some
1100
compulsory provision would finally be introduced. Without a clause of that kind the measure would not be effectual.
Earl Fitzwilliamdisapproved of any attempt to introduce the English system of poor-laws into Ireland; but as it appeared that every person in a certain district prayed for the measure explained in the petition, he thought it might be tried there as an experiment.
Lord Clifdenwas against transferring the English poor-laws to Ireland. He agreed with his noble friend that the Church of Ireland ought to furnish from its ample revenues something towards supplying the wants of the poor.

STANDING ORDER RESPECTING JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.
The Marquis of Downshire The Marquis of Downshire moved the second reading of the bill for establishing a Joint-stock Company to work mines in Ireland.
The Earl of Lauderdalewished to remind their lordships, that if they proceeded in the way proposed, they would violate the standing order which they had made only a few days ago, which required that every bill of this description, before its being read a second time, should be referred to a committee to report whether three-fourths of the capital of the company had been paid up. He would not oppose the motion.
The Earl of Harrowbyconsidered the suspension of the order in the present case highly proper. The noble marquis had already proposed to except Irish mines from the operation of the standing order, which he thought ought to be done, as those works were not to be classed with the numerous bubbles against which it was the object of their lordships to guard. As, in considering the state of Ireland, their lordships had thought it right for the purpose of securing the tranquillity of that country, to overlook those great principles of legislation by which they were usually guided, so it surely might be proper, for the sake of finding employment to a miserable population, to overlook some of those principles of political economy, the general advantage of adhering to which they acknowledged. He therefore did not regret that he should be the individual who, on the same night that he had to move the passing of the Insurrection act, had also to propose the means of facilitating the progress of a bill of the nature of that now before their lordships. He certainly did not think that this bill was

1101
one of a kind which ought ever to have come under the operation of the standing order. It was morally impossible that any great amount of capital would be wanted at the outset of such a speculation as that which the bill tended to encourage; and it would, therefore, be wrong to require such a proportion of the subscription as three-fourths to be paid up in the first instance. It was not reasonable to expect that persons entering into a project for working mines in Ireland, would be willing to divert 400,000 l. from other purposes of trade and invest it in the funds or Exchequer-bills, where they would get only three-per cent interest, before they could possibly know that such a sum would be wanted. The noble earl concluded by moving "That the standing order be now suspended."
The Marquis of Lansdownexpressed his full concurrence in the motion. If a few days ago he had thought that, upon the ground of peculiar circumstances, Ireland ought to be excepted from the operation of the standing order, he could not refuse his consent to the suspension of that order, for the purpose of forwarding the measure now before the House. However proper in principle the standing order might be, and however right its practical application might be in a country abounding in capital, he was convinced that it would be extremely wrong to enforce it with respect to a poor country. In Ireland, where the want of capital was so much felt, every facility to its transmission ought to be offered. But even with regard to this country, though the principle of the order could not be contested, he, with all respect for the judgment of their lordships, thought they would have done better not to have passed it. He could, indeed, see no reason why their lordships should not consider every individual case which came before them on its own merits. There could be no occasion for establishing so many general rules, unless it were wished, by their means,
"At once to get conviction in the lump,
And come to short conclusions by a jump."
The increasing of the standing orders was attended with much inconvenience. He never approved of the multiplication of the standing orders; but he confessed he should wish one to be made to the effect, that no standing order should be adopted, until it had lain for three weeks on the
1102
table of the House, and had been read three different times at fixed intervals.
The Earl of Lauderdalereminded their lordships of the grounds on which the order had been adopted, and adverted to the nature of the speculations against which it was directed. When such absurd and mischievous projects were afloat, he thought it high time for at least one, branch of the legislature to mark them with its disapprobation. The schemes, with respect to which the standing order operated, were very different from those companies which were excepted. The canal property of this country amounted to about 13,000,000 l., and not 87,000 l. of the capital remained to be paid up. The capital of the dock companies was all paid up. Establishments of that description were under the necessity of employing a great proportion of their capital in carrying on their works; but it was not so with speculating companies.
The bill was read a second time.

IRISH INSURRECTION ACT.
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby moved the third reading of the Irish Insurrection act.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that nothing but the strongest necessity could have induced him to give his consent to the present measure; but undoubtedly something of this kind was necessary, and the necessity would continue unless the House would agree to probe the various evils of Ireland to the bottom. Whatever was done would be useless, unless it was bottomed on the great principle of making every individual in that country equal in civil rights, let his religious opinions he what they might.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he found himself compelled to give his assent to the motion; and he should give it with even greater reluctance than he now did, if he felt that it was a measure for the security of the rich only; but he had all along felt that it was the duty of the legislature, with a view to the interest of the poor as well as the rich, to maintain the tranquillity of the country and the security of property: for as many of the evils of Ireland arose from the small portion of wealth in that country, what would be the state of it, if persons of wealth were compelled, from the insecurity of life and property, to withdraw and. become non-residents? He would, next session, propose an extension of the inquiry, not to the whole of Ireland, but-

1103
to the districts where the Insurrection act had been in operation, as well as in those where it should be in force at the time.
Lord Hollandsaid, that, after the repeated discussions on this measure, and the almost unanimous agreement of the committee in recommending the renewal of it, together with the concurring opinion of persons whom he had been accustomed to look up to with deference, he did not mean to press upon their lordships the objections to this measure which he deeply felt; but he should avail himself of his privilege of recording on the Journals his reasons against it. His objections to the bill were not founded on any doubt which he entertained of the disturbances in that country, but were such as were expressed by a member of that House nearly 30 years ago (then sir L. Parsons), that so far from such measures tranquillizing Ireland, they tended to perpetuate the disturbances which they pretended to allay. He objected to the bill, because it tended to make the gentry and magistracy look to the violation, instead of the maintenance of the law, for their security; and because it taught the wretched peasantry to regard the laws as a conspiracy of the rich against the poor. He admitted, that the administration of this law might be temperate and moderate, and that ministers by this inquiry had opened the door to a glimpse of hope for better things; but nevertheless, he would not give his consent to a measure which was a violation of all law, and was nothing more nor less than establishing a despotic government.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that in omitting to make any statement to their lordships on introducing this bill, if he had been to blame it arose from a mistaken conception of his duty. Considering the composition of the committee, having for members of it many noble lords on the other side, and many who had great properties in the country, he had thought it best to leave the bill on the recommendation of that committee, without the expression of his own personal opinion. It was not his opinion, nor that of any noble lord on the committee, that this measure would tranquillize Ireland, or that it should make part of the permanent law of the land. It was a temporary evil to which they must submit, for the purpose of obtaining a permanent good.
Lord Prudhoe,notwithstanding all that he had heard, could not give his support to the bill.
Lord Gortsupported the bill.
It was then read a third time.

IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION AMENDMENT BILL.
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Irish Tithes Amendment bill.
The Earl of Kingstonobjected to the bill as a measure which was calculated to give the clergy what ever incomes they may be pleased to ask for, and to place them in a better condition than they wereat present.
The Bishop of Limerick[Dr. John Jebb] rose, and addressed their lordships as follows:*
My Lords, I rise to give my humble support to the bill now before your lordships. I do so because it is calculated to give increased efficiency to the Tithe Composition act of the last session. A noble earl opposite, indeed, has stated that the tendency of this measure is, to allow the clergy of Ireland whatever incomes they may phase to ask, I would only observe, that the provisions of the act of last session precisely define a certain limit, beyond which it is impossible for any clergyman to go; namely, the average of seven years next preceding the agreement; and that the present bill, instead of increasing, diminishes the possible income, by that clause which takes away from the commissioners or umpire, the power of raising the amount of composition, settled by private agreement, to the seven years' average. But, though this clause is unfavourable to the clergy, though it cedes that which may be fairly considered their right, I do not, on this account, feel myself authorised to oppose the bill. The act of the last session has already been successful to a great degree; a degree extraordinary, and beyond what could have been expected, when we consider the short time allowed for its operation, the complicated interests necessary to be consulted, and the various technical difficulties arising from that complication. Those difficulties the bill upon your lordships' table will effectually remove: and down myself desirous it should pass into lay because I am satisfied it will be advantageous to the peasantry, advantageous, to the landholders, and not disadvantageous, in the end, to the clergy of Ireland.
But this, or any other legislative enact-
* From the original edition published; by T. Cadell, in the Strand.

1105
merit, however valuable in itself, cannot in itself be sufficient to place Irish ecclesiastical affairs upon their proper footing. Serious obstacles must be previously removed. False impressions are abroad, respecting the character, the conduct, and the usefulness, of the Irish clergy. Until these false impressions be removed, until the truth and justice of the case be felt and admitted by the House, and by the public, your lordships will legislate in vain. In hope of contributing somewhat toward this object, I shall speak more at large, than the present question, at the first view, might seem to demand; under the conviction, that, in no other way can I so properly support the bill now under consideration.
During the course of this session, I have sat and heard in silence many attacks on the Irish branch of our united church; but, though silent, I have not been inattentive; nor, new as I am in this House, and unversed in parliamentary usage, was it by any means my intention to suffer, what I did consider, and am still obliged to consider, erroneous assertions, to pass without reply. I merely waited for a fit occasion; the present seems to me that occasion: the only one, perhaps, that may be afforded before the session shall close. And, while I regret that the portion of our church with which I am more immediately connected, I mean the province of Munster, has not, at this crisis an abler representative in this House, I confess myself not materially apprehensive for the consequences. The honest confidence arising from a good cause will more than counter-balance the sense of my own deficiencies; and I have much reliance on that generous feeling which in this House, is ever prompt to give a fair hearing to those who have, been calumniated and traduced. Nor is this my sole reliance. In the first place, I rest my hope on that divine Providence which hitherto has been our support in difficulty and danger; and then, Hook to the good sense, the good feeling, and the sober judgment, of the British nation That judgment may, from circumstances, be warped for a little time; but it has a self-adjusting power which, in the end, invariably restores it to its upright and unbending rectitude. Already the public is beginning to question those calumnies, which, from the frequent and unblushing repetition of them, it had been seduced to believe. The enemies of our church have
1106
ver shot the mark; whatever may have been their motive, for this we are their debtors. A revulsion is taking place. Persons of the highest independence and respectability, various in their political views and connexions, but unanimous in anxiety for the best interests of the country, and for the support of sound religion, as the best guardian of those interests, be gin to discover for themselves, that the public mind has been abused; and the desire for authentic information is daily gaining ground. In justice, then, to those distinguished persons, to this noble House, and to the public at large, I feel it my duty to state what I know to be the truth; and if, in the discharge of this duty, I can do the least service to the cause of religion and my country, I shall feel myself abundantly over-paid.
In meeting the charges brought against the church establishment in Ireland, I have not solely, or chiefly, in view, what may have passed in this House. Much has been said out of doors, which must have acted upon those within; and, however undeserving such language may be of serious notice, that vindication would be incomplete, which did not advert to it in some degree.
The charges themselves may be reduced under two heads. In the first place, vague and general assertions, which, from their indefinite, intangible nature, could not readily be met; and which have been reiterated in every form, and circulated through all possible channels, with a perseverance worthy of the best cause, and, I am sorry to add, with a malignity not unsuited to the worst. In the next place, individual piecemeal charges, usually preferred in the shape of petitions, in this House, and elsewhere, against absent ecclesiastical persons, without notice given, and without opportunity afforded, to themselves or to their friends, of making timely defence. I would not here be understood to cast the slightest imputation on those who have presented such petitions. I am willing to give them credit for simply intending to discharge a duty. One noble earl in particular, I beg leave to thank, for the candour and openness with which he has done me the honour to communicate with me on this subject. But I most solemnly protest against the modern usage, rather, perhaps, against an ancient usage restored—for it was but too prevalent in the time of our first unhappy Charles—that practice, I

1107
mean, which converts the wholesome right and privilege of petition, into the vehicle of private calumny and scandal; into what I can call nothing less than a privileged mode of libel; clothing, as it does, the most unfounded statements with the dignity and authority of parliament, and thus giving them a passport to all quarters of the world, and thus securing their reception among persons who should shrink, with virtuous high-mindedness, from the contamination of ordinary libels. This nuisance, however, I believe, is likely to be abated. Many who may have, somewhat incautiously, presented such petitions, were, I am confident, not aware of the lurking mischief; and henceforward there will be a greater care than heretofore, to weigh, to investigate, and to ascertain the truth of criminative charges, before they are hazarded either in this House, or elsewhere.
For my own part, my lords, I will freely confess, that, neither in religion nor in politics am I a controversialist. In both departments, I am perfectly aware controversy has answered, and will not cease to answer, very valuable purposes. But I humbly conceive, it is not the more excellent way. I have ever been of opinion, that the best mode of encountering error, is by a plain unvarnished statement of the opposite right and truth. According to this principle, I will endeavour to guide myself, in this discussion; and if, in so doing, I must forego the pungency of agonistic debate, I am still not unhopeful, that the facts which I am prepared to adduce, will, in some measure, repay the degree of attention with which I may be honoured.
It is my purpose now to place before your lordships, with perfect unreserve, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, the present condition of the Irish church; in itself, and in its bearings on the country; in residence, and in revenue; in professional qualifications, efficiency, and zeal; in moral, social, and civil services—services reaching beyond the pale of any particular communion, and bounded only by the limitation of its means and opportunities.
In thus standing forth, the humble but earnest advocate of the Irish portion of the United Church, I do not undertake to maintain its impeccability, or its purity from all blemish. Churches, my lords, even Apostolical churches, founded on Divine authority, are still, in a certain
1108
sense, human institutions; and, as human institutions, are undoubtedly liable to error and imperfection. I cannot, therefore, be so absurd, as to uphold this, or any other branch of our establishment, as
"A faultless monster, that the world ne'er saw". In a society composed of frail and finite beings, it is impossible but that offences must come. That the Irish clergy have, their share, I most unreservedly admit; but I do so in a sense which must apply to the members of every other church, of ever other institution, of equal magnitude and standing. We have our share; all that I would contend for is this, that we have not more than our share. And I must say, that the Irish clergy are a most improving body. This I can myself attest from my own knowledge, acquired during five and twenty years of close and diligent attention to the subject. The improvement has been striking, I might almost say it has been marvellous; it has also been progressive; and I see not any likelihood of its diminution. Those in authority are becoming more and more disposed to exercise a mild, but firm and efficient discipline; those under authority more and more solicitous to approve themselves, not only to their earthly superiors, but to HIM whose commission they bear, and before whose judgment-seat they must render a strict account. This is a grave topic: and I will not pursue it further in this place. But I wish to have it distinctly understood, that I am not the apologist of any thing really amiss; that I would not diminish by a hair's breadth the standard of clerical duty; that I would not detract a scruple from that tremendous responsibility, under which all bishops and pastors occupy the places which they fill.
I should now address myself to the subject of clerical residence. But I must previously intreat your lordships' attention to a point equally connected with another topic; equally applicable to clerical residence, and clerical revenue. In the opponents of the church, there are indications of unfairness. In some, I am persuaded, quite unintentional; in others, I would hope, not absolutely designed. The fact to which I allude is this. The clamour at this time, is particularly loud against the non-residence, and against the enormous wealth, of the Irish clergy. Now, to all who have properly inquired (and none ought to speak on such matters

1109
without proper inquiry) it is quite notorious, that, for many years, the state of clerical residence in Ireland has been largely improving: and it is equally notorious, that, for the last seven or eight years, clerical revenue has been depreciated and dwindling. Yet, at this very period it is, that the dearth of clerical residence has become the watch-word of our adversaries; and the enormity of church possessions, the war-cry against the ministers of our establishment. The clamour is precisely in the inverse ratio of our improvement and our declension. As we have become resident, we are proscribed under the title of absentees: as we have grown poor, we are taunted with the immeasurability of our wealth. Whether this be according to the rules of polemical equity, I do not know. But if (which I sincerely deprecate) war should ever be forced upon me, my warfare shall be waged with other weapons.
Respecting the question of residence, I am aware (for who, indeed, can be ignorant?) that most exaggerated statements have gone forth and been accredited. These statements profess to found themselves on the diocesan returns laid before parliament; which returns, it must be admitted, they do frequently misquote and garble. But, more commonly, this trouble is avoided; and the information of our most strenuous opponents is derived at second-hand, from anonymous unauthoritative publications, the character of which I am not ambitious to draw; but which, I can assure your lordships, are far better suited to the meridian of Fleet Street and Ludgate Hill, much more in their place on the counters of convicted libellers, than upon the benches of Saint Stephen's, in the purer air of Westminster. The truth, however, is, and to this point I would request particular attention, that the parliamentary reports themselves, even the best and fullest reports hitherto received, must prove fallacious guides to those who do not study them with close attention, and who are not familiarly acquainted with places and persons in Ireland. The difficulty arises, not from inaccuracy, but from want of fulness, in the several returns; and yet more from the manner in which they have been made up. The return of each diocess is given independently of all the rest; whereas a collation of each with all, would have been indispensable, in order to a fair view of clerical residence. For the clergyman
1110
who is absent from one benefice is generally (so few, indeed, are the exceptions, that one might almost say universally) resident upon another. An instance has lately occurred in another House, which may serve to exemplify the kind of mistakes into which persons may fall, who, without any local knowledge of Ireland, undertake to draw conclusions from the parliamentary returns, respecting the residence of the Irish clergy. An honourable gentleman there thought proper to select a dignified clergyman of the north of Ireland, and hold him forth to public reprehension as a most unconscionable pluralist; as monopolizing at the same time, preferments of great value, in the diocess of Raphoe, and the diocess of Armagh. Now, what is the real state of the case? This clergyman has a christian name, and a surname. Another clergyman has a christian name and a surname. The two clergymen happen to have the same christian name, and the same surname. And from this identity of nomenclature, the honourable gentleman, without further inquiry, has brought the severest charges against a respectable and unoffending dignitary. To this fact I allude, at once as a specimen of the manner in which private character is trifled with; and as a case in point, to prove that persons unacquainted with Ireland ought to inform themselves, before they make assertions always hazardous, often not altogether reputable, to those who do not take this trouble. It is my hope, that before the commencement of next session, this inquiry will be rendered easier, by a body of diocesan returns prepared in a more full and satisfactory manner, than any which have yet been made. And in the mean time, I will say, that, so far as my knowledge extends, those clergymen who hold two benefices by faculty, usually reside on that benefice where their services are most needed; while, on the other, they invariably retain an efficient curate; and not uncommonly reside alternately on both preferments.
We have heard much, my lords, on the subject of non-residence. But what, I would ask, in the only blameable sense of the word, is a non-resident clergyman? A clergyman, I would reply, who wantonly deserts his appointed sphere of duty. In this sense, there are very few nonresident clergy in Ireland. In my own diocess there is not one. And I freely admit, that one would be too many. If

1111
my definition be a just one (and I soberly believe it is), your lordships, I trust, will bear it in mind, not theoretically, but practically. Indeed, I am sure you will do so. From a British house of Peers, we are certain of just and equitable dealing. You will not measure the clergy of England by one standard, and the clergy of Ireland by another. No clergyman in England is accounted a non-resident, who is actively and usefully employed in parochial duties elsewhere. I only ask, and the request surely is not unreasonable, that the clergy of Ireland may be judged by the same rule.
Having thus ventured to advert to the residence of the Irish clergy, as compared with the residence of the English, I would state, that, on the best comparative estimate which I was able to form a few years ago, of the English and Irish diocesan returns, the result was certainly not to the disadvantage of my countrymen. But I am ready to distrust myself, as, in all likelihood, however unintentionally and unknowingly, a partial estimator. Therefore, I gladly resort to the authority of a distinguished native of this country: long a pillar and an ornament of the British portion of the United church: and, from his connection with the University of Oxford, particularly well informed respecting ecclesiastical affairs in England; a man whose calmness, whose judgment, and whose moderation give abundant security that he could never hazard an assertion, which he had not deliberately weighed. When I name Dr. Laurence, archbishop of Cashel, your lordships, I am satisfied, will receive his opinion with that respectful attention to which it is so well entitled. From his grace's last charge, therefore, his triennial charge, published in the autumn of last year, I beg leave to read a short paragraph:—"That the clergy in Ireland are generally resident upon their respective benefices, where residence, in the strict legal sense of the word, is possible, I am persuaded: I may even go further and assert, that many, whom the law denominates non-resident incumbents, are in fact, resident, as far as circumstances will permit, for every practical purpose of their ministerial functions. Nor, when the cases are impartially compared, will it be found, that the Irish are less resident in their respective benefices than the English clergy: on the other hand, I firmly believe, that they are more so. To this latter point I would not have
1112
at all alluded, had not invidious comparisons been publicly made, to the great disparagement of the former."
Thus far the archbishop of Cashel: and the reasoning by which this opinion is supported, and the facts on which it rests, are so convincing, that I could wish to read much more of the context to your lordships. But I will not venture so far to trespass on your time. I would only intreat all those who wish to form an accurate judgment, to study the entire document for themselves. They will find throughout the whole, the soundest reasoning, and the most incontrovertible facts. The appendix, in particular, is among the best examples I have ever met, of calm, temperate, and manly refutation. In his own diocess, the archbishop proves that there is not an individual clergyman culpably non-resident: while, respecting the diocess of Waterford and Lismore, he takes occasion to correct a very gross misstatement. Here I must again have recourse to his grace's words:—"As the whole province of Munster is under my superintendence, in the character of metropolitan, I cannot but feel officially, if not personally, hurt at every attack which is unjustly made on any part of it. A member of the House of Commons is reported to have urged the following statement, in support of a motion which he brought forward (March 4, 1823) to impress upon the legislature the necessity of seizing and remodelling the property of the Church at pleasure.—The return 'for the diocess of Waterford*, which I 'have accidentally turned to, shows, that 'of the rectors in that diocess, four only 'are resident, nineteen being non-resident; 'of the vicars, fourteen are resident, 'thirteen non-resident; making a total of 'eighteen resident, and thirty-two non-resident clergy. This is only one of a 'number of diocesses in the same or a 'similar situation.' "That this statement of Mr. Hume is incorrect, the parliamentary return of the bishop of Waterford, to which he professedly refers, sufficiently proves. But, in truth, he seems to have quoted this document at second hand; extracting his account immediately from the anonymous pamphlet which I have before quoted, entitled 'The Protestant Hierarchy in Ireland,' &c. He states
*"Lismore is here evidently intended. The two diocesses are united under the bishop of Waterford."

1113
the number of benefices to be fifty; so does the author of the pamphlet; but the bishop of Waterford, in his public return, the original of both accounts, states that number to be only forty-one. Nine more, indeed, are added, but not numbered, because they are benefices without cure, or merely appropriations, and have each a vicarage endowed. Not attending to this circumstance, the writer alluded to, and Mr. Hume after him, enumerates these nine livings twice over, both as rectories and vicarages; so that, in fact, his numbers 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, relate to the same parishes as numbers 28, 39, 29, 24, 20, 15, 14, 12, 13; the former referring to the appropriated rectories without cure, the latter to the endowed vicarages with cure. These nine rectories, therefore, are complete sinecures, appropriated to churchmen; but there are twenty other rectories in the same diocess, with vicarages endowed, of which churchmen are not appropriators, but of which a wealthy peer, the duke of Devonshire, is sole impropriator. If, then, these appropriators are bound to reside upon each of their rectories, where, as churchmen, they have no duties to perform, is not the noble impropriator, by a parity of reasoning, equally bound to reside upon each of his? But, in truth, as sinecurists, neither the one nor the other have, in law or equity, any obligation of the kind annexed to the property which they possess.
"Had Mr. Hume, instead of trusting to the erroneous calculations of this pamphlet, consulted the original document, he could not have fallen into so glaring a mistake. He would have there found, that the whole representation given by the author upon whom he relied, was altogether inaccurate. He would have there found the following fair recapitulation and summary upon the point, drawn up by the bishop himself, respecting both his diocesses. 'In the diocess of Water-ford,' his lordship says, are eleven benefices with cure of souls. The clergy are all resident on their benefices or so near as to perform the duty of them. In the diocess of Lismore are forty benefices with cure of souls. Of the beneficed clergy, twenty-four are resident, either on their benefices, or so near as to perform the duty of them. Eight are resident on other benefices which they hold by faculty; two are exempt under the provisions of the
1114
statute, 48 Geo. 3rd c. 66; six are absent with the permission of the ordinary. There is also an endowed chapel, on which is a church, a house, and resident minister.' Is it not here evident, that, instead of thirty-two out of fifty incumbents, six only out of forty-one are liable to be questioned for non-residence? The bishop, indeed, does not give the reasons for the absence of these six incumbents; but by reference to his previous detail of particulars, it appears, that there were no glebe-houses* upon any of their livings; and that two of the number were engaged in duties, the one as preacher, the other as vicar-choral at Lismore. I should not have been thus minute in my notice of a publication so insignificant, had not a member of the United Parliament, appeared to place implicit confidence in it; and had I not known, that it is replete with falsehood and error, calculated to deceive the unwary, upon points which it affects to develop fairly, and to detail correctly."
So much, my lords, for the statement said to have been made by an honourable person, in another House, on the 4th of May, 1823. But, I will confess, my surprise was in no small degree excited, on reading, as, I dare say, the surprise of your lordships will be on hearing, a short paragraph, contained in a recent publication, the Morning Chronicle of May 7, 1824. The passage occurs in an article, professing to be the report of a speech delivered on the 6th of May, by the same honourable person, on whose statement, of the last year, the most reverend prelate found it necessary to animadvert. "In looking to the numbers of resident and non-resident clergy, he (Mr. Hume) would take up the last volume upon that subject, which had been laid on the table. He first came to the diocesses of Water-ford and Lismore. He then found that there were—Resident, four rectors; absent, nineteen ditto.—Resident, thirteen vicars; absent, thirteen ditto.—Resident, one curate; making, in the whole, eighteen resident, and thirty-two absent clergy; of these were many pluralists, holding some two, some three and more livings He mentioned this case only as one example out of many instances; and what he had to state of this single county ought to be
*"N. B. Nor churches. R. W." With this note I have been favoured by the bishop of Waterford.

1115
enough to satisfy the House as to the necessity of inquiry." Here, my lords, we have the same crimination, in the same words, professedly, and, for the second time accidentally, derived from the same document' (though the archbishop of Cashel has proved it was derived from a very different source), and this (if the newspaper reports truly, and it has not been contradicted) brought forward in his place by the same honourable calculator, whose accuracy in the tactics of the church vies with his precision in the finances of the navy. This "brave neglect" of a refutation so triumphant, and so long before the public (the archbishop's Charge was printed, I apprehend, at the close of last October)—this brave neglect is somewhat remarkable. Did the honourable gentleman know of this refutation? Did he not know of it? If he did not know of it, the conclusion is forced upon us, that the only information which he would seem studiously to shun is—authentic authoritative information. If he did know of it, I wish to be excused from applying to such conduct its proper name.
But having spoken thus much respecting other diocesses, I should be unpardonable, if I did not say a few words upon the subject of my own. During my visitations, in the course of the last year, and by official inquiries subsequently made, I have acquired a tolerably accurate knowledge respecting the residence of my clergy. For the present, however, I shall avoid minuteness of detail; and, without any comment, read a short abstract of my last diocesan return, which will prove the united diocesses under my care to be free from all culpable non-residence. In the diocess of Limerick are benefices 51. On these benefices are clergy, actually resident 26; virtually resident and discharging all duties in person 2; non-resident, but engaged in actual duties elsewhere 15; non-resident of necessity, church and glebe-house having been burnt, but anxious to reside 1; preparing to reside in a parish, which was a non-cure, but in which a church is nearly completed 1; non-resident from old age, sickness, or infirmity 3; and vacant 3. In the diocess of Ardfert and Aghadoe are benefices 42. On these benefices, are actually resident 21; virtually resident, and discharging duties in person. 2; non-resident, but engaged in active duties elsewhere 18; and, excused from ill health 1.
1116
From what has been thus shewn, respecting the state of residence in the arch-diocess of Cashel, and in the diocesses of Waterford and Limerick, it is plain, that the strictly speaking non-resident clergy in these diocesses are very few indeed. And the state of residence in other diocesses may be fairly taken at the same average. I have only to observe that, in estimating clerical absentee-ship, those of course are to be exempted, who are prevented from residing by sickness, infirmity, old age, or any other inevitable providential hinderance. And, after such needful deductions, I am quite prepared to re-assert the statement lately made by a right hon. and learned friend of mine, the attorney-general for Ireland, that there are not above twenty or thirty beneficed Irish clergymen in the true sense of the word non-resident, that is, unoccupied by active clerical duty, in some one part or another of that country. This statement, indeed, has been fully corroborated in a letter which I lately received from a prelate of the highest rank, on whose authority it was originally made. For caution's sake, he has stated the number of such absentee clergymen as not exceeding thirty; and his conclusions have been arrived at, after close investigation.
But, in the charges of non-residence preferred against the Irish clergy, our accusers have not confined themselves to general assertions. It has been stated, that, instead of discharging their duties in their parishes, they are constantly to be found at Bath, Harrowgate, Cheltenham, Brighton, and other places of fashionable resort. Now, it is fortunate for us, but unfortunate for the argument, and not very creditable to the character, of our adversaries, that they have placed themselves on circumstantial ground. They are infants in the art of calumny. Proficients are well aware that their safety lies in generals; that circumstantials are always dangerous, and often fatal. And so they have proved in the present case. It has so happened, that these statements drew attention to the fact, at the various watering places of this country. I have been assured by the unsought, unsolicited independent, casual testimony, of several noblemen and gentlemen of the first respectability, that, from these very calumnies this matter became matter of frequent and general conversation, at the public places in question: and the remark universally was, that, of all classes and descriptions

1117
whatsoever, the Irish clergy were most rarely to be found there; that the appearance of an Irish clergyman was quite an extraordinary occurrence. This has been repeatedly mentioned to me, since I have been in London; when I had by no means called attention to this topic; and by individuals absolutely unknown to each other. Thus, then, the case stands: Irishmen know the Irish clergy to be at home; Englishmen know the Irish clergy not to be in this country. The Irish clergy are not to be missed in Ireland; they are not to be found in England. The conclusion, therefore is obvious, and irresistible; that the Irish clergy are where they ought to be; at their posts, and engaged in the performance of their sacred duties.
But, my lords, the clergy of Ireland might be seen at watering places, without any neglect of their duty without any moral impeachment of their character. The law allows an absence of three months in the year, to every beneficed clergyman, who has a curate resident on his benefice. Such occasional absences I believe and know to be healthful both for mind and body; and they who are most arduously occupied in ecclesiastical duties, and professional studies, are most in need of these intervals of leisure. After such recreative pauses, a man's usual pursuits are resumed with new vigour and alacrity; for myself I must say, that, while a beneficed clergyman, I made it a rule to be absent from my parish during a short period in every year; and so far as I was at all qualified to discharge the duties of my calling, I always felt the advantage, personally and parochially, of adhering to this rule. But the Irish clergy do not commonly avail themselves of this privilege, Why? Because, my lords, they are unable—because they are poor.
And here, we have reached the much-ventilated question of clerical revenue. Few among those who hear me, still fewer, probably, of the people of this country in general, can form any adequate conception of the poverty and privations, of late years endured by the Irish clergy [hear! hear! hear! from the Opposition benches]. Yes, my lords, and I say hear! hear! hear! and I wish the noble lords who cheer would accompany me to Ireland, and there visit the humble residences of the parochial clergy, and there see with their own eyes, the shifts and expedients to which those respectable men are reduced.
1118
One noble baron, I am sure, from his generous nature, would, on his return to this House, place himself by my side, and say to your lordships, "Listen to this prelate: what he tells you is the truth." Your lordships have heard, and this House must have been peculiarly fortunate if some of your number have not felt, the difficulties arising from the depreciation of the times. This depreciation has affected all landed property; clerical property the most of all: and that for this plain reason, that, with very few exceptions, the clergy did not raise their rate of tithe-composition during what have been called the war prices, and yet, upon the fall of prices, practically diminished this rate. Their incomes, I grant, did increase during the war; but this increase arose not from an enlargement of the acreable composition, but from the additional quantity of land thrown into tillage. The depreciation of their incomes, on the other hand, has been produced by the diminution of tillage, by the reduction of tithe-rates, by the breaking down of an impoverished tenantry, by the efforts of many landlords, and all middle-men, to preserve undiminished, their enormous rents, covenanted for at a period, when from the competition of an overflowing population, the cupidity of him who had land to let was the sole measure and limit of the sums proffered by those who must find land to take. And what has been the consequence to the clergy? My lords, from my own knowledge, I can state, that during the last two or three years, several most respectable, and not ill-beneficed clergymen have had but a nominal revenue. Yet this has been the time chosen for invectives against the wealth of the clergy. This is the time selected for the dissemination through all quarters of the land, of inflammatory publications addressed to the inflammable passions of my poor, misguidable, but not ungenerous countrymen; publications which almost exhaust the vocabulary of abuse, and which hold up to public detestation a body of men, who merit far different treatment, and who are far otherwise estimated by the people among whom they live. In these works we are told, "that the pastors of the church are surfeited; that the trains of their wives are borne by pampered slaves; that the crowd of their offspring is followed by a splendid retinue; that the church establishment is preposterously, insultingly, rich; that it is a mighty reser

1119
voir, an omnivorous church; that it is weiighed down by a golden plethora; that it is sinking under an idle and invidious load of wealth." The envy of the factious and the disappointed, I cannot presume to fathom; the extent of anarchical appetency I am not ambitious to explore. But this I know that, bishop as I am, I have never in my life felt symptoms of this golden plethora; nor for myself, nor for my right reverend brethren, am I in the least apprehensive of a pecuniary apoplexy.
Some, indeed, of the Irish clergy I know, who, but for their own private fortunes, which they bountifully spend, could not maintain themselves in the church. Others, I rejoice to call my friends, men devoted to their calling, yet qualified to move in the most exalted sphere, men respectably, sometimes nobly, allied, who, with benefices nominally of large value, have not only been obliged to put down their carriages, and resign those moderate unostentatious comforts to which they were habituated from early youth—but who find it matter of difficulty to educate their children and to provide the common necessaries of life. Yet, these men are not chargeable with any extravagance either of themselves, or of their families; they have not in their expenditure surpassed the bounds of prudence; except perhaps (but you will forgive them this wrong) they may have somewhat exceeded in bounty to the poor. This defalcation of income, I trust and believe, is only temporary. Clerical property, like other property, must find its level. But the animus and the object of our opponents may be appreciated by the seasonableness of their attack. It will be kept in mind, that the riches of the church have been denounced not in "the time of our wealth," but in the "time of our tribulation." If we had the enormous property with which we have been charged; if we did labour under the atrocious crime of great riches, then, I am apt to think, our adversaries would be less sanguine than they seem to be, in their hopes of annihilating the established church in Ireland. But, in truth, my lords, the agitators egregiously deceive themselves. Though poor we are not forsaken, a British king, a British House of Peers, a British House of Commons, I will add a British people—all habituated and attached, and bound by the most sacred ties, to the one reformed episcopal church established in Ireland no less than
1120
in England, will not suffer either branch of it to be rudely and sacrilegiously torn away. I am not apprehensive, my lords. The church will survive the clamour of its foes. It has every thing to hope from the spirit, and the consistency of its friends.
The amount of church revenues in Ireland, whether episcopal, clerical, or in the hands of lay impropriators, has never been exactly ascertained. And why? Because there are no authenticated vouchers. And why are there no such authenticated vouchers? Because, hither to, there has been no inquisitorial scrutiny into these revenues. And I trust, my lords, that no such inquisitorial scrutiny will ever obtain the sanction of this House. There is a canon laid down by my great countryman Mr. Burke, which, by all British legislators, should be held little short of sacred:
"more or less is treason against property."
The justice of the case is plainly this. If churchman or if layman, if parson or if landlord takes or demands more than his legal right, the extent of that right is matter of fair judicial inquiry and, however unwilling he may be, the law will, as it should, compel this person to disclose the secrets of his property. But, that the aggregate of the personal or real property of any selected class of his majesty's subjects should be scrutinised, with the further purpose in view, that it may be swept into the public treasury, or conveyed into the pockets of some other class of men, or diverted in any way whatsoever from its legitimate appointed purpose—this, my lords, I do not hesitate to say would be spoliation the most unprincipled the most unconstitutional; this principle, rather I ought to say, this dereliction of principle, once admitted, there would be an end to the security of all property of every kind. No man could go to rest with the assurance of handing down to his posterity, those possessions which he has derived from a long train of ancestry; no man could rationally indulge the hope, that through the honest earnings of a long laborious life, he might himself become the founder of a family.
But, while I thus protest against inquisitorial scrutiny, I beg it may not be considered that I am studious of concealment. On the contrary, I must say, that, for honest not for revolutionary purposes, I could be well content, if the clerical property of Ireland, and the lay property of Ireland, were fully and accurately known.

1121
In having a correct estimate of the former, we should be able to pronounce with certaitny, respecting a given amount of income, that it is expended, that it must be expended, that we can legally provide for its being expended, at home. Respecting the expenditure of lay property, we have no means of arriving at any such comfortable conclusion.
I am quite willing, therefore, so far as my knowledge extends, to enter on the subject of church property. And, in the first place, a few words for episcopal property in Ireland. The archbishop of Cashel, then, has publicly stated, that by accepting what was liberally proposed by certain modern reformers, as a curtailed income for archbishops of 8000 l. per annum, one archbishop (meaning himself)"would find his revenues considerably augmented."1 am enabled to add, from unquestionable authority, that, excepting the lord Primate, all the archbishops of Ireland can make a similar statement. And no friend of the church, or of constituted authority, could wish the primacy of Ireland to be so limited.
Respecting the suffragan bishoprics of Munster, I can speak with tolerable accuracy. The value of some is known to me; the value of others I can pretty nearly arrive at, from observing the course of episcopal translations, and applying the obvious principle, that men will not voluntarily exchange a better income for a worse. And I can safely affirm, that not one of these bishoprics exceeds in yearly value the sum of 5000 l. while some are materially under that amount. My own bishopric is one of the higher order; and I should be a considerable gainer, if my annual income were fixed at 5000 l. Respecting one other bishopric, which though not in the province of Munster, is in the southern division of Ireland, I mean the see of Ossory, I have not only been authorised but commissioned by the bishop, to state, that, during the eleven years of his occupancy, that see has not netted, on an average, the amount of 3500 l. a year. And I know there are bishoprics of yet inferior value.
The average yearly income of archbishoprics and bishoprics, in Ireland, taken together, was lately computed in another House, by an hon. and learned gentleman) member for the county of Louth), whose accuracy in acquiring, and whose precision in communicating, numerical information, have never been ques-
1122
tioned, at 5000 l. This I believe to be a fair computation: rather, perhaps, above than below the fact. Let this now be compared, if comparison be possible, with the vague, fluctuating rumours of our adversaries. I myself have heard persons in political life, some of them members of parliament, not uninformed on other subjects, and by no means hostile to the church, declare their belief, in perfect simplicity and good faith, that Irish bishoprics varied in yearly value, from fifteen to twenty, thirty, and so much as forty thousand pounds! Such has been the credulity of the public; such the advantage to a bad cause, of frontless pertinacity in misrepresentation.
There is one circumstance in the case of Irish episcopacy, to which I would request particular attention. In Ireland we have no commendams. The single instance I know of, approaching to this arrangement, is the perpetual union of the deanery of Christ church Dublin, with the poor bishopric of Kildare. A union advantageous to the church, and serviceable to the discipline of that diocess: for thus, a sufficient income is provided for the bishop second in rank, and ex-officio a privy counsellor, in Ireland; a place of residence also is provided, there not being any palace or cathedral in the diocess of Kildare; and that residence is more conveniently circumstanced for full and frequent intercourse between the bishop and his clergy, than any residence could be, within the diocess itself, the city of Dublin nearly bordering on the diocess of Kildare, and forming a sort of common centre for the whole of it. The system of episcopal revenue in Ireland, is, in this particular, much preferable to the system which obtains in England. Here the income of many, I believe I may say most, of the sees, being notoriously too small to maintain (not the splendor, for splendor is not sought) but the decent respectability of a bishop's rank and station, it is matter of necessity, that benefices or dignities, with or without cure of souls, should be annexed; an arrangement obviously at war with strict clerical residence, and unfriendly to the uniformity of parochial discipline. In Ireland, on the contrary, each bishop is supported solely by the revenues of his own see. The maintenance, indeed, is not overgrown; in some few instances, it is rather insufficient; but, on the whole, it is suitable to the character of episcopacy, and to the

1123
secular rank which our episcopacy holds in the state. One advantage (and it is a great one) arising from this mode of provision is, that if promotes, or is, at least, calculated to promote, the residence of our bishops within their respective sees. How well it fulfils this purpose, we may infer from the exemplary residence of the Irish bishops as a body. I will make no exceptions; for I know not of one.*
It has of late been frequently said, that the episcopal estates in Ireland, "if properly let," would amply maintain, the whole church establishment in that country; and, on this ground, it has been equitably proposed, that tithes should be abolished; that is, should revert, not to the Crown, not to the poorer occupants of the soil, not, as some would contend, to the consumers of the produce of the soil, but to the landlords, who would make the occupant pay much more in the shape of rent, than he now pays in the shape of tithe. But I return to this goodly scheme. The produce of the bishops' lands "properly let," that is, if there be any meaning in the proposition, Jet at their full value, is to be parcelled out among the parochial clergy; equalised I presume, upon the Scotch model. One simple question only, I would ask these liberal dispensers of a property not their own—Have they considered at whose cost this reform is to be effected?—Not, certainly, so far as respects four-fifths of this property, at the cost of the bishops; but at the cost of lay-proprietors; at the cost of a most respectable tenantry; at the cost of many of the first nobility and gentry; who, for the space of two hundred years and upwards, have enjoyed most beneficial interests under the bishops of Ireland.
It may not be amiss that I should here explain how the bishops' estates are leas-ed, and how renewed in Ireland. This subject is, in this country, very imperfectly understood; and a right understanding of it cannot fail to remove many existing prejudices. The leases run (with a few trifling exceptions) for one-and-twenty years. The rents are very low; sometimes almost nominal. The renewals
* It is somewhat remarkable, that, for a solitary example of Irish episcopal non-residence, our adversaries are obliged to travel back a period of twenty one years. Frederick, earl of Bristol, and bishop of Berry, died July 8, 1803.
1124
are annual; the tenants each year surrendering their leases and taking out new ones. The fine is usually fixed at one-fifth of the value of the lands, after having deducted the reserved rent; that is, on a calculation, which, according to sir Isaac Newton's tables, allows the tenant eight per cent on his renewal fine. And this beneficial interest is, in fact, unless the improvidence or the perversity of the tenant prevent it, a permanent property; as permanent as any other estate whatever.
From this plain statement, it is obvious that the bishops cannot, in the nature of things, possess enormous incomes. The rent, as I have stated, bears a very small proportion to the value. After deducting this rent from the value, the utmost which a bishop ever takes in the shape of fine, is one-fifth of the remainder: four fifths, accordingly rest with the lay tenant. Raise, therefore, the income of the bishop as high as you please, and you must, with the deduction of a small, fixed, and unincreasable rent, raise the income of his lay-tenant in the proportion of four to one.
But it is objected, that the bishops may refuse to renew; or, as it is familiarly said, may "run their lives" against the tenants' leases. In the first place it may be replied—this is not their practice; the bishops are always ready, willing, desirous to renew. But I will prove it morally impossible that they should run their lives. The renewal fines taken by the Irish bishops, in most instances, greatly exceed half the revenue of the see. But, for argument sake, and to allow the utmost advantage to the opponent, I will assume the fines to form but half the income. Now these fines, on this reduced estimate, amounting to half his yearly revenue, the bishop who wishes to see his leases out, must forego for the space of twenty years. This he must do, at the risk of his intermediate death; and (considering the period of life at which men commonly attain the rank of bishops) the risk is not inconsiderable. To cover it, he must insure his life, at the expense, we will say, of 1000 l a year. Let us now see how the case stands. I will take the yearly revenue of the see, at Mr. Leslie Foster's average of 5000 l.—deduct fines 2500 l, Insurance premium 1000 l, and there remains to the bishop 1500 l. Thus, for the space of twenty years, our imaginary-bishop (for where in real life can such a bishop be found?) would voluntarily re-

1125
duce his income from 5000 l. to 1500 l. a year. And for what object? That, at the end of twenty years of poverty, he and his family after him may enjoy the whole revenues of the see? By no means. A moiety of the value must, by act of parliament, be reserved to the episcopal succession. A moiety, therefore, only, can remain to the bishop's personal heirs. But even of this moiety, one-fifth must be paid by the heirs in perpetuity, as a fine, in order to make their interest permanent. And is it, then, this remote chance of a reversion at the end of twenty years, not of the whole estate, but of two-fifths of it,—is it this uncertain, problematical, fractional vista, seen through the dimness of advancing years, which shall induce a man of sense, of education, of fair acquaintance with the world, to compromise his character, and bring down on himself and his posterity the maledictions of a ruined tenantry? Is it credible that any one man could be so absurd? This, however, is a question not respecting one man, but two and twenty men. And that any twenty two men should form a conspiracy, thus to impoverish, thus to degrade, thus to send themselves down with infamy to the grave, is a supposition so utterly beyond belief, that I can waste words upon it no longer.
The estates of the Irish bishops, then, are to all intents and purposes, so far as respects about four-fifths of their value, the property, not of churchmen, but of laymen. This derivative interest has passed from father to son, under the moral certainty that from year to year it will be renewed; and each annual fine is paid on the supposition and mutual understanding, that the tenant thereby purchases, not only the present renewal, but the prospect of future renewal for ever. The notion cannot, therefore, for a moment be admitted, that the legislature ever will agree to confiscate this undoubted property of the lay nobility and gentry of Ireland.
"But," say the partitioners of property, "we will not confiscate the lay proportion of the bishops' lands; we will not injure the tenantry; we will take from them a fair rent; and apply that rent as a substitute for the grievous burthen of tithes." Well, then,—I would ask these gentlemen two short questions. Will you take more than the bishops take? will you take less? If less, you will diminish, not augment, your proposed sum for the pay-
1126
ment of the clergy: if more, you will rob the present tenantry, and their heirs and representatives for ever.
But, my lords, I am not apprehensive. With this property the legislature will not intermeddle, because it is a just and equitable legislature: with this property the legislature will not intermeddle, because it is a prudent and forecasting legislature; because it is well acquainted with the inevitable consequences of public injustice; because it is accustomed to anticipate the future, from experience of the past. We have heard much, indeed, of the difference between church property and lay property. I admit not the distinction. I stand on the ground of ancient, prescriptive, unalienable right. I protest against the untried theories of these untried visionaries. But this I will say, that, if I were advising the anarchical enemies of the whole existing order of things, how they might best confound and destroy property altogether, I would tell them to begin, by unsettling the property of the church. From the vast complication of interests here involved, from the intermingled rights and claims of laity and clergy, from the ramifications which the church has sent forth into all departments of lay proprietorship, I have not the least doubt, that, if church property were unsettled, society would be shaken to the centre, its ancient landmarks borne away by the convulsion, and the ruin of all existing proprietors would inevitably follow. Let us look to the course of these matters in France. The example of France, in re-modelling the church, has been held forth as a pattern worthy of imitation. To this example, therefore, I do the more readily appeal. How, then, did they begin in France? with the confiscation of church property. How did they froceed in France? to the confiscation of ay property. Where have they terminated in France? in the abolition of primogeniture: in an Agrarian law. Let landed proprietors in Ireland, let landed proprietors in England, look to this example—and let them beware.
But enough respecting bishops: I proceed to the property of the other clergy; and first of the deans and dignitaries. And here some explanation may be useful. In conversing with natives of this country, well versed in English ecclesiastical affairs, I have generally observed a tendency to judge of Irish institutions by English usages. For example, in Eng-

1127
land and Ireland, there are deans and dignitaries, bearing in each country the same titles: and hence, it has been at once concluded, that their mode of provision and sphere of duty are also the same, or similar. But the case is far otherwise. English deans and dignitaries are, as such, for the most part, sinecurists, with respectable estates in land. Irish deans and dignitaries, on the other hand are, as such, for the most part, working clergymen, with cure of souls; their income generally arising from the tithes of the parishes which form the corps of their dignities, and on which they are bound to reside, like any other of the parochial clergy. It is, indeed, a strange anomaly, but so the fact stands, that, in several diocesses, the dignitaries are among the poorest of the clergy; for this simple reason, that, in times of unsettlement, their estates were made away with; and their parishes (the smallest portion of their income) alone remained. Thus (I mention but one or two, out of numerous examples), the deanery of Kildare is worth about 100 l. per annum; the deanery of Emly, worth about 150 l.; the archdeaconry of Kildare is worth—nothing; the archdeaconry of Raphoe worth—nothing. Of these last-mentioned titular dignities the estates long since disappeared; and, it is presumed, they never had parishes annexed. One other dignity, of somewhat larger value, I will mention—the chancellorship of Cork. The present worthy dignitary is, perhaps, on the proscription-list of our church reformers, as an egregious pluralist; and, on paper, a considerable pluralist he certainly appears to be. He holds a union of six parishes: St. Nicholas, St. Bridget, St. John of Jerusalem, St. Stephen, St Mary, St. Dominick. Now, each of these parishes should, according to the doctrine of to-day, have its own parish minister. But, how stands the case? The chancellor of Cork derives from these six parishes, an income of 260 l. per annum. And what is the extent of these parishes? The parish of St. John of Jerusalem is—a distillery; the parish of St. Dominick is—a sugar-house. The magnitude of the remaining four parishes is somewhat in the same proportion. This, in truth, is a union, not of populous districts, but of old religious houses. So much for the value of conclusions drawn from unexplained returns.
But there is another class of dignitaries so called, respecting whom a word must
1128
be said. I mean the rural deans. Of this body we have heard much. They have been repeatedly brought forward, as contributing to swell the pomp and dignity of the espicopal retinue, as drawing large revenues from the oppressed population, as constituting one great division of the enormous staff of the church. Now what in reality are these portentous rural deans? My lords, they are simply six or eight of the parochial clergy in each diocess, selected on account of their good character, or appointed in rotation, to discharge the laborious, invidious, and unpaid duty, of visiting and reporting upon every parish in their respective districts. Every year, previously to the bishop's visitation, and at as many other times as the bishop may require, they inspect the glebes and glebe-houses, the church-yards and churches, the vestments, the books, the communion-plate and linen, and all things requisite for the decent celebration of divine service. On all these particulars, they make a special report; as, also, on the condition and regularity of parish registers; on the residence and attendance at church of the officiating clergy; on the number of communicants, whether monthly or at the great festivals; on the time set apart for the catechetical examination of young persons; and the numbers actually catechised in church. Such, my lords, are our Irish rural deans, and such the duties which they perform. And it appears, that these idle and useless staff-officers, in addition to their ordinary duties, undertake this charge, which implies much labour, much travelling, sometimes no trivial expense—without any other recompense whatever, than the consciousness of being usefully employed.
The incomes of the parochial clergy, it is somewhat difficult to ascertain. From the great irregularities of Irish payments, they are themselves frequently unable to calculate what they shall probably receive in any given year. From these, and other circumstances, materials are not in existence whence to form an exact average of clerical income. Availing themselves of this inherent difficulty, our adversaries have swelled, at their own discretion, the nominal revenues of our poor parochial ministers, varying the amount as they found their statements too strong to go down, At first they assumed an average of 800 l.; then, by a single evolution of their calculating ma-

1129
chinery, they bring out an average of 500 l. per annum. But we have a surer ground of computation. At the beginning of the present year, about 80 parishes had compounded for their tithes, under the act of last session. The average income of these parishes was about 400 l.* But then, they were parishes of the higher order; and we should take a lower average for the benefices throughout Ireland. On this subject, I am, of course, not prepared to speak positively. But, from the best information I have been able to procure, it is my opinion and belief, that, including the curates (whose salaries, varying from 75 l. to 100 l. per annum, are deducted from the receipts of the beneficed clergy), 250 l.. would be a fair average income. In the year 1786, bishop Woodward calculated the average at 140 l.: and in stating an increase, since that period, of eleven twenty-fifths, I have more than made allowance for any intermediate increase of tillage, and advance of prices. On the whole, I can affirm, with full assurance of correctness, that the parochial clergy of Ireland are by no means overpaid. And I will add, that, in their general conduct and dealing, they are by far the most moderate class of proprietors we have. If any thing, they carry indulgence to a fault; especially, in giving long credit, to their own great loss and the ultimate disadvantage of the people. What they receive, is considerably below their just right; and I am prepared to show, that they give ample value in return.
In considering the value given for their incomes by the clergy of Ireland, I wish in the first instance, to call attention to a fact, perhaps not generally known; certainly not much adverted to; namely, their laborious and expensive preparation for holy orders. Our clergy, without exception, receive an university education. No candidate is ordained, without producing a testimonial, that he has taken, at least the first degree in Arts, at some one of our three universities, of Dublin, Oxford, or Cambridge: without producing, also, a certificate of his attendance on a course of divinity lectures; and thus is secured a continuance at the university,
* It has been publicly stated by the highest official authority, that in the returns of settlements since made under the act of 1823, the average was of the most moderate description.
1130
of at least four years and a half. In Ireland, we have no literates: none of that class, who, in this country, prepare themselves by private study, at a trifling cost, for the profession of the church. I say not this, as meaning to cast the least reflection on a very meritorious and useful body of men. I merely wish to impress the fact upon your lordships, that our Irish clergy all receive an expensive education. They are for the most part well connected: the sons of our nobility, gentry, and clergy. Many of them having relinquished better worldly prospects, for the church; the parents of the majority have expended on their education a sum which might have established them in several respectable walks of life; and to all of them, before they have once officiated in divine service, or performed a single act of clerical duty, the church and the nation have contracted a debt, which is but too frequently ill paid.
But, the quality of the education received by our Irish clergy is fully commensurate with the expense incurred; and here it is my duty to advert to the place in which, for the most part that education is conferred—my loved and venerated parent the University of Dublin: a duty which I shall the more readily perform, as, though indebted to that seminary for my education, I have not had the honour of being permanently connected with it as a fellow. The character of this University is essential to my subject: for, on the quality of the education there bestowed, must depend the qualifications of the Irish clergy.
The university, which, in its earliest days, 'produced Usher, the most profoundly learned offspring and ornament of the Reformation; and Loftus, in oriental letters rivalled only by his great coeval Po-cock: which afterwards sent forth, to shine among the foremost of our Augustan age Parnel, the chastest of our poets; Swift, the purest of our prose writers; and Berkeley, the first of our metaphysicians: which formed, nearly in our own time, perhaps within the recollection of some noble lords who hear me, Goldsmith, our most natural depictor of life and manners; Burke the greatest philosophic statesman of his own or any other age or country—and, why should I not add, Grattan, the eloquent assertor of his country's rights, the parent of Irish independence;—the university which sent forth such men, is not now degenerating, is not like-

1131
ly to degenerate from her ancient rank and name, and need not blush to be compared with either university of England. On this subject, if I speak with more than common interest, I speak, at the same time, soberly, advisedly, and from intimate acquaintance, with the facts. The course of study there laid down, the rules of discipline there enjoined, are well known to me; and how those studies are directed, and how that discipline is administered under the learned, wise, and excellent person who presides over that university, I could abundantly and most satisfactorily testify, were I not restrained by the consideration, that, from early youth, that person has been among the most familiar and most cordial of my friends.
I am aware, indeed, that Dublin has been called the "silent sister;" in allusion, it may be presumed, to the comparatively small number of Irish authors. But epithets are easily bestowed, and witticism is often courted, at the expense of truth and candour. For what, I would ask, is the parent of authorship? Surely, after the stimulus of want, it is literary leisure; and, if comparison is to be at all instituted (and the comparison, in this instance, is purely defensive), we should look to the opportunities of literary leisure respectively enjoyed, by the Irish and English universities. Thus, then, or nearly thus, the case will be found to stand. In Oxford, there are 24 colleges and halls, 24 heads of houses, 565 fellows, and about 1,700 students. In Cambridge 17 colleges and halls, 17 heads of houses, 400 fellows, and 18,000students. In the two English universities, conjointly, 41 colleges and halls, 41 heads of houses, and 965 fellows, for the education of about 3,500 youths. In Ireland, on the other hand, we have unfortunately not abounded in munificent patrons of learning. A royal foundress and royal benefactors, we have had: but the University of Dublin was founded at a period, when the zeal for thus promoting good letters had gone by. Accordingly, we have but one college, one provost, and twenty-five fellows, for the education of about 1,500 under-graduates. These twenty-six most learned men, who attained their present honourable rank after years of intense study, and through the most arduous literary competition in the world, have upon their shoulders the instruction and government of 1,500 young men; and thus occupied, they certainly have little redundant time for the pleasures and the pains
1132
of authorship. Yet, occupied as they are, they contribute more than their proportion to the common stock of letters; I could specify very many, and and very able works of their production, in most departments of science and literature; and, on this score, I should not hesitate a comparison, I will not say with equal, but with superior numbers, of your first scholars in either university of England. The junior members of our university, un provided with fellowships, and unable to linger in that lettered retirement, which in your colleges and halls is so delightfully provided, must, on the completion of their under-graduate course, at once go forth into the various active walks of life; and, under these circumstances, it is not wonderful, that literature is, in Ireland, little pursued as a profession. But authorship is not the only, nor, perhaps, the best criterion of a manly education. It is in real life, it is from professional exertions, it is from that ability, that readiness, that sound knowledge, which present themselves in the daily walks of business, that we are to estimate the true value and extent of university attainments. And here I do not blush for my country. Of our clergy I do not now speak: that shall presently be done. But, looking to the different professions, I can say, that our physicians are skilful, learned, and sagacious; that our school of surgery is confessedly one of the first in Europe; that our bar, in legal knowledge, in constitutional principles, in appropriate eloquence, and in a constantly available fund of general information, stands pre-eminently high. In this House, at the beginning of the session, I rejoiced to hear the eulogy pronounced, with an eloquence worthy of its object, of a distinguished character, whom I love, admire, and revere—the lord chief justice of Ireland; an eulogy, certainly not superior to his merits: but this eminent person would be the first to allow, with generous satisfaction, that, on the Irish bench, and at the Irish bar, are several, though not his rivals, yet his equals. And how were these men formed? My lords, with few exceptions, they were formed at the Irish university, by the Irish clergy. And, may I be allowed to say, the benefits of our divinity school extend far beyond the clerical order. The impulse there communicated acts very remarkably upon the Irish bar. From an early period, I have been in habits of intimacy with many of

1133
that learned body—about thirty years ago, I well recollect, the junior members of it, especially, were unhappily tinctured with infidelity, through the writings principally of Mr. Gibbon, then at the height of his fashionable popularity. At that period, a young lawyer in Ireland would have blushed to be detected in the study of the bible. But what is now the case? My lords, I do not know, in the community, a more exemplary, a more moral, a more religious body of men, than the Irish bar. Familiar with the general laws of evidence, they have studied to the best purpose, the evidences of the Christian faith; and several of the most eminent are well read in the original scriptures, in biblical criticism, and in theology at large. A fact of the last importance: for, since the Union, the bar has become incomparably the most influential body we possess in Ireland; and has long given the tone to our best general society. Now whence, I would ask, has the bar of Ireland derived this knowledge, whence this proficiency in religion? The answer is plain:—from the university in which they have been trained: from the clergy with whom they associate, with whom they are linked in friendship; not only the clergy of the metropolis, but those whom they meet in their vacational retirements, and those who sometimes produce in our Dublin pulpits, the fruits of laborious days and nights, passed in the seclusion of some country benefice. This is a public service rendered by the Irish clergy; and the extent of this service can be appreciated only by those, who, from their own personal recollection and experience, are qualified to compare the state of society in Ireland now, with the state of society in Ireland thirty years ago.
On the learned professional labours of the Irish clergy, I must say somewhat: it shall be brief. I will not travel to Ireland for the purpose; a specimen of these labours is on the table, and in the hands of a large proportion of the British public. The valuable Family Bible prepared by Bishop Mant and Dr. Doyley, and sanctioned and circulated by the venerable Society for promoting Christian knowledge, while it contains excellent contributions from living ornaments of the English branch of our church, can rank also, among its best contributors, Irish divines of the present day. I shall Dame three: Dr. Hales, in learning and labour a man of other centuries, when, to use
1134
the language of our late good old king, there were giants in the land; Dr. Graves the defender of the Mosaic economy, and the assertor of Apostolic truth and soberness; and Archbishop Magee, who gave a deadly wound to the heresy of Socinus, not in Ireland, for there it has not dared to rear its head, but in this country: and the English clergy, and the English people will not readily forget, that to an Irish divine they are indebted for the best exposure extant of heretical practices upon the text of the Sacred volume.
But it is said, that the Irish parochial clergy are a profitless burthen; it is said, that no attempt has ever been made to show any services performed by the church in Ireland, in return for its enormous income. If this, my lords, were the fact, if no such attempt has ever been made (and how much otherwise this matter stands, is well known to the reading public), the fault shall not rest with me, if such an assertion again be hazarded. I rejoice to meet the challenge: I will at once join issue on the point. But, in the first place, I must say, that, if the present race of clergy were inefficient, it would be utterly unfair that the ministerial succession for ever, that the Protestant religion for ever, should pay the penalty for this lack of service. The proposition has been gravely made, that the present occupants should enjoy their incomes for life, and that the incomes of their successors should be curtailed; that is, according to the judgment of our adversaries, that the delinquents shall enjoy their ill-deserved possessions, while their unoffending, perhaps exemplary successors, shall be plundered and despoiled. My lords, in common equity, I must say directly the reverse. If the present clergy be delinquents, let them be punished; if useless, let them be cashiered, and an efficient clergy planted in their room. This is my doctrine; this is the clear justice of the case. But, I am bold to say, the present clergy are a most useful, a most exemplary, a most indefatigable class of men. Exceptions, indeed, there may and must be; and no man regrets more deeply, and no man would censure more willingly, any and every such exception that unhappily exists. But the general character of our clergy is unimpeachable; the body at largo is sound and serviceable. And I fearlessly maintain, that they give full value for their emoluments; that, if they were removed, or if their incomes, were

1135
materially abridged, many parts of Ireland would sink into barbarism and helpless destitution.
Respecting the strictly ecclesiastical services of our parochial clergy, this is neither the place where they ought to be detailed, nor the tribunal before which they can be judged. I shall therefore confine myself to a few definite and tangible facts; and I shall avoid touching on the services of the clergy in the north of Ireland. Their character stands deservedly high; and my right reverend friends near me are abundantly qualified to attest their merits. But I have been favoured with authentic returns from the city of Dublin, and from parts both of Munster, and Leinster, from which I have abstracted a few particulars, to be laid before your lordships. This abstract I shall take the liberty to read; making this one previous remark, that the proportion borne to the general congregation, by the attendants at the sacrament, and by the children publicly catechised, is, in my judgment, the best criterion of parochial diligence and zeal. In these statements, it is not so much my object to mark the number of Protestant parishioners, as to point attention to this proportion. In many instances, from causes in operation for a course of centuries, the members of our established church are comparatively few; but, from the attention paid to these few, we may fairly infer what would be effected, were the numbers more considerable.
City of Limerick.—In this city are four churches: three parochial, including the cathedral, which is also a parish church; and one chapel of ease, in the gift of the earl of Limerick. On Sundays, the attendants at morning service average 1,700. The aggregate number of communicants in the year, is 5,650. The children examined for catechetical premiums, under the superintendence of the bishop and clergy, 400. In the cathedral, divine service is performed three times each Sunday, and once on every week-day. Sermons are preached both in the mornings and evenings of Sundays, and in the morning of every church holiday. In the other churches, divine service is performed twice on Sunday, once on Wednesdays, Fridays, and all church holidays. And at festivals, there is an early sacrament for the accommodation, more especially, of the lower classes.
Diocess of Ferns and Leighlin.—In nine towns or parishes of this united diocess,
1136
there are 9,877 parishioners, 1,816 communicants at festivals, and 1,057 children publicly catechised. The other parishes in the diocess, from which, by the kindness of the bishop, I possess returns, afford a similar proportion. Monthly communion is constant.
Diocess of Cork.—In eight towns of this diocess, the monthly communicants are 3,560; the children examined by the clergy for catechetical premiums, 2,472. The villages and country parishes keep pace with this proportion.
City of Cork.—Seven churches. Amount of congregations, 6,800; monthly communicants, 692; communicants at festivals, 2,205; children catechised at church, 871; children examined for catechetical premiums, 1,200; average of weekly collections for poor, in churches,20 l. 18 s. d.; aggregate for one year of weekly collections, 1,081 l. 7s. 4d.; raised by charity sermons, in four years, 2,160 l. In each church, the sacrament is administered at least once a month, besides festivals; in some churches, once a fortnight. Prayers in all the churches, on Wednesdays, Fridays, and all church holidays; in some of them, every day in each alternate week. Every facility is given, by early services at 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning on Sundays, to the poor, who cannot appear clothed as they might wish to be, in a city church at noon. The catechetical examinations for premiums are conducted remarkably well. All the clergy in and about Cork act as examiners: the dean, or, in his absence, the archdeacon, examines the higher classes for medals. The bishop himself invariably attends, and distributes the premiums.
City of Dublin.—In six of the parish churches (the others are proportionally attended) the average amounts are as follows:—Number of attendants at morning service, 9,800; monthly communicants, 1,165; communicants at festivals, 6,659; cases in which the sacrament is received throughout the year, in these six churches, without regarding the repetition of the same person, 34,180; alms collected weekly, and at sacraments, in these six churches, 2,360 l.; children catechised in five of these churches on Sundays, 1,340: The number of catechumens in the sixth church has not been returned; but it is above the average of the other five.—At the two cathedrals, the congregations are limited only by the extent of the buildings: on a rough calculation; they average at from

1137
2,000 to 3,000. The charity sermons preached in five of the above-mentioned churches produce annually 2,000 l.; into this calculation, St. Peter's church, and the Magdalen Asylum (in which are many charity sermons each year), are not taken. In a single parish, church (St. Mary's), there is a congregation of 2,700; monthly communicants, 480; festival communicants, 2,100; children catechised, 630; average annual collection of weekly and sacramental alms, 530 l.; collection at parochial charity sermons, 550 l. In the church of St. Peter, last Easter day, the! communicants were 2,000; the Sunday collections, 520 l. In addition to their strictly pastoral employment, the clergy of Dublin are, for the most part, members of different charitable boards, and governors and inspectors of the various hospitals and schools. They are, in truth, indefatigable, and their whole time is devoted to their duties.
These statements do very imperfect justice to the subject: and I wish them to be considered merely as brief specimens of what might be abundantly adduced. Enough, however, has appeared to show, that the Irish clergy do not slumber on their post; that, as opportunities are ministered to them, they are instant in season, and out of season, at the call not only of duty and conscience, but of taste and inclination. For such services prove more than mere activity; they could not thus be performed, unless the heart were in the work.
There is one particular service, on which a few words must be said. In Ireland, it is well known, we have no legal fund for the poor. Much, indeed, is done by private beneficence; much, to their honour be it spoken, by those very classes of society, who, in England, would themselves be objects of parochial relief. The Irish widow has not even her cruise of oil, and barrel of meal; but she freely shares her last potatoe with the beggar at the door of her miserable hut. One fund, however, there is, which, though not large, is available beyond its pecuniary amount. In all our parish churches, during divine service, on the first day of the week, after the manner of primitive times, a collection is made for the relief of the poor; and this fund is largely indebted to the christian exertions of the parochial clergy. In the larger congregations, the sums thus raised are considerable; in the smaller, often above what might be ex-
1138
pected; and in many instances the amount is almost, and sometimes altogether, applied in aid of the poor Roman Catholic population. In addition, charity sermons are preached in all great towns; and the contributions are on a scale unknown in England, where there are other modes of relief. In Limerick, in Waterford, in Cork, above all, in Dublin, the sums raised exclusively in the churches of the establishment, and by the eloquence of the established clergy, are of a magnitude, which, considering the poverty of the people, and the embarrassments which unhappily prevail, is truly astonishing. Before the depreciation of the times, 700 l. 800 l. 1,000 l. 1,200 l. were no uncommon collections, at a single sermon. One distinguished christian orator, the late lamented dean Kirwan, in the course of his ministry in our church, a space of about twenty years, raised by sermons within the city of Dublin, the sum of 75,000 l. But for the exertions, indeed, of our clergy, many of our largest and best charitable institutions would not now exist. And while they have done much directly, they have done more consequentially; They have thus produced agenerally diffused spirit of beneficence, which enters into the character of the people, and which the people cannot forget to have been nurtured and matured, by the same christian eloquence and feeling, which gave birth to it. And here, I am led to say a few words on the manner in which divine service is performed by the Irish clergy. Varieties in manner, there must be; and, in such a body, some, doubtless, will be found, who are careless, some who are injudicious: but I assert not more than I have ascertained, when I bear testimony, that the clergymen of Ireland are, generally speaking, eminent in decency, in solemnity, in impressiveness, in sense and feeling of the Liturgy, in sound doctrine, in moral pathos, and in manly eloquence. It has been my lot to hear warm eulogies pronounced by rather fastidious Englishmen, on the manner of officiating, both in the reading-desk and the pulpit, of those Irish clergymen who occasionally visit this country. And I can pronounce with certainty, that these are not, in any respect, superior to numbers who remain at home. In Dublin, several are deservedly distinguished: but, to a nice observer, the performance of divine service in many of our country parishes would, perhaps, be yet more striking. For my own part, if I

1139
wished to give an intelligent stranger, of good taste and of religious temper, a favourable impression of our Irish clergy, I should be apt to lead him unawares, into one of our remote and unfrequented country churches, and there to let him hear an unpretending pastor offer up his own prayers, and the prayers of two or. three villagers, gathered together in the name, and for the worship; of their common master. It was in a church of this description, that an incident occurred some years ago, which may not be unworthy of your lordships' notice. A French lady, of the Roman Catholic religion, well educated, and of intellectual habits, chanced, on a Sunday morning, to attend divine service in this church. The sacrament was to be administered; the lady asked permission to remain, and witness its celebration. A single clergyman officiated; and, as the congregation was small, the communicants were very few; but on returning with the friends whom she accompanied, she declared, that, though accustomed to the splendid ritual of her own church, in all the pomp and circumstance of continental worship, so awful a service she had never witnessed in her life.
My lords, I am quite aware, that, in many parts of Ireland, the parochial clergy have a narrow field of strictly spiritual labour. This circumstance is regarded by some with unmingled regret; by others, I am sorry to say, with malignant triumph: but I must rather consider it in the light of a providential compensation; as one of those wise and profound adjustments, which makes seeming evil the cause of predominating good. For, from the peculiar situation of those very parts of Ireland, the clergy there stationed, have most important civil, social, and moral services to perform; which, if their time were fully or largely occupied in ecclesiastical services, they might be unable to discharge; and, which if they did not discharge, I know not what would become of a miserable peasantry, deserted, as they are, by their natural guardians and protectors.
And here, I am inevitably obliged to touch upon a great and lamentable evil, the chief bane of Ireland; I do so with sorrow and reluctance. I do not bring the matter forward for any invidious, for any hostile, for any indirect purpose. The merits, or demerits, individually or collectively, of the class of men to whom I must allude, it is not for me to appreciate; and if, at any time, they, like the clergy, shall
1140
become objects of parliamentary discussion, it is openly and directly, not by a side wind, and while another subject is before the House, that their case should be examined. I shall advert, then, to the absence of landed proprietors, merely so far as my duty demands; and because, without adverting to that absence, without keeping its consequences steadfastly in view, no manner of justice can be done to the efficiency of the Irish clergy.
The system of Irish absenteeship is, indeed, a calamity beyond our grasp or comprehension; and, for the sake both of my own feelings, and the feelings of others, I shall be very brief upon this subject. In truth, I am utterly at a loss how to express myself. The reality of wide-spread suffering which it has been my lot to witness, is so vast and overwhelming, that I am afraid to calculate, and yet more unwilling to imagine, its extent. One or two facts I will simply mention, which concern the counties of my own diocess. I derive them from what I believe to be competent authority. By a calculation made with considerable pains, it appears, that from the county of Limerick alone, is annually withdrawn, by absentee proprietors, the sum of 300,000 l.; from the county of Kerry, the sum of 150,000 l. In the latter county, a person may travel for twenty miles together, without seeing the residence of a single gentleman except the glebe-houses of the parochial clergy.*
My lords; I should be sorry to impute blame indiscriminately to all classes of absentees. Some are absent unavoidably, in the discharge of great public duties: these persons, in the intervals of their official employment, often visit their estates; while absent, they are conferring important national benefits; and, when their more public career is completed, they are apt to settle at home. Against such men, there is no ground of complaint.
Another class of absentees, as they are
* This statement I can corroborate by the testimony of an intelligent English agent, employed in Ireland, during the distress of 1822, by the London Committee." The county of Kerry is very mountainous, thickly inhabited, but there are scarcely any resident gentlemen. With regard to the county of Kerry, the gentry are very thinly scattered over the country, so large a portion belonging to absentees."—Report of London Committee, pp. 123, 125.

1141
among the most excusable, so they are the most-considerate: I mean, those English gentlemen and noblemen, who possess Irish estates. Among these are to be found some of the very best landlords in the whole country. They carry into their Irish properties the principle of English landlords; a principle which ought to obtain in every country. It consists in this—the establishment of a fair proportion between the rent to be paid, and the profits to be enjoyed, by the occupying tenant. In this and other particulars, several English proprietors are examples of what landlords ought to be, and their tenantry flourish acordingly. Sometimes, indeed, the benefits designed for the occupying tenant, are intercepted by the race of middlemen; but that evil has already been diminished, and is likely to be diminished yet more extensively. Meantime, in English proprietors, we have examples of a superior kind, who come over occasionally to visit and reside upon their Irish estates. One, in particular, I feel it my duty to name; a noble person, from whom, on certain political questions, I am obliged to differ; but for whose private qualities I entertain the most sincere respect: I mean the duke of Devonshire. Not satisfied with being an indulgent landlord, not satisfied with having for years expended on works of public utility, and within his own estates, a large portion of his Irish revenues—he fitted up his noble, but heretofore neglected castle of Lismore, and thither, surrounded by his "troops of friends," he resorted season after season, and for months together gladdened his tenantry with the light of a landlord's countenance. This, my lords, is an example to be held up to public praise and imitation; and it will be imitated. I speak advisedly when I say, that others of the same class are preparing, not occasionally, but periodically, to visit Ireland, that they may improve it. And I trust that, ere long, it will come to be the received principle, that English proprietors will give to their Irish estates, a fair proportion of their residence and revenue, as they do to their estates in Yorkshire, or in Cornwall. Then will Ireland begin and continue, to feel the benefits of the legislative Union. Hitherto she has experienced only its drawbacks and disadvantages. But so it was in Scotland. For several years, the miseries and the distractions of that country, seemed only to be enhanced by her union with Eng-
1142
land; but gradually she felt that union to be a public blessing. And so it will be with Ireland. And I venture to predict, that, for the introduction of improvement, of comfort, and prosperity, we shall be primarily indebted to the English proprietors of Irish estates.
But, there is a third class, of which I am unable to speak in extenuating terms. My duty compels me (and it is a painful duty) to call them, by the only name which can describe them—mere Irish absentees. Irish absenteeship has no bowels; it has no principles. I speak not here of individuals; I speak of the system. English proprietors of Irish estates have their hearts softened by the tenantry among whom they live. But pure Irish absenteeship has no such compensation. There are no present objects to keep the affections in healthful exercise; and where the affections are not thus exercised, they must wither and dry up. A distant tenantry, never visited and never seen; under these circumstances, seems to be considered like one of those ingenious contrivances which I have admired at his majesty's Mint, a mere system of machinery for the putting forth of so much coin. I am compelled to say, and I grieve to say it, that the most afflicting part of a clergyman's social duty consists in vain, fruitless efforts to wring a wretched dole, which might keep alive the starving paupers on his deserted estate, from the mere Irish absentee—to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. This, with some honourable exceptions, bare! sufficient to establish the rule, I can affirm to be the strict truth.
My lords; it would be matter of painful but not unprofitable information, if, by any system of returns called for and submitted to this House, it were possible to ascertain the proportion of Irish absentee income, expended on useful and charitable objects, for the advantage of that country whence it is derived. It is to be feared, we should find a lamentable discrepancy of amount, between the vast exactions, and the trivial contributions. One case may be taken as a specimen:—it was vouched, during this session, in another House, on the most unimpeachable authority. In a certain western county of Ire-land, during the calamitous summer of 1822, a subscription was raised for the relief of the poor, by the resident gentry; landholders, and clergy. Application for. assistance, was made to the absentee

1143
proprietors, who annually abstract from that county the sum of eighty-three thousand pounds. And what was the amount of their congregated munificence? My lords, it was—eighty-three pounds! Not a farthing in the pound of their annual Irish income! Had these proprietors been resident at home, this never could have happened. They could not have witnessed the complicated wretchedness of famine, of nakedness, and of disease, without some effort to relieve it. But, they were Irish absentees; and their contribution amounted to eighty-three pounds.
None, my lords, but a resident can know (and the satisfaction is a melancholy one) how much may be done with the Irish peasantry, by the unsophisticated kindness of a few individuals of the superior classes, scattered here and there, over a poor and populous district. The satisfaction is melancholy: for it is impossible, not to compare the much that might be done, with the little that is done. Some districts, however, are more fortunate. There are noblemen in this House, resident Irish noblemen, who feel with the poet, that
"All earthly joys are less,
"Than this one joy, of doing kindnesses."
It were indelicate to name those who are present, but I see noble lords in their places, whose habitual residence in the midst of their tenantry is a great and public benefit. One noble earl, my neighbour and my friend, I saw in an earlier part of this evening, but I do not see him now: and in his absence, I may say, that, which in his presence could not properly be said;—that his residence in the vicinity of Limerick is a blessing, not only to that immediate district, but to the whole county. It is not merely, that, by considerate indulgence, he has enabled his tenantry to bear up under the pressure of the times; it is not that by judicious and gradual improvements, undertaken not from ostentation but on principle, he has provided employment, during a long course of years, for multitudes, who must otherwise have perished; it is not that by well-regulated acts of bounty, he and his family are improving the habits, promoting the industry, and providing for the education, of the surrounding poor—it is not all this which gives value to his character as an Irish country gentleman: it is that unaffected kindness of heart", and integrity of purpose, which prove all to be genuine; which are felt and understood by the people;
1144
and which mark him out as the fit successor of a father, whose virtues as a landlord were not less distinguished than the ability, integrity, and manly firmness, which he displayed in the first judicial station of his country.
I bear in my heart an absent friend, the kinsman and the pupil of the great Mr. Burke; a man worthy of the pains bestowed upon him; superior to the expectations entertained of him, yet those expectations were high—at the time they must have appeared sanguine. Such a man it were presumption in me to eulogise: I will only say that, foregoing all that is estimable and delightful in the best English society, the first society in the world—when he returned from the service of his country covered with honourable scars, he retired to his native land, to his few paternal acres, to the bosom of his tenantry, and there devotes his time, his thoughts, his heart, his sound practical wisdom, his distinguished talents, to the improvement of the peasantry of Ireland. But the praise of general Bourke has been publicly proclaimed in this country; it is yet more touchingly pronounced at home, in the daily and nightly prayers and blessings, of an attached and grateful population.
Would to God, that many would go and do likewise! Then should I be spared the necessity of enumerating some of the most laborious services of the parochial ministers of Ireland. But, in many parts of that country, especially those parts where the clergy have least professional employment, they are the chief, too frequently the sole moral prop and stay. And, from the highest to the lowest rank and order, they are indefatigable, in every social and civil service. In that very province from whence I have adduced a melancholy instance of absentee penury, during the same calamitous season of 1822, it pleased Providence to raise up a diffusive instrument of good, and that instrument a churchman. If the London Distress Committee, if its honourable and worthy chairman, were asked, who, at that period, stood foremost in every act of beneficence, and labour of love, they would, with one voice, pronounce—the archbishop of Tuam: from morning to night, from extremity to extremity of his province, at once the main-spring, the regulator, the minute-hand of the whole charitable system. As distress deepened and spread abroad, he multiplied himself, he

1145
seemed gifted with a sort of moral ubiquity. He proved himself worthy to rank with "Marseilles' good bishop," and, hand in hand with him, to go down to the latest posterity, among the benefactors of mankind.
But, such humane exertions were by no means confined to the higher orders of the church. From observation and experience of facts, I can testify, that, at that period, especially in the districts where such instrumentality was most needful, the clergy in general were instant, in season and out of season, to meet every emergency. As collectors and distributors of bounty; as purveyors of food, as parcellers of employment, as overseers of labour, on roads, in bogs, in public works,—by their exertions in these and similar departments, the Irish peasantry of those deserted districts (under Providence) were saved from famine, and its attendant pestilence, and I would hope, were formed to permanent habits of industry, morality, and grateful feeling.
For these labours of our clergy did not cease with the emergency of 1822. English bounty had been not merely full, but overflowing; and hence, the London Committee were enabled to make provision, in the ten most distressed counties of Ireland, for lasting improvement. In each of these counties, a considerable fund has been appropriated, under the management of a board of trustees, for the promotion of industry, chiefly in the way of charitable loans; and here the parochial clergy are among the co-operators. They exert themselves to encourage the cultivation of flax; to superintend the manufacture of wheels; to distribute with their own hands the implements so manufactured; to pay domiciliary visits, for the purpose of observing and ascertaining the progress of industry—and this, not as it might be in an English parish, through the collected and concentrated population of a village, perhaps, and its small surrounding territory, but through bogs, across mountains, over miles of scarcely accessible country, swarming with a distressed population. I can lay ray finger, not only on parishes, but districts in Munster, where the judicious exertions of the parochial clergy are absolutely creating manufacture, and giving new spring and alacrity to the people. Missionaries of civilisation, they are, in this way, preparing for the social, and moral, and, ultimately, the religious improvement, of a most improveable po-
1146
pulation. These things I state not on my own sole authority: I appeal to the published report of the Irish Distress Committee. I appeal also to the Commons' report on the state of the Irish poor, now on the table of this House. The fact is, that public attention is beginning to be fixed upon the clergy, in a more just, and more favourable point of view, than heretofore. Improvements are taking place in the body; and those improvements will continue progressive. I pledge myself that the clergy, the improving clergy of Ireland, will be found the best instruments by which to raise the character, to better the condition, and to increase the availableness for all national purposes, of that country, now, perhaps, a burthen, but hereafter, we will hope, a strength, a bulwark, a fortress of the empire. For this I will pledge myself; always provided you do not tamper with the church. Then, indeed, I could not be equally hopeful; we cannot make bricks without straw.
In the anticipation of good public results from the services of the parochial clergy, I am the more hopeful, because those services have been, not occasional, not temporary, not the mere result of fermentitious fervor. No, my lords, in the midst of hindrances and obstructions to general improvement, which they could not remove, the Irish clergy have, during a long course of years, been exercising the most unobtrusive, but the most beneficial influence. Hospitals, dispensaries, alms-houses, charitable institutions of every kind, have by them been visited, inspected, regulated, founded—kept alive, I may say, either by their own funds, or by funds raised through their exertions. Frequently their own houses are dispensaries for the neighbouring poor. I know a clergyman, with a good benefice, but a large family, who denied himself even the most moderate use of wine, that he might bestow it on the poor sick persons of his neighbourhood. In country parishes, indeed, the parish minister is often a sort of universal agent for the poorer population; the intercessor with their landlords, the writer of their letters, the recoverer of their lost or embezzled property. The uneducated part of my countrymen, though shrewd and talented, are, in worldly business, singularly helpless; many, for example, have had near relatives in the army and navy, whose effects, after their death, they are at a loss to procure;

1147
many have had friends, adventurers on the Continent or in America, from whom property has rightfully descended to them: the Irish having, from unhappy circumstances, been a migratory people. In such cases, the poor have, too frequently, been the prey of hireling scribes; sometimes, it must be feared, of a class raised somewhat higher in life, who avail themselves of the simple-hearted, unsuspecting confidence reposed in them, to commit the basest and most unpardonable frauds. But a resource is at hand in the parochial clergy: they Write letters for these poor people to the War-office and the Navy-office; they aid them with their counsel; they investigate and advocate their claims; and when those claims as it often will happen, are fanciful, they induce them to relinquish vain expectations, and industriously to apply themselves to their proper business. In fact, the clergy are often the sole protectors of the people. On this topic some detail has been inevitable; for the Irish parish minister has offices to discharge, the nature and necessity of which can hardly be apprehended in this country, blest, as it is, with an upright, intelligent, humane, and considerate body of resident gentry.
These things I state, after no brief or limited experience: but, with your lordships' permission, I will confirm my statement by a few extracts from letters, which I have lately received, and which may be safely accepted, as of large, if not general, applicability.
Extract of a letter from the county of Limerick.—"I had lately an opportunity of seeing more than usual of the country part of this diocess: and, in a district which had been one of the most disturbed parts of the country, I witnessed the effects produced by the influence of a young clergyman, on the entire population. There is no hostility in the hearts of the people to the clergy; however, in some rare instances, their passions may be inflamed by agitators. They freely acknowledge the clergy to be their best friends; and, in fact, there is almost uniformly, in the neighbourhood of a glebe-house, however humble in its appearance (and humble enough they generally are in this country), an abiding feature of cheerfulness and good humour in the countenances of the people, to say nothing of the many little comforts among them, which may be traced to the inhabitants of the glebe-house. The peasantry, in such neighbourhoods, have not the wild, hag-
1148
gard look of savage life, so striking in other parts of the country."
Extract of a letter from the county of Kerry.—"Considered as a body, the clergy are most grossly calumniated. I have no hesitation in affirming, that, generally speaking, they are liberal, hospitable, and charitable. They are willing and anxious to promote any useful and beneficent work; and, for the most part, spend their incomes among those from whom they receive them. No county in Ireland suffers more by the absence of the great landed proprietors and gentry than Kerry. In fact, the resident clergy supply, in a great measure, the place of the absentees, as country gentlemen."
Extract of a letter from the county of Cork.—"Independently of their spiritual functions, the clergy are extremely useful, in establishing and superintending charitable institutions. In the country parts, every thing depends upon the clergy: dispensaries, societies for promoting industry, civilization, but especially education. I know one parish, where, by the exertions of the clergyman, four schools were raised; and two other parishes, in each of which the clergyman raised three."
But there has been, within the last year, a specific service rendered by the parochial clergy in Ireland, the consequences of which have already been very extensively beneficial, and promise to be still more so. Throughout the whole of that country, the smaller gaols and bridewells were found to be in a most deplorable condition. For the most part, under the immediate direction of a very inferior class of keepers, with scarcely the semblance, in too many instances, of inspection or control on the part of the local magistracy; their interior state was, what might naturally be apprehended, wretched in the extreme. The food, the bedding, the ventillation, the whole management, of such a description as was shocking to humanity; and these abodes of wretchedness were also nurseries of vice. The enormous abuses which disgraced this department, did not fail to attract the serious attention, very speedily after their appointment, of the present able and excellent inspectors of prisons in Ireland, majors Woodward and Palmer, gentlemen not to be surpassed in the ability, intelligence, humanity, and zeal, so indispensable in their arduous office. Chiefly at their recommendation, and under the au-

1149
thority of the court of King's-bench, an act of parliament was procured, in the Session of 1822, for the better regulation of prisons in Ireland; and into this act was introduced a clause, placing all bride-wells and smaller prisons under the gratuitous inspection of the parochial clergy; on whom was to devolve the care not only of superintending the discipline and morals of those establishments: but that, also, of providing wholesome food, and all other necessaries, for the proper maintenance of the prisoners.—How this plan has succeeded, may be judged from the following extracts from the official Report of majors Woodward and Palmer, Inspectors of prisons in Ireland, on the smaller bridewells.
"The valuable aid which this branch of prison regulation has received, by the superintendence of the parochial clergy, cannot be sufficiently estimated. The law has imposed on them a new duty, in the local inspection of bride-wells, situated in their respective parishes, without any remuneration whatever; and we are gratified in reporting, that the wishes of the legislature have been universally met, with a benevolent and disinterested zeal, worthy of that order. The regulations of the court of King's-bench have clearly defined the duties which belong to the inspection; and we have the satisfaction of feeling that, in our control over a department so widely scattered, and over small prisons, under the immediate care of persons of a lower class, we have an effectual counterbalance to these disadvantages, in the cooperation of the parochial clergy. Their inspection affords to us, at all times, a power of reference to an upright and intelligent officer, resident on the spot; and secures a conscientious check upon the several returns received from each bride-well, and upon the prices of all articles purchased for the bedding and subsistence of the prisoners. We feel also assured, that no instances of irregularity and oppression would be suffered to exist, under a local inspection placed in such hands. This arrangement has removed an almost insurmountable difficulty, in reducing the regulation of these dispersed prisons to an uniform practical system."
To this public official report, I am enabled to add a more particular testimony, by reading part of a letter, which I had the honour to receive from major Woodward; who, in the course of his duties, has yearly traversed the whole south and
1150
west of Ireland, his usual circuit being about 3,000 miles. The testimony is valuable, in proportion as the induction is large. "I enclose the extract from the report to government, on the prisons of the south of Ireland: much more, I assure you, in compliance with your lordship's wish, than from attaching any value to a testimony borne by myself, to the character and usefulness of such a body as the clergy of the south of Ireland. In truth, I should feel it presumptuous in me to offer such a testimony, were it not drawn from me as a debt of gratitude for the services rendered by their benevolent labours, to the department under my inspection. Setting aside all those feelings of attachment which I have always had to the established church, I must, as a public officer, whose duties call him into close contact with them throughout the most remote, and (by all others of the higher classes) deserted parts of the kingdom, declare, in common justice, that, were it not for the residence and moral and political influence of the parochial clergy, every trace of refinement and civilization would disappear. They have now, in the kindest manner, added the care of the poor prisoner, in gaols which were scenes of misery and oppression, to the various duties in which they supply the place of the natural guardians of the peace and prosperity of the country: and, had not this resource been provided by the prison-act, I should have despaired of effecting any radical reform." This, my lords, is a great national service: and I wish it to be regarded as a specimen and example of the manner in which the Irish clergy are willing and desirous to be employed. I say this, not merely or principally for the defence of the church: I say it much more for the good of the country. And I feel it to be of public importance, that this House, and that his majesty's government, should be aware, what an instrumentality for promoting the civilization and improvement of Ireland, they possess in its parochial clergy.
But I must not omit the mention of two great social evils in Ireland, which, to the best of their ability, the clergy alleviate and correct. The first of these evils is, the absence of public principle; which displays itself particularly in those practices, but too familiar in Ireland, under the designation of jobbing. I am far from passing indiscriminate censure. In those districts where we possess a resident

1151
gentry at all, there are honourable upright gentlemen, who set their faces against every thing not strictly correct. But the country is too frequently turned over to managers of another description, whose sole object it would seem to be, to convert to their private advantage the utmost possible shilling of the money granted for public uses: and here the clergy most valuably interpose. From education, from habit, from principle, and from religious conscientiousness, above such practices themselves—they are anxious to check and counteract those practices in others: and to the people themselves I would appeal—Who, in this particular, are their best friends?—Who most honourable in all public concerns?—Who most high-minded and inflexible in the management of public works, roads, bridges, buildings—all those undertakings, in a word, which are notoriously the most fertile sources of county jobbing, and of unprincipled exactions on the farming population? The answer would almost invariably be—the protestant parochial clergy.
The next evil to which I must advert, is, the harsh, overbearing, tyrannical manner in which the Irish peasantry are commonly addressed. This evil I do not criminally charge, I would not punitively visit, on any particular men, or class of men. It is not so much the offspring of individual character, as of unhappy national circumstances. It is hereditary, it is traditional. And, unfortunately, it passes too often from the higher orders to an inferior class of proprietors, in whom it is not redeemed by one solid bounty, by one solitary act of real kindness. The treatment which the warm-hearted
* These practices in Ireland were not formerly confined to inferior departments in society. The saying of a witty baronet long deceased, is still familiarly recollected: "I would give half-a-crown of my own money, and twenty thousand pounds of the public money, to prevent such and such a thing." This was a meer playfulness; but it shews, better than a long detail of facts, what must have been the public and political morality of the country. Thanks to the measures both of the legislature and the government, a vast reform has been wrought in every official department. But much remains to be effected in the system of county expenditure.
1152
peasantry of Ireland experience at such hands, is revolting to every generous mind. They seem to be considered an inferior race of beings; and this unfeeling disregard is shewn to them by men, but a few degrees their superiors in worldly circumstances, and not at all above, but often below them, in intellectual and moral worth. The mischiefs are incalculable, which result from such a relation—the relation of the oppressor and oppressed—between classes so continually brought into contact; but the one great and overwhelming mischief is, that sense of insult and contumely, which festers in the heart of a proud, sensitive, and high-spirited people. That the clergy have universally escaped the contagion of this unhappy manner (for in. the better educated ranks of life, it is commonly no more than manner), I do by no means assert. But this I will say, that, in general, they are mild, approachable, and conciliatory; using towards the humblest of the people, that unaffected courtesy of address, which the Irish, above all people in the world, are perhaps the best qualified to appreciate. They value the manner more than the matter, of kindness. The most lavish bounty, if not gracious, would not to them be acceptable. If a man were to give the whole substance of his House for their love, it would be utterly contemned. It is affection only that can elicit their affection. And here I speak from certain knowledge when I say, that the clergy, by a thousand acts of nameless kindness, by sympathy of manner, by cordiality of address, by bare ordinary civility in daily intercouse, win the hearts of this impressible people. Exceptions, indeed (I have already admitted), may and will be found. But the exceptions are most rare; in the rising generation of our clergy, I scarcely know of one. Again, it is undoubtedly true, that, in particular districts, individual agitators, the professed friends but real enemies of the people, sedulously try, where the least opening is left, to hark them on at the clergy. There is, however, one plain criterion, by which, in their hours of sobriety, those even, who may for a little time have been led astray, are learning to estimate, who are the friends, and who are the enemies of the people. This criterion I would recommend to the adoption of all my countrymen; and, were I making my last will and testament, I would bequeath it to them

1153
as a token of my love: They who appeal to the passions of the people are their enemies; they who appeal to their affections are their friends.
Thus far, I have stated what I know and can prove to be the simple truth of the case: but I am aware that very different representations have been largely and industriously circulated. There has been a systematic scheme, set on foot, to degrade the Irish clergy in character, that they may the more readily be plundered in property. Rare and insulated instances of clerical misconduct have been selected, published, reiterated in every form; the exception has been substituted for the rule; the fault of the individual has been charged upon the body. In noticing these misstatements I regret the necessity of adverting to a published letter, attributed, unjustly I would hope, to a dignitary of another communion. The writer states, that the Protestant clergy are odious to the people; that the more resident and the more numerous you make them, the more odious and detestable they will become. Such language, I trust, may not have proceeded from any ecclesiastic. It is conceived and expressed in a spirit the very opposite of that which breathes in all the communications (and they are not few) with which I have been honoured by clergymen of the church of Rome. With clergymen and bishops of that communion, I have lived, and hope to live, on terms of cordiality and friendship; and I am happy to say, that, during years of unreserved 'and kindly intercourse, I have uniformly experienced in them, candour, liberality, and affection. I hope, therefore, the letter may have been erroneously ascribed to a member of that respectable body. But if, in a moment of unguarded warmth, such language did escape from the dignitary in question, I trust his calmer judgment already has recalled it. For, assuredly, the protestant clergy in Ireland are not odious to the people. On the contrary, I believe in my conscience, and I know from a thousand proofs, that, when the people are left to the free exercise of their judgment, and the natural flow of their affections, the clergy, as individuals, and as a body, are among the most popular, members of society. But whether they be the most popular, or nearly the most popular class, is not the question; it is whether they be odious and detestable to the people of Ireland; and on this point,
1154
were it practicable, I could fearlessly appeal to the people of Ireland themselves. But why need I appeal beyond these walls? Petitions lie upon the table of your lordships' House, signed by multitudes of Irish Roman Catholics, in the least protestant parts of Minister, praying that they may have more protestant clergymen sent to reside among them. And I would ask several noble lords who now sit in this House, but who commonly reside in Ireland—especially I would ask the noble earl who presented those petitions, whether the protestant clergy of Ireland are odious and detestable to the Irish people? And on their reply I would cheerfully rest my cause—my cause I must term it; for I rejoice with no dishonest satisfaction, to mingle and identify myself with the Irish parochial clergy.
But I can adduce facts for which I vouch. I shall do so, merely in the way of example; and leave it freely with your lordships to estimate their value. I know a parish, which, from peculiar circumstances not within the control of the bishop, was, for several months, left vacant, and unprovided with a resident minister. The population were predominantly Roman Catholic; and they had an excellent pastor of their own communion; but still, they absolutely felt as sheep without a shepherd, and were yearning for a protestant clergyman.
In the unhappy year 1798, in the county of Tipperary, in a most disturbed parish, from whence the gentry had fled, one person stood his ground, safe, unmolested, uninjured, though unarmed—he was the protestant vicar of the parish. The very rebels came in a body, and requested permission, without payment, to gather in his harvest. Why? Purely from affection; certainty not from a community of political feeling; for a more loyal subject did n6t, and does not breathe, than this clergyman.
In the county of Limerick, in the most unquiet district of it—the very focus of insurrection; an insurrection caused by the state of absentee lay-property, less than two years ago, the few resident gentry had their houses garrisoned,' their windows bricked up, candles burning at noon-day, centinels posted at their doors; they could not so much as walk into their shrubberies unattended by armed protectors. In this very district, within a stone's cast of those garrisoned and barricadoed houses, during the disturbances of 1821 and 1822, resided the clergyman of

1155
the parish, a dignitary of the diocess; his house unguarded, his doors unprotected, his windows open, no arms, no unusual precaution, his rides and walks uninterruptedly continued—and he suffered not the least violence, not the slightest insult; a twig of his property was not injured; he was as free from apprehension as if his residence had been in Palace-yard. These facts I learned, I may say witnessed, on the spot; and on my giving the clergyman credit for his conduct, his modest reply was—I cannot take credit to myself for any thing remarkable, I merely treated the people with common civility and kindness; and, when they were sick, was ready to give them a little wine."
The fact is, that, in various instances, the protestant clergy by their influence kept away disturbance, or suppressed it when it had found entrance; or if, from causes too deeply rooted in the frame of society, the evil had risen beyond their power of conciliation—one exempt spot, one oasis in the desert, one place of refuge, one Zoar was to be seen athwart the burning plain—the glebe and the glebe-house of the Protestant parish minister. Yes, my lords, however agitators may have succeeded in other projects, their elaborate efforts to lash the people into hostility against the parochial clergy have utterly failed. The parochial clergy are respected, are beloved by the Irish population. Why? Because the people of Ireland are a generous, a grateful, a discriminative people. They know their benefactors: they know their real friends. Treat them but as brethren, and their fidelity will be as lasting, as their hearts are warm. There is no misleading their passion to war with their affection.
The charges against the Church in Ireland, have, I trust, been proved unfounded. But, suppose them founded to the utmost extent, and, however lamentable in a religious point of view, the delinquency of our whole bishops and clergy would not account for one fiftieth part of the political evils which afflict that country. Let us look, for example, to one department, clerical revenue—the prime accusation urged; I will add, the prime cause of accusation; for many wish to plunder, that they may divide the spoil. Let us look then, my lords, to clerical revenue. But, in order to do this fairly, we should consider the proportion which it bears to lay property; not, however, to lay property at large; but to that portion of it,
1156
which is not expended where it is raised. We have already seen, that 4.50,000 l. are annually drawn away (a sum, which nearly equals the whole church revenue of Ireland) by lay-proprietors from the counties of Limerick and Kerry; from a single diocess: from other counties and diocesses in Ireland, remittances to absentees keep nearly equal pace; and if the whole sum thus abstracted were known, the aggregate would be appalling. Suppose now, that the whole church property, the whole income received by churchmen as such, were expended out of Ireland, this would be but as a drop in the ocean. But it is not spent abroad; it is all spent at home; and spent, to say the least, as soberly, as prudently, as charitably, as beneficially for the public, as any other property whatsoever. But this is not all; for, it will be recollected, that, while the body in general is far from affluent, several of our clergy possess lay property to a considerable amount. And thus a large annual revenue is kept at home (simply as belonging to proprietors who as clergymen, do and must reside), which otherwise might, like other lay property, be sent abroad. Instead, therefore, of swelling the ills of Ireland, the whole of the clerical property, augmented by a respectable addition of lay property, goes to alleviate those ills, and to alleviate them far beyond the pecuniary amount. Because every shilling given by the clergy for humane and benevolent purposes, produces a moral effect on the population.
My lords, when I thus consider the truth and justice of the case, it awakens in me a feeling of mingled melancholy and indignation, to see the moderate, well-earned home-expended pittance of the parochial clergy curiously, I had almost said inquisitorially, scrutinised—their shillings and pence weighed, and counted, and clipt, and filed down, by men who draw from my unhappy country their thousands and tens of thousands, to be lavished in foreign lands, on foreign luxuries. To what purpose, I will not inquire; I spare your lordships and myself that pain. I shall dismiss the subject, therefore, of Irish absentees. But while on this subject I am sorrowful, I am still cheered and comforted by hope. A crisis is at hand: and I seem to discern the process already in commencement, by which this great evil will eventually redress itself. The system of absenteeship cannot last;

1157
that it should last, is morally impossible: it cannot be, in the course of a just and equitable Providence, that such a system should be suffered to continue. But my hope and my persuasion are, that, ere any painful and calamitous retribution shall arrive multitudes of our absent gentry will voluntarily return to their native land. Let them but touch the Irish shore—let them but reside on their rich and beautiful estates, and I shall no longer be apprehensive for my country. Happily, in this case, the change of measures will ensure the change of men; or rather will give us back the same men, in their just and native character, Residence will restore, whatever absence may have impaired; the associations of their natural and proper home will rekindle those affections, which the system of absenteeship has smothered, but not quenched; and I anticipate the day, when, consulting their true happiness, in the character of resident Irish landlords, they shall rank among the ornaments and benefactors of their country.
But in the mean time, and till this happy change shall be accomplished, the great desideratum towards the internal improvement of Ireland, is instrumentality; a link between the government, between the legislature, between the great landed proprietorship, and the people. It were folly, however, to speak of instruments, in a mere mechanical sense. A moral instrumentality alone, will cement together the frame of society in any country; and in a country, from unhappy circumstances, much demoralised, moral instruments are infinitely needful. Such instruments we have in the Irish clergy: to say the least of them as a body (with rare individual exceptions), an educated, liberalized, well-conducted order of men; stationed, at proper intervals, throughout the whole country; regimented, if I may so speak, under the authority of superiors; disciplined and marshalled for simultaneous movements; and forming a great chain of intercommunication, from one extremity of Ireland to the other. Now, in what manner could we supply the place occupied by these men? Parliaments cannot create, parliaments are not competent to create, materials such as we possess at this moment. Let parliaments beware how they destroy. They will be altogether powerless to fill the chasm. Take away the fabric of our established church, and you take away the nucleus of our na-
1158
tional improvement. A resident gentry we have not: a substantial yeomanry we have not: a body of capitalled manufacturers we have not. Humanly speaking, I do not see what it is, in the least improved parts of Ireland, that we have to rest upon, except the clergy. Here is the only sure provision extant, for disseminating, through all quarters of the land, the wildest and most remote, equally with the most cultivated and peopled, an educated enlightened, morally influential class. Here, and here only, is a provision for an interchange of moral instruments between the north, and south, and east and west, which, in due time, may and will produce a community of improved character in all the provinces. For let me ask, what educated northern would voluntarily migrate to the south, what native of Leinster to the west of Ireland, unless induced by some such prospect of immediate or eventual provision, as the church establishment holds forth? The salutary influence of these interchanges, I have seen, I have felt. And if the government of the country raises, as I trust and believe it will, fit, and qualified persons to the higher ecclesiastical stations in Ireland, the resulting benefits cannot fail to be of constantly increasing magnitude.
I confess, my lords, I am not impatient; not desirous to make haste. If the ecclesiastical department has not yet reached perfection (and who will be so absurd as to maintain it has?) I will not therefore pull down the platform, that I may reconstruct the edifice. The clergy of Ireland have improved, are improving, and unless the daringness of innovation stop the progress, will continue to improve. But, in order to improvement, in order to a continuance of their salutary efficacy,' it is indispensable, that their pecuniary resources, that the respectability annexed to a decent, I will say a liberal, provision, be not diminished or impaired. Clip and circumscribe the clergy, as some would do, and what young man of talents, of connections, and of liberalised mind, would look to the church as his profession? It were well indeed, if qualified candidates would present themselves for orders from unmingled zeal: but at the age of three or four and twenty, we cannot expect in many the spirit of confessors and martyrs. This is not to be expected; nor in our holy religion, is it enjoined or, intended. They who minister at the altar, are to live by the altar; nor be it forgotten, that in

1159
Ireland, the clergy, in addition to their ministerial office, are, in too many districts the sole gentry of the land; and are called upon to do those things, in the way both of bounty and of service, which in England are performed, on the one hand, by a resident nobility and gentry, on the other, by parish officers and overseers of the poor. Setting aside, therefore, my feeling as a churchman, and viewing the subject as a man solicitous for the social, political, and moral welfare of my country, I would exhort those who are in power, to pause and to weigh well the probable, and even the possible results, before they make any: alteration in the system of our church establishment. I would recommend to the deliberate attention of all constitutional statesmen, of whatever party the wise and profound resolution of Mr. Burke: "Please God," said that great man, "I will walk with caution, when I am not able to see my way clearly before me."
I must own, my lords, that the present state of Ireland is not comfortable; but I am not in the least willing to despond; on the contrary, I am full of hope. What was the state of England about four years ago? what, at that period of anxiety and perturbation, would have been said of the man who professed not to fear.? Yet by the blessing of Providence on the wisdom and firmness of the legislative and executive branches of our government, what is now the condition of England, in commerce, in manufactures, in revenue, in the quietness, good order, and contentment of the people? All this has been effected in the space of four short years. Why then should we despair for Ireland? Inferior as she is in the scale of civilization and prosperity, her state now is by no means so alarming as the state of England was then. Much may be fairly anticipated; and I could almost venture to prognosticate, however bold the prognostication, that more of solid improvement will take place within the next eight or ten years, than has been caused of mischief, in the course of centuries. The government has entered on a new, a happy a most beneficial course. Let the government but persevere (and I am confident it will persevere) and the good results will be incalculably great. In every department, the most striking improvements are in progress. In the collection of the revenue, both of Customs and Excise, a great reform has been effected, by which,
1160
at once, the burthens of the people are diminished, and the national resources are increased. In all public offices, a system of regularity and economy has been introduced, which was before unknown; and a plan has been formed, which will exclude all but qualified and experienced officers from places of emolument and trust. On the bench and at the bar the late appointments have been such, as to call forth the universal approbation of the country; and to secure in perpetuity that which, by all parties, it is now admitted we enjoy, the ablest, the purest, and the most impartial administration of justice, in our superior courts of law. The inferior, but perhaps, under the circumstances of Ireland, not less important, jurisdiction of the magistracy, has been placed on a new and most improved footing, by the revision of the list of magistrates, and, more particularly, by the establishment of petty sessions; which, in many districts, have put an end to most flagitious practices, and, in all parts of the country, have brought home, for the first time, the operation of equal law to the very threshold of the poor man's dwelling. These improvements, especially the last improvement (I speak from actual knowledge) is already felt throughout the country. The local magistrates are sensible that their character is raised; the farmers and the peasantry are satisfied with the decisions which are made; and I know of instances in which the defeated party has retired with cheerfulness, under the conviction that he was fairly dealt with. Even the Insurrection act, that necessary evil, has been productive of great collateral advantage. It has been the means of sending, through various parts of the country, a succession of upright, intelligent, constitutional crown lawyers, to sit on the same bench with the magistrates, who thus receive invaluable lectures on the laws which they are bound to administer, and learn, in the general course of their decisions, to unite firmness and wisdom with moderation and humanity. Nor should it be omitted, that in the Joint tenancy bill, together with a limited, but most successful experiment of emigration to Upper Canada, a commencement has been made in the great and necessary work of checking a redundant and mutually destructive population. These, I trust, are but the beginnings of good for Ireland, and looking to these, I am in no disposition either to despair or to despond only

1161
let the government persevere; let them proceed with manly firmness; let them not be moved by the murmurs of the advocates of old abuses on the one hand, or by the clamours of revolutionary agitators on the other; let them thus pursue their even, steadfast course, and we may hope the best for Ireland; and we may live to see her, what we wish to see her, a happy a flourishing, and a united country.
But, to return to the subject of the Church. I would hope that we may soon cease to hear of the Irish portion of it, as the great source of Irish misfortune. The committees now sitting in both Houses will, by sifting adverse and conflicting testimonies, have ample means of refuting this and other calumnies. Meantime, I have all along admitted, that the church in Ireland, like all human institutions, must have its faults, may have its offenders. Whatever is wrong, whatever is amiss, I wish to see corrected; and in my own limited sphere, I shall rejoice to co-operate in the work of correction. But I am soberly and conscientiously of opinion, that any faults which may unhappily exist (and I believe them to be neither complicated nor numerous) will be most safely and most surely amended by legitimate church authority. In this session, with this view, episcopal authority has been enlarged; and my conviction is, that the existing functionaries will engage with alacrity and zeal, both in the enforcement, and encouragement, of all clerical duties. But, if any doubt be entertained for the future, I would merely say, that, under Providence, this must principally rest with the government of the country; that good ecclesiastical appointments will ensure good ecclesiastical discipline.
Thus much to those who really desire the improvement of the church. And, however I may differ from some of them on matters by no means unimportant, I regard them, even in their apparent hostility, not as the enemies, but as the friends of our establishment. But the church has real foes, of a very different character; and I have no doubt upon my mind, that, of the clamour raised against the Irish branch of it, the true secret is—revolution. The English branch was not less violently assaileda few years ago; and mutato nomine, the atheistical radicals of 1819 and 1820 are still at work. It cannot be forgotten, in what manner
"The printed libel, and the pictured shape" of English episcopacy, were then exhibited
1162
in this metropolis. The warfare is now but transferred to Ireland: the principle, the motive, the object, are the same. In the present outcry, "more is meant than meets the ear." Let the Irish branch of the church be mutilated, and the English will not be safe.
It has, indeed, been argued, from the alleged precedent and example of Scotland, that the church establishment in Ireland should undergo a thorough alteration. But this is no example; it is no precedent. In Scotland, the main difference was in discipline and government; a difference, indeed, which, on many accounts, I hold to be of vast importance; but still, a difference between one mode and another mode, of the reformed faith. But in Ireland, the question is of quite another kind; it is, whether we are to have a reformed church at all. Nor can this be accounted a trivial question, or one which concerns (as some would studiously inculcate) a mere handful of our population. In property, in talents, and in knowledge, the Protestants of Ireland rank vastly beyond their numerical strength: but in numbers they are generally much under-calculated. I will just advert to one statement, lately made in another House, that there are but thirteen or fourteen hundred Protestants in the whole diocess of Waterford. Now, by a return for which I am indebted to the bishop of that diocess, I can affirm, that, in the city of Waterford, there are 1,300 communicants and upwards. Reckoning, therefore, the proportion of the communicants, to the non-communicants, as one to six, we shall have, not in the diocess at large, but in the city alone, a population of above 9,000 souls, adhering to the established church. The Protestants throughout Ireland, including the Presbyterians, have been computed by the hon. member for the county of Louth, at 1,840,000. And it ought to be known, that the Presbyterians in Ireland, unlike the dissenters of this country, are on most friendly terms with the church; that they grow up under its shadow; frequently attend its worship; and not uncommonly train up their sons, not only as lay-members of it, but as clergymen.
One point more, and I have done. We have lately heard frequent mention of the church of Ireland, and the church of England. I have myself heard it maintained in various companies, and I have read the doctrine in several publications,

1163
that the church of England stands on a different footing from the church of Ireland; and that the one church ought to be treated differently from the other. Now, against this doctrine, and against any conclusion deducible from it, I must solemnly protest. I know not, the law knows not, of any church of England; I know not, the law knows not, of any church of Ireland. I know, and the law knows, but of one reformed episcopal church within this realm—the united church of England and Ireland. The English portion and the Irish portion, at the period of the Union, were bound together indissolubly and for ever. They are one in doctrine, one in discipline, one in government, one in worship. Each portion, therefore, must be treated as the other. I do not, indeed, say that there may not be circumstantial, modal differences: precisely as there are varieties of arrangement within the English branch itself: as, for example, the manner of raising and collecting the church revenue in London, differs from the manner of raising and collecting the church revenue in York. And, in this light it is, that I regard the provisions of the Tithe Com-position act passed in the last session, and the provisions of the bill which I mean to support this night with my vote. But against any substantial, any essential, any vital difference of treatment, I most solemnly protest; and I do not hesitate to declare such a difference morally and constitutionally impossible. On the whole then, I would exhort those who love and venerate our constitution, both in church and state, to consider what we have at stake—the integrity of our united kingdom; and the protestant faith of this protestant empire. If one portion of the church suffer, all must suffer with it. The church in England and the church in Ireland, have no separate interests, have no separate being: they must stand or fall together. The united church of England and Ireland, is one and indivisible. It was made so by solemn national compact, in the act of Union. This identity constitutes the fundamental article of Union: we might as properly speak of two Houses of Commons, two Houses of Peers, two Sovereigns, two complete legislatures, the one for England, the other for Ireland, as speak of two distinct churches. The national faith of both Countries is pledged, equally to maintain one Church, one King, one House of
1164
Commons, one House of Lords. If parliament, therefore, were to subvert or to re-model the church establishment in Ireland, it would break the Union; and if it break the Union, it will enact its own destruction; it will enact a revolution; and of such a revolution, the fruit would be nothing else, than anarchy and public ruin.
My lords, I have now to intreat your lordships' pardon, for having so long trespassed on your time; and to return my grateful thanks, for the patience with which I have been heard. An overwhelming sense of duty alone, could have impelled me to undertake this task, or could have supported me through it. Had I not attempted to discharge this duty, I should go back to my country, stigmatised in my own conscience. As it is, I have honestly, though most imperfectly, endeavoured to vindicate that church of which I am an humble member: and to serve that God, of whom I am an unworthy minister. I shall only add, that I give the bill now before your lordships, my cordial support.
Lord Kingsaid, that the right rev. prelate had not directed his views to those material parts of the case, which involved the question of first-fruits, tithes, and episcopal pluralities. He had, however, stood forward in defence of that long abandoned damsel, the church of Ireland, who had so long stood in need of a defender—aye, and of a reformer. He had, however, promised a ripe harvest of good effects for the future, provided there was no profane attempt to interfere with that establishment. Most completely did he differ from that right rev. prelate as to the uses and benefits of that establishment. He considered it rather in the light of a trade than a church. He thought it was literally what Mr. Burke had called it, when he had said—"Non est Ecclesia, sed magnum latrocinium." Such was the character which even the right rev. prelate's favourite authority had pronounced on that Church, which had been that night so lauded. The right rev. prelate, in passing his panegyric, had kept studiously out of view the whole process of the tithe system, the valuators, the proctors, the bailiffs, and the whole dramatis persona; of that cortège. The truth was, that the less that was said, as to the merits of that Church, the better. If it were as perfect as the right rev. prelate represented it to be, why the necessity for

1165
those legislative acts which were to regulate the tithe system, to prevent the scandalous pluralities, and to enforce residence? We had had bills for the amendment, and for the re-amendment of the tithe system. In short, every thing had been done but that "one thing needful"—a reduction of the church establishment of Ireland as the church of Scotland had been reduced, to make it suitable to the wants, the temper, and the wishes of the people. The government would feel the advantage of such a limitation; as it would thereby be relieved from all the difficulties and embarrassments which these conflicting interests produced. What had been the observation of Dr. Paley, with respect to that church? He had described it as "a proud, haughty, domineering aristocracy of episcopal wealth and property." Was not, he would ask, the potatoe tithe a novelty introduced within the last forty years? Was it not limited to the unhappy and miserable po-tatoe-eaters of the province of Munster, and wholly unknown to Ulster and Con-naught? These were features of the church establishment of Ireland which the right rev. prelate had kept out of view. But these were nevertheless the true features of that establishment. It was these that had called into life and energy, that appalling personage of whom so much had been said on a former occasion—the cruel Delany; "who, from his horrid hair, shakes terror and tithe law." It was in the south of Ireland that this monster was matured. Nay, so prolific was the progeny, that the potatoe tithe of Munster, furnished a succession of Delanys for other parts. Compared with that race, the furies of antiquity were models of beneficence.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the remarks of the noble lord withdrew the veil. The friends of the establishment would know now what they had to expect. It was no longer the granting a few more political situations; nothing would satisfy but the total destruction of the church establishment in Ireland.
The bill then passed through the committee.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL—MR. PAYNE KNIGHT'S BEQUEST.
Lord Colchestersaid:—My Lords; I beg leave to lay upon your table, a bill for giving effect to a splendid bequest which has been recently made to the British Museum. The late
1166
Mr. Payne Knight, a gentleman whose attainments in ancient literature, and whose knowledge in the fine arts were well known, not only in this country, but throughout Europe, had, during the course of a long life, and by means of his ample fortune, formed a rich and rare collection of coins, medals, gems, and bronzes, and of original drawings by the most eminent masters of the Italian, French, Flemish, and other schools of painting. His Greek coins, with those already in the British Museum, will far surpass the celebrated collection of the king of France; and his bronzes, though less numerous, and of smaller dimensions than many of those rescued heretofore from the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum, yet for beauty of sculpture and their admirable state of preservation, greatly excel any that are to be seen in the museum of the king of Naples.—-Mr. Knight himself, had been for several years, a trustee of the British Museum, upon the nomination of one of those distinguished families which enjoy the privilege of conferring that appointment; and having witnessed the anxious care of his co-trustees and their excellent officers, in the superintendence and preservation of the various treasures committed to their charge, and having seen the courtesy with which all learned persons, and foreigners more especially, are received, and enabled to take advantage of the contents of that noble repository, and also the general facility of admission given to visitors of all descriptions, he determined to add to the same national stock his own treasures; the pecuniary value of which has been rated, according to the lowest estimate, at 30,000 l. and the most competent judges have pronounced, that if brought into the market, they would in all probability realize the double of that amount. But Mr. Knight having deemed it a high honour to himself to be associated in this Trust, was desirous also of transmitting the same honour to his own family; and he therefore has annexed it as a condition to his bequest, that this distinguished privilege should be conferred upon his heirs in successive descent, which can only be effected by the authority of parliament.—The general body of trustees, is, no doubt, sufficiently numerous at present for the useful discharge of the duties imposed upon them. They consist, as your lordships will recollect, of twenty-five trustees by office, of whom several very frequently attend: also

1167
of twenty-three others, eight of whom are appointed by the families of former benefactors, and fifteen more are elected by the two classes already mentioned, making in the whole a body of forty-eight, whose constant attention to the business of their trust is most exemplary. And I am authorised by the trustees assembled at a general meeting upon this subject to declare, that, in their opinion, it is undesirable that their number should be augmented, except upon some specia land extraordinary occasion. Such an occasion, however, they now conceive to have arisen; and they presume, therefore, to hope that parliament will not hesitate to fulfil the condition annexed by the testator to this bequest, and will establish the hereditary right of trusteeship in his family, as a just tribute of honour to the memory of the donor, and a testimony of the high sense which parliament entertains of the liberality of such a gift.—I shall therefore move, That this bill be now read a first time, and that it be read a second time to-morrow, dispensing with the standing orders of this House, so that it may pass forthwith, and be transmitted to the Commons, and receive the royal assent before the close of the present session.
The bill was read a first time. [It received the royal assent 17 June. Stat. 5 Geo. 4th. c. 60.—"An act to carry into effect the will of Richard Payne Knight, esquire, so far as the same relates to a bequest by the said Richard Payne Knight, of a collection of coins, medals, and other valuable articles, to the British Museum; and to vest the said collection in the trustees of the said British Museum, for the use of the Public.]