Sitting of 1 April 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HAWES, Account of all Money Received and Expended, including Bequests, Donations, and Contributions, for the British Museum.—On the Motion of Mr. BARING, the Number of Persons having Deposits in Savings' Banks and Friendly. Societies, the Funds of which are in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Amount of Compensation, if any granted to the late Commissioners of Bankrupts—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the total Quantity of Foreign Wheat admitted for Consumption, and the Duty paid thereon, from 15th July, 1828, to 1st April, 1833; and the same for all other kinds of Grain; also the Amount of Money paid or claimed as Drawback on Malt, or Malt Spirits, under 1st and 2nd George 4th, cap. 82, &c, up to 5th April, 1833
New Writ issued. On the Motion of Mr. FINN, for the Borough of Montgomery, in the room of Mr. PUGH, whose Election was declared null and void.
Bills. Read a second time:—On the Motion of Mr. Loch, Burgh Police (Scotland). On the Motion of Mr. LAMB, Justices of the Peace.—Read a third time:—Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Mr. MURRAY, from Tavistock, in favour of Triennial Parliaments and Vote by Ballot; and from Leith, against granting Exclusive Privileges to the East-India Company.—By Mr. SHAW, from a Number of Places, against the Church of Ireland Bill—By Mr. COB-BETT, from the Protestant Dissenters of Oldham, that their Places of Worship might be exempted from Rates; and for an Alteration in the Law as regarded Marriage and Baptismal Registrations; from the Council of the National Political Union, for a Repeal of all Taxes on Articles of Consumption; and an Equitable Property Tax; from Wigham, against the Stamp Duties; from Thomas Bradford, complaining of the Local Taxes; from Joseph Stow, against the Emancipation of the Jews.

THE THAMES TUNNEL.
Sir Edward Codringtonpresented a Petition from the proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, praying for aid to enable them to complete that work. The gallant Admiral said, the work was peculiarly entitled to the support of the House. The petitioners had already expended 170,000 l. in prosecuting it, and surmounted difficulties which were never contemplated. They had worked through water and rock, and what was still worse, they had worked through loose and shifting sand. They had already shown the practicability of the undertaking, and the only difficulty now, was the want of funds. If, then, there was such a necessity for so many bridges in so short a distance as between London Bridge and Westminster Bridge, it was but reasonable to believe, that in a place two miles below London Bridge (there being no intervening bridge), such an undertaking as the

1333
Tunnel would be of great practical utility. The two intervening bridges, Southwark and Waterloo Bridge, had gained 20,000 l. a-year since they were constructed. Waterloo Bridge paid to the shareholders 14,000 l. a-year, and Southwark 6,000 l. In July, 1811, there passed over London Bridge 99,000 persons; and, in the same month of the same year, over Blackfriars, 66,000 persons. So that it was not too much to say, that this Tunnel—a sort of Irish bridge, since it passed under water—would be of great utility. If the Tunnel were completed, vast quantities of goods would pass through it from the Commercial Docks, which now had to be carried four miles round by London Bridge. If Government would purchase the property, or allow it to be sold by lottery, the petitioners would be happy to come forward and meet such a proposition. In the United States, lotteries were granted for charities, and in London there was now a lottery for some property in Glasgow. The gallant Officer moved that the petition be brought up.
The Speakerinquired the prayer of the petition, and on being informed what it Prayed for, he decided, that before it could be received the sanction of the Government must be given.
Petition withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he had a Petition to present against Soane's Museum Bill, which it was proposed to have read a third time that day. The petition was from Mr. George Soane, the only surviving son of Sir John Soane. The petitioner, after stating that the passing of the Bill would be to sanction a violation of those laws by which the society was held together, and that his father must have been improperly importuned and persuaded at the ninth hour before he could have been induced to alienate so large a portion of his property, since, if he had contemplated such an act for any lime previously, he must have made up his mind to take the necessary steps before he had arrived at a period of a natural decay. The petitioner prayed to be heard in person, or by Counsel or agent, at the Bar of that House against the passing of the Bill, or that the House would take such other steps as it might deem meet to prevent the object of the Bill. If the House agreed to the Bill, they would reverse the fundamental laws
1334
of hereditary succession, and of testamentary law. He thought it necessary to observe to the House, that he had never either seen Sir John Soane or his son until four days ago, when the latter gave him that petition to present. When the third reading of the Bill was proposed by the hon. Member who brought it in, it was his (Mr. Cobbett's) intention to move an Amendment. He was informed, that upon the marriage of Sir John Soane, he received 30,000 l. with his wife, and that George Soane, the petitioner, had several children, all of whom with their father were in distress. He admitted, that the son might have given the father great cause for offence, but he (Mr. Cobbett) considered that the offence of the son ought not to be visited on the poor grandchildren. Hon. Members knew that the law compelled a man not only to support his children, but his grandchildren, and his great grandchildren; and he thought the House could not justly sanction an appropriation of property, by which the grandchildren of Sir John Soane must suffer, and which would be the case, if the present Bill passed into a law. Besides, the Apostle Paul said, if a man take not care of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than a heathen. He therefore hoped, that the House would pause a little before it sanctioned the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Humetrusted, that the House would not be led away by the statements of the hon. member for Oldham, that the Bill would do the most serious injury. He fully agreed with that hon. Member in; his observation, that the Scriptures required that we should provide for our children I and the law enforced the obligation even; to our grandchildren; but there was one allegation which the hon. Member had: made, to which he wished to call the) particular attention of the House. From, the hon. member for Oldham's statement, it would appear, that the children of the; petitioner, Mr. George Soane, after his I death, would be the heirs of Sir John, and that the petitioner was the only son Sir) John Soane ever had. That was not the case; but the fact was, that the children of the elder son, who was now dead, would; be the heirs-at-law of Sir John Soane; and if Sir John were to die to-morrow, 2 the whole of his property would go to, those children, and the petitioner and his children would not be entitled to a

1335
farthing. However the case might be—whether the petitioner was entitled or not—whatever rights he had, there was a clause in the Bill reserving to him and all other persons the right of sueing the same, as if the Bill had not passed; and all that the present Bill did was, to enable Sir John Soane to transfer the right he held in his own person to two dwelling-houses, of making them the places where the Museum was to be placed. There was a clause in the Bill reserving to George Soane, the petitioner, and to all persons whatever, every right and title, exactly in the same state in which they now possessed it. The Committee who had sat upon the Bill had heard Mr. George Soane against its different clauses, they had entered most fully into all the circumstances connected with the case, and were unanimously of opinion, that there was no act of injustice committed by the Bill to any individual whatever. He therefore trusted, that he should be allowed to carry forward the Bill, and that the House would not entertain for a moment the idea of postponing the consideration of the third reading, after the question had been so fully gone into in the House of Lords, who were so strict about rights of this description, and by the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the merits of the Bill.
Mr. Briscoetrusted that the House would postpone the consideration of the third reading of the Bill, as he had been enabled to make himself master of very few of its provisions; but from what little he had heard of the subject, he considered it a case of extreme hardship and great moral injustice. If the objects of art left by. Sir J. Soane were sent to the British Museum, it would be of more use to the public, and a large sum would be thus saved for the grand-children. He suggested that it would be proper to delay the third reading of the Bill until hon. Gentlemen should have made themselves more fully acquainted with its object.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, in the present instance a gentleman of great eminence in art had devoted his own money to the accumulation of most valuable relics. He had done so by denying himself indulgence which other persons in an equal station of life generally enjoyed; and he proposed to present that valuable collection—a most liberal act, indeed, on his part—to the public; and all that he now
1336
asked for was an Act of Parliament to put an end to all questions as to the validity of that gift. As to the gift itself, he thought that the House and the country ought to receive it with the greatest thankfulness, and in the most gracious manner. With respect to the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. member for Surrey, as to the property being placed in the British Museum, he meant to propose a clause on the third reading of the Bill, the object of which would be to place the property in the British Museum, thereby saving the expenditure of a great deal of money upon a separate establishment.
Lord John Russellhoped that the clause which the right hon. Baronet had to propose would answer all the purposes contemplated by the hon. member for Surrey. He trusted, however, that that clause would leave it to the discretion of Sir John Soane.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, that Sir John Soane only exercised a power vested in him by the common law of England, and that there was no claim on the part of the petitioner, either in law or equity, or any substantial reason why the third reading of the Bill should be postponed.
Mr. Hume moved that the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Cobbettknew nothing of the law as it related to the disposition of property, and perhaps in that point of view Sir John Soane had the law on his side, but he considered it, and he thought the House should consider it, as a question of morality, He knew, however, that the law and the precepts of morality, as far as he understood them, required man, as far as as possible, to protect and give every necessary sustenance to his children and grandchildren; but by this Bill the House was called upon to aid and assist in withholding from the donor's grandchildren that sustenance to which they were entitled, and which they needed. Would that House be party to a withdrawal from this gentleman's grandchildren of their rights of sustenance? Would it countenance so unnatural an act? He hoped not, and that the House would not agree to the third reading of the Bill. It appeared that Mrs. Soane (Sir John's wife) brought him 30,000 l., but he alleged there had been no settlement. Who was to say how much of celebrity and renown arose to Sir John Soane from the possession of that 30,000 l? Perhaps it had

1337
been the occasion of the whole of his celebrity and property; and he held (as he was sure every other Member of that House would), that if a man received money by his wife, he had no right to dispose of it, although there was no settlement binding him. He had no moral right, at any rate, to dispose of it in any way whatever, otherwise than in the way the wife agreed to have it disposed of. By this Act, however, the donor was taking a maintenance from the wife's grandchildren, for they were her grandchildren as well as his. Let any man, he would say, lay his hand to his heart and say if such an act could be considered a just proceeding on the part of the grandfather. He should, therefore, give his opposition to the Bill, in order to show, by the records of the House, that there was at least one Member who had felt it his duty to protest against this unnatural proceeding. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That Soane's Museum Act be referred to a Select Committee, or to the Judges, for them to report their opinion to the House, how far an Act of Parliament, declaratory of the intentions of a certain individual therein named, can be taken to be a conveyance in fee of an estate in trust to be hereafter created by his wilt, supposing he should omit to complete the same by his will, or should direct his will to be drawn, when by subsequent evidence he may be proved to have been incapable of dictating or proving of the same."
Mr. J. Feildenseconded the Amendment.
An Hon. Memberconsidered it to be most ungrateful to insult an individual who had so liberally come forward to present so munificent a gift to the nation, and refuse to accept such a gift but upon certain terms. The hon. member for Oldham appeared to assume that the property in question was purchased with the money of the petitioner. If it were not so, the argument of the hon. Member must fall to the ground. It was most monstrous to suppose, that in a free country, like England, a man had not a right to dispose of his property as he pleased. What greater tyranny could be committed, than preventing, by legislative interference, a man from disposing of his own property? He considered the proceeding, and the line of argument adopted by the hon. member for Oldham, as most extraordinary.
Mr. Humehoped the public would
1338
not be misled, or imagine for one moment that the House would commit an injustice towards any individual by agreeing to the wishes of a Gentleman who had come forward in the handsome and liberal manner that Sir John Soane had. What were the facts of the case? It was stated that Sir John Soane had derived a great portion of his property from his wife, and that he had left his money to other branches of his family, omitting all mention of the son who petitioned that House; but the House should be put into possession of this important fact—the father had settled 20,000 l. upon the children of an elder son (who was the heir-at-law), and that the younger son, the petitioner, had received from Sir John Soane more than that sum already. It would be a gross injustice, if the House were to step in and say to Sir John Soane he should not dispose of his property as he pleased. He greatly regretted the family differences which existed between the father and the son; but the House must see, that such differences ought not to prevent Sir John Soane from disposing of his valuable and magnificent collection according to his own feelings. In the Committee which had been sitting up-stairs, it was asked the petitioner if he had any claim upon the property at law; the petitioner answered "No." "But," said the petitioner, "he might change his mind before he died, and feel disposed to leave me some portion of the property in question, which the Bill now under consideration would deprive him of the power of doing." Sir John Soane had other large means at his command. This Museum was but a part of that large fortune which he had acquired by his unwearied industry and splendid talents. If the House were to cast any stain upon Sir John Soane, he considered it would be most ungrateful, He was happy to hear of the proposition for depositing the bequest in the British Museum; that was undoubtedly the best place for it, if that plan met Sir John Soane's approbation.
Mr. Hodgeswas upon the Committee on the Bill, and could say, that all the Members were unanimous in their Report. Valuing the bequest highly, and conceiving that no injustice was done to any one, he should give his support to the Bill.
Mr. Baringbegged to observe, that the present mode of proceeding was of a most novel character. When individuals had

1339
formerly presented property to the British Museum, or to any other national institution, was it ever inquired of them if they had the power so to dispose of it? He had no doubt but that the hon. member for Oldham was actuated by good motives. The House had only to consider whether it would receive the splendid gift in a gracious or an ungracious manner. There were no possible grounds for any further delay taking place in the passing-of the Bill.
Amendment negatived; Bill read a third time.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had a clause to propose, which might, perhaps, answer the objections of the hon. member for Oldham. The effect of the clause would be to enable Sir John Soane, at any time after the passing of the Act, to bequeath all his valuable relics to the British Museum, instead of placing them in two houses, the property of Sir John Soane, in Lincoln's Inn-fields. Those two houses, by the clause, would thereby be placed again in his absolute power and control, and also so much of the Bill as related to the money; he would have the whole control of disposing of the 30,000 l. and the two houses as he pleased. The expense of keeping-up two establishments was unnecessary, and by the proposed clause, the expense of a separate establishment would be saved. There were abundant reasons why the public should not derive any benefit from the large sum of money which Sir John Soane had proposed to place at its disposal. Let the public restore to Sir John Soane the whole power over that money. So far from discouraging such splendid gifts he was for receiving them, and acknowledging them in the fullest and most handsome manner, and he hoped that Sir John Soane would consider whether he would not better promote the object he had in view by placing the relics in the British Museum, and having the collection called by his own name, than by placing them in a separate establishment.
The Clause read a first time,
On the Motion that it be read a second time,
Mr. Humesaid, he highly approved of it, and he hoped the hon. member for Oldham would see that it accomplished the object for which he had contended. He (Mr. Hume) could not, however, help thinking, that Sir John Soane might still
1340
find it tend to the advancement of science, if he added to the valuable collection by endowing it with 500 l. a-year, or any portion of the 1,100 l.
Sir Samuel Whalleywas of opinion, that great facility would be afforded for inspecting the collection, if it were removed to the British Museum. He must, however, complain that it was not continually open. He had been disappointed of seeing the British Museum on two or three occasions, in consequence of having mistaken the days of exhibition, and he would, therefore, suggest that more trouble should be taken to apprise the public when the exhibition was open, and when closed, which might be done by occasional advertisements in the daily papers.
Mr. Baringstated, that if the public were admitted every day, as on the days of public admission, when there were generally more than 2,000 visitors passing through the rooms, it would be impossible for the officers to perform their duties. He would assure the hon. Member (Sir Samuel Whalley) that there would be no difficulty in his admission on any of the six days of the week. [The hon. Member dissented by saying that he had found difficulty.] If such then had been the case, it must have been because the hon. Member went as a casual visitor, and had not made a particular application to the librarian, who he (Mr. Baring) was convinced would admit any gentleman who came there for any purpose connected with science or art. The question of holidays—of reducing the two months' holidays to one—was now in course of consideration; but he begged to assure hon. Members, that even during these holidays, no foreigner or any person decently attired in pursuit of particular information was ever refused admittance.
Mr. Morrisonwas aware that it had been stated that there were 123 days in the course of each year on which the public were admitted, and supposed therefore his own applications must have been peculiarly unfortunate. Within the last two years, however, he had made at least a dozen attempts to obtain admission, but had always called upon a wrong day. He thought that there was another class of the community deserving of equal attention with artists, and those were the manufacturers. At this season of the year, a vast number of persons interested in manufactures of the country came to the

1341
metropolis for the purpose of obtaining information, and on their account he would, if possible, have the British Museum opened every day in the week during the months of April, May, and June. It was not enough that upon application to the public officers of the establishment those persons might obtain admission, because all persons who know anything of the institutions of this country must have experienced how repulsive it was to make applications to public officers when any difficulty could be thrown in the way of granting the required favour. He could not permit himself to lose this opportunity of expressing how extremely grateful he felt to the gentleman who presented to his country a collection of which it stood so much in need. This country was very deficient in the means of teaching the higher branches of art, and much needed some institutions similar to those which were found on the Continent. He doubted whether the public money could be expended so beneficially in any other way as by establishing schools for teaching art and science.
Mr. Cobbettremarked, that the hon. member for Essex had said, that if the British Museum were open for a greater number of days than at present, there would require more attendants than were now engaged. Now, upon that, he would only remark, that out of the 16,000 l. expended in support of the Museum, the sum of 10,000 l., within a fraction, was expended for attendance. That was all he would say upon that point. And then, the hon. Member had said, that if any person in a decent dress (the hon. Member had not defined what he meant by a decent dress)—but he had said, that if any person with a decent dress applied for admission when the Museum was shut, he would obtain it. Now, he (Mr. Cobbett) thought it right to observe, that those who had not decent dresses were required to pay for the maintenance of the Museum. The chop-stick in the country, as well as the poor man who mended the pavement in town, had to pay for the support of this place; and, if they derived no benefit from it, they ought not to be compelled to pay for it. It happened, too, that the hours during which it was open were just such as were most inconvenient to the labourer and the tradesman. What were those hours? Why, from ten in the morning till four in the afternoon; just the time
1342
when persons engaged in business were the most actively employed. It should be open, in summer, at all events, from six in the morning till ten at night, if it were intended for general utility. But if it were only intended for idlers and loungers, then it could not be better managed than it was at present. It was shut up during two months in the year also, exclusive of the other holidays. And what were those months? Why, September and October. The long vacation; when all the lawyers and parsons, and lords and loungers, were out in the country enjoying shooting. It was then that the Museum was shut up; and yet they were told that it was intended that the people should have the benefit of the institution.
Mr. Roebucktrusted, that something would be done for the purpose of having the British Museum opened on those holidays, and those days when the working-classes were able only to attend it, such as Christmas-day, Good Friday, and even on Sundays [No, no.] He begged to remind hon. Members, that such exhibitions were always kept open on Sundays on the Continent.
Mr. Prymethought, that if such exhibitions were kept open to a later hour, to a period after the mechanic had left his work, every purpose would be answered without resorting to the extreme expedient of keeping it open on Sundays.
Sir Robert Peelwas of opinion, that immense advantage would accrue, if the most public notice possible was given of the hours and days on which the Museum was open. He knew that many persons coining from the country, who were extremely desirous of seeing the British Museum, were disappointed because they happened to go there on a day on which it was not open.
Mr. Baringagreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite, that it would be most desirable that a distinct and general notice should be given to the public of the days and hours on which they could get access to the Museum; but not only during the holidays would any person applying for admission, either for scientific purposes or any known artists, be admitted; but any person from the country, stating, that he was obliged to leave town the next day would find ready access given. As to keeping the Museum open on Sundays, Good Fridays, and days of that description, he must confess, though he was no

1343
extreme puritan, he should be very sorry to see the Legislature go that length, and he was quite sure that the sense of the country would be against any such proposition.
The Clause agreed to, and the Bill passed.

CASES OF RICHARD NEWSHAM AND JAMES ROTHWELL.
Mr. Cobbett,having presented several petitions, said he must take that opportunity of reverting to a petition which he had previously presented, and which he was prevented from then explaining. It was of Richard Newsham which stated, the the was a soldier in the fifty-third regiment, in March, 1831, at Gibraltar. On the 10th of that month he was discharged from the hospital, where he had been confined by illness; and on the 13th he was desired by the serjeant to show his kit and ammunition. He was asked why his ammunition was not wrapped up? He answered, because he had not got the proper paper; that he went to the canteen for the paper, but could not get the proper kind there: that the case was reported to Captain Shakspear Phillips, who ordered him three days' drill. The petitioner stated, that he had been unable to get the proper kind of paper, when the Captain used some very blasphemous language, and ordered the Serjeant to send him to drill. The petitioner said that such language ought not to be used to any man; upon which the Captain ordered him into confinement, from which he was taken to be tried before a Garrison Court-martial, which sentenced him to receive 500 lashes; but General Don, who was the Governor of Gibraltar, thought the offence comparatively slight, and he mitigated the sentence to 300 lashes, which Newsham received, and from which he suffered most severely; that while he was lying in the hospital, he reported the case to Lieutenant-Colonel Constantine, who promised that a Court-martial should be held upon Captain Phillips, but of that he never heard more; that afterwards he applied for leave of absence to Captain Carnaby, which was granted; but as a non-commissioned officer was not present at the time. Captain Carnaby afterwards denied that he had given such leave, and he was reported as being absent without leave, for which he was called before a regimental Court-martial, and ordered to receive 300 lashes. At the trial he was asked, whether he had
1344
any objection to the Court; and he, being under feelings of great irritation, said, "No, nor to that," showing a razor which he had in his hand, having been carried away from the guard-house while in the act of shaving; that he was confined for thirty-nine days in the hospital, from which he was again sent to the guard-house, and again brought to trial, and sentenced to be transported for life; that he arrived at Chatham as a convict, from whence he petitioned the King, and was released; that he then was ordered to join another regiment in the North; shortly after which, he applied to Major Butler, the commander, for the minutes of the Court-martial; that the Major answered him with oaths, and in order to frighten him, stated, that if he mentioned the subject of the Court-martial again, he should be brought before another one, and most severely punished; that he made a report of the case to General Bouverie, the General of the district, who promised that a Court-martial should be held upon Major Butler, but of that he had never heard more. Finding that he could get no redress from superior officers, being at Stockport, he applied to an attorney there to see what redress he could procure for him. The attorney wrote to Major Butler, demanding satisfaction on the part of the petitioner; upon which the Major sent for him, and demanded to know what satisfaction it was he wanted? The petitioner was afraid of committing himself by any answer, referred the Major to his attorney, till at last, goaded on by the orders of the Major, he said, "Sir, you must find it out;" for which expression he was confined fourteen days on bread and water; from that confinement he was released by General Bouverie himself; but, as yet, he had received no redress. The petitioner prayed the House to take his sufferings into consideration, and to investigate into the conduct of Captain Phillips and Major Butler. Affixed to the petition was the certificate of a Magistrate of the town of Kingston-on-Hull, from which it appeared that the petition had been read over to the petitioner, who had sworn to the truth of the facts contained in it. He should, on another occasion, give notice for the production of a copy of the petition, and when that was produced, he should move for copies of the proceedings of the several Courts-martial. He had another petition from a man who resided in Old-

1345
ham, named James Rothwell, whose case, every man, he thought, must admit to be peculiarly hard. He would not pretend that Newsham did not behave ill, because he thought that a ma" would not be punished unless he had committed some offence or other; but 500 lashes on his naked back for not having his ammunition wrapped up in proper paper, and 300 for giving a rude answer to an officer, were severe and cruel sentences, disproportionate to the offences. The petitioner, James Rothwell, however, had committed no offence. He stated that he had been bred a weaver, but in April, 1812, he enlisted in the Royal Dragoons, and joined the regiment in Spain. He was present at the Battle of Waterloo, where he received three wounds, one of which he felt the effects of up to the present period. He was discharged in 1816, with a pension of 9d. a-day for his wounds, and he continued to receive it until November, 1819, when he was called upon to join a garrison bat-tallion. Thinking, however, that he could earn his livelihood at weaving, and having then a wife and family, he neglected the call and was struck off the list. At that period the price of weaving was 11½d. a yard, but it was now reduced to 4½d., and he was unable to obtain a livelihood, and he therefore wished to obtain a renewal of his pension. His colleague and himself had applied to the War Office on behalf of the petitioner, and were referred to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, who, it seemed, had some rule laid down that prevented them doing anything in the matter. He had, therefore, been obliged to come to that House, praying for a restitution of the pension of this wounded soldier. The House might, he thought, interfere with great propriety, when it took such pains to see justice done to pensioned officers, with whose cases that of Rothwell might, in his opinion, be advantageously compared.
Lord John Russellfelt it necessary to say a few words with respect to these two petitions. As to the first of them, having pledged himself to inquire into the circumstances connected with it, he begged to say, that he had made inquiries at the Horse Guards, the result of which was sufficient to satisfy him that the petitioner had no ground for the allegations contained in his petition. The petition had been first sent to the hon. member for Middlesex, who sent it to Sir John Hob-
1346
house, and so satisfied was the hon. member for Middlesex, from the representation of the then Secretary at War, that the petitioner was totally unworthy of the consideration of the House, that he refused to present his petition. The statement of the petitioner, that he had received 300 lashes for not having wrapped up his ammunition in proper paper was untrue, he had been punished for repeated instances of gross insubordination, and for refusing to obey the orders of his superior officer. For threatening with a razor to take away the life of a superior officer, he was sentenced to be transported, but that sentence being found informal, he was released. He had been guilty of other acts of gross insubordination: and, in short, was a man of such a character, that it was difficult to get him to perform the duties of a soldier. He was sure, that under these circumstances the Mouse would consider that the case of the petitioner did not call for the slightest indulgence. With regard to the other petition, the one from the pensioner of Chelsea Hospital, the question with regard to him had been brought forward at the Board at which he presided. As the hon. member for Oldham had stated, the pensioners were liable to be called on duty in garrison battalions, and to be struck off the pension list if they did not appear and could not make out a good case, either of not having been apprized of the call, or having been prevented from attending to the call by some lawful and insurmountable impediment. This was no more than a proper and necessary regulation, particularly when the House remembered that this pension-list at one time cost the country 1,500,000 l. per annum, and now amounted to 1,200,000 l. The man in question had neglected to attend a call to join a garrison battalion because he was engaged in a more profitable employment, and as there were no grounds for his being restored to his pension, the Board had very properly refused the prayer of his petition. The hon. member for Oldham had insinuated that such would not have been the fate of an officer; but he would inform that hon. Member that the proceeding in the case of an officer would be precisely the same. If an officer refused or neglected to join any regiment to which he was appointed, he would be immediately liable to forfeit his half pay. In the past year a case in point had occurred, not in the army, but

1347
in the navy, where the principle was the same. That was the case of Captain Sartorius, who, having been ordered home to join a ship, neglected or refused to do so, and had been struck off the list in consequence. Unless the superior Boards had a power of this description over officers and soldiers there would be no means of commanding their services even in case of foreign invasion. The statement he made would be hoped satisfy the House that in neither case did there exist any reasons for interfering.
Mr. Cobbettreminded the House that he had not said anything as to the deserts of the first petitioner; he had spoken only first, of the severity of the punishment; and next, of the case, supposing the allegations in the petition to be true. But, after all, he only asked for a copy of the proceedings of the Court-martial. Was that unreasonable? No. And he should certainly move for them. As to the other petitioner, the noble Lord had directed the attention of the House from nine-pence a-day to the enormous amount of 1,200,000 l. That was not the thing. Then the noble Lord had said, if au officer were called upon to serve, and refused, he would certainly lose his pension. Oh! was that so? This was a more difficult matter than the noble Lord supposed. What! would they call upon parsons who had sold their half-pay, would they call these Gentlemen to come out of their churches and pulpits to defend the country?—that would be curious indeed. When he had got a certain return he had moved for, and which had been promised, he would show what was the amount which these parsons had received in their capacity of half-pay officers, though not liable to be called out upon duty.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that with reference to the first petition, he should feel it his duty to oppose the motion for granting copies of the proceedings of the Court-martial. He would maintain that a strong prima facie case ought to be made out before the House exercised so extraordinary a power; but the present case, so far from being prima facie a case of strength, was full of the most gross misstatements, and the House could not degrade itself more than to exercise its powers without an adequate ground. He could state upon his own responsibility that the petition was full of the grossest misstatements. The first statement related to a Court-
1348
martial which was held at Gibraltar in March 1832. The man was then tried, not for being without his proper cartridge paper, but for his outrageous behaviour, and he had only to regret that he could not justify the language which the officer had used on that occasion. The sentence had been mitigated on the ground that some provocation had been given to the man. The next was the regimental Court-martial, at which the man had flourished a razor at the officer, and had declared that he would have his life, or the officer should take his. The sentence which ordered him to be transported was deemed illegal or doubtful, and as it was deemed right that the man should have the benefit of any doubt in the case, he received a pardon. More flagrant violations of discipline than this man committed could not be conceived, and he appealed to the House whether this was a case proper to be brought under its consideration. Major Butler had no power to give the man a copy of the proceedings of the Court-martial; and he very properly sent to the general officer, the Commander-in-chief of the district, to know what he ought to do. The general sent to the Judge-Advocate to learn what was the law on the case, and the final result was a determination on the part of General Bouverie to give the man every indulgence that could be granted to him. The man had enlisted in 1824, he had served only eight years, out of which he had been a deserter during two, and he had been tried six times by Courts-martial. Under these circumstances he trusted that the House would not think of interfering.

OATHS OF CATHOLIC MEMBERS.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair to go into a Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonewould move, before the Speaker left the Chair, that the oath contained in the Catholic Relief Bill to be taken by Catholics taking their seats in that House, be read. The present was, he thought, the fittest opportunity for calling the attention of the House to that subject. In doing so he hoped he should get credit for not being actuated by any improper feeling, for he was only taking that course which his duty pointed out to him. The oath to which he referred was enacted and made part of the Bill for the relief of Roman Catholics in order to

1349
prevent Roman Catholic Members from interfering in any way in that House so as to injure or weaken the Church Establishment of England or Ireland. That such oath was understood to be intended to prevent Catholic Members from taking-any part in matters relating to the Church Establishment was the opinion of many hon. Members of that House. He recollected that in the last Parliament the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland had called the attention of the hon. member for Tipperary to the subject, in the same feeling as to the meaning of that oath; and he also remembered that in the last Parliament Lord Killeen and the member for York both declared that they considered themselves bound by their oaths, as Catholic Members of that House to abstain from any discussion on such subjects. In the present Parliament, when an hon. member (Mr.O'Dwyer), whom he did not see then in his place, had spoken of destroying the Irish Church, he was immediately reminded by an hon. and learned civilian (Dr. Lushington), that by the hon. Member's (Mr. O'Dwyer's) oath, as a Catholic Member, he was precluded from doing anything which would tend to injure or weaken the Protestant Church Estab-lishment in England or Ireland, Notwithstanding these opinions, he found it was still the intention of some hon. Members, who were Roman Catholics to take a part in matters with which, as it appeared to him, the oaths they had taken at that Table forbad them to meddle. For example the hon. and learned member for Tipperary had given a notice that he would move that any surplus fund which might arise out of the measure of reform in the Irish Church, should be at the disposal of the House to purposes of State. Under these circumstances, he felt it his painful duty to take the course he was now pursuing. In the oath to which he referred, the Catholic Member swore, amongst other things, "And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law with-in this realm." He would not rest on the terms he had read, but in the next passage of the oath were these words, "and I do solemnly declare, that I will never exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom. And I do
1350
solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever—So help me God." He would not say in what way a man could conscientiously take such an oath, and afterwards feel himself at liberty to interfere or take an active part in matters which tended to injure or weaken the Protestant religion or Government. The oath he had mentioned was very strong, but if he were to go to some of the decrees of Catholic councils he should find that faith was not to be kept with heretics. ["No, no" from Mr. O'Connell.] The hon. and learned Member denied this; he would refer him to the decrees of the council of Constance, and also to the third council of Lateran, in which it was promulgated that any oath taken against the interest of the Catholic church was to be considered as not binding and as no oath ["No, no," from Mr. O'Connell]; and Catholic writers asserted that they could obtain dispensations for such oaths [No, no]. Looking at the question in the light of a civil compact, he would say, that the Protestants had performed their part of it in admitting the Catholics to an equality of civil privileges, and it was now the duty of the Catholics to perform their part of it by observing the conditions on which that equality was given. He was sorry that it should fall to his lot to move this, but he would withdraw his Motion if the House should be of opinion that a more proper time would occur hereafter for its introduction; but it appeared to him that the present was the proper one for bringing this question before the House. He had brought it forward without consulting any hon. Member, and would now leave it to the House. He would move in conclusion that the oath administered to Roman Catholic Members of that House be read.
The Clerk read the oath as follows:—
"I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Fourth, and will defend him to the utmost of ray power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever which shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them." and I do faithfully

1351
promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an Act intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claming; or pretending a right to the Crown of this realm, and I do further declare that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any other authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any person whatsoever: and I do declare that do not believe that the Pope of Rome or any other foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, Stale, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power superiority or pre-eminence directly or indirectly, within this realm. I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws, and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm: and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom; and I do solemnly, in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever So help me God."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, be would not detain the House by giving any detailed answer to the ludicrous calumnies which the hon. Member had raked up, for all those calumnies had been already scouted with ridicule by all who had liberal or Christian feelings. The hon. Member talked of the compact with the Catholics. There had been none but that of the treaty of Limerick, which had been shamefully violated to their injury by the Protestants. The Catholics had come to that House to demand their rights, to be placed on terms of civil equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects. They had asked for that only, and would not have accepted anything beyond that, even if it had been offered. The statement of the hon. Member was only fitted for the days of John Knox, and probably in his days it would have been followed by the shedding of blood. As to the assertion of the council of Constance or Lateran having declared that no faith was to be kept
1352
with heretics, he would as confidently assert that it was not the fact. The assertion was an historical blunder. But if any Catholic council had declared any such opinion, every conscientious Catholic would be bound to reject it; for no council or other body of men had a right to command that which was in itself morally wrong. As to the dispensing with an oath, a Catholic believed that no person or persons had any such power, in any case of an oath between man and man. There were, indeed, certain oaths which might be dispensed with and absolved from. For instance, if the hon. Member took an oath to pay him (Mr. O'Connell) a sum of 50 l., he could absolve him from the oath by remitting him the money; or oaths of celibacy made by the Catholic clergy might be dispensed with by the authority which made them; but all other oaths were binding on Catholics in the sense in which they were administered, no matter to whom they were given, and no power on earth had a right to absolve from them, and no Catholic believed that any such power existed. Not to go into any detail on this question, he would merely ask, what had kept Catholics so long out of power but their regard for the validity of oaths. If they believed that they could be absolved from such oaths, was it not likely they would have taken more oaths which gave them political power; but they had remained deprived of such power for a century and a half, rather than take oaths against their consciences. That was not the place for polemical discussion, or, if it were, he might show the hon. Gentleman some instances in which members of his own communion held the sentiments which he now wilfully attributed to the Catholics. If the hon. Member would have the goodness to favour him with his address, he would send him that passage in John Knox's writings, in which he held that faith was not to be kept with Papists; but he attributed no such opinion to the hon. Member, and he hoped the Catholics would get credit for the same feelings as other Christians on this subject—seeing that every act of theirs was a disclaimer of the odious doctrine so unjustly and illiberally imputed to them.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonbegged to disclaim any concurrence in the opinions of the hon. member for Cupar (Mr. A. Johnstone). The charge of not keeping faith with persons from whom they differed in

1353
religion was most unfounded, and had been disclaimed by all Catholics, and strongly condemned by the whole of the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland. The Catholics were not bound by their oaths in that House to do any thing more or less than Protestants with respect to the Established Church.
Mr. Shawwould not offer any opinion on the subject until he saw the course taken by Catholic Members, on matters which should come before them. As to what had been said by the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Fergus-son), that the oath was to have the same effect on Protestants as on Catholics, he would only say, that if that were the meaning of the oath, he did not see why it was imposed at all, or why it should not be taken by both.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, all it had in view was, that the Catholics should give the same security to the Established Church by their oaths, as the Protestants were supposed to give by their duty as Protestants.
Lord Althorpreminded the House, that in the progress of the Catholic Relief Bill, a clause had been proposed to prevent the interference of Catholic Members in any matters relating purely to the Church, and the House had rejected it; and, as that was the case, he thought that Catholic Members had as much right as Protestants to take part in the discussion of any matter that came before the House as Protestants.
Dr. Lushington,as his name had been alluded to by the hon. member for Cupar, wished to say a word in explanation, and to correct a mistake respecting what had fallen from him on the occasion alluded to. When an hon. Member, a Catholic, had talked of destroying the Church, he did, in the warmth of the moment, read to him the oath taken by Catholic Members of that House—not, however, with the view to contend that Catholic Members, or any other Members not belonging to the Established Church, had no right to interfere or take part in any question, no matter what, which might come before the House—but to show that hon. Member that a sense of duty and of his obligation on oath, ought not to permit him to talk of destroying an establishment which, as a Member of Parliament, he had sworn not to injure or weaken. He would have explained his meaning on that evening,
1354
but an interlude of a speech of two hours by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, having intervened, he was unwilling to bring the attention of the House back to another subject.

CHURCH REFORM (IRELAND).
The House went into Committee on the plan for regulating the temporalities of the Church of Ireland.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the subject to which the Resolutions referred, which he was about to move having been opened to the House on a former evening, it would be then unnecessary for him to take up its time by going over the same ground. No doubt many hon. Members were prepared to discuss the principle of the measure in the Committee, to which, of course, he could not object; but on his own part it would be only trespassing on the tine of the House to re-open what he had stated on a former night. He would make only one remark. A part of the proposed plan, as the House was aware, was the abolition of the Church cess; but if the Bill which had been brought in had been carried through, there would not have been time enough to effect the abolition of the Church cess this year; but as it would be desirable that such cess should no longer be collected in Ireland, he thought it right to say, that Government would provide for that abolition this year by other means. The noble Lord moved the following Resolutions:—
1. That it is the opinion of this Committee that it is expedient that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland should be authorized to appoint Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of carrying into effect any Act that may be passed in the present Session of Parliament to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church in Ireland; and that the said Lord-lieutenant be empowered to order and appoint such salary or other emoluments as he shall deem fit to be paid to such Commissioners, not being Bishops.
2. That it is the opinion of this Committee that it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the first-fruits in Ireland, and in lieu thereof, to levy an annual assessment upon all bishoprics and archbishoprics, and upon all benefices, dignitaries, and other spiritual promotions above the yearly value of 200 l., to be applied to the building, rebuilding, and repairing of churches, and other such like ecclesiastical purposes, and to the augmentation of small livings, and to such other purposes as may conduce to the advancement of religion, and the efficiency, permanency, and stability of the united Church of England and Ireland.

1355
3. That it is the opinion of this Committee that vestry assessments for any of the purposes to defray which the annual assessment mentioned in the preceding resolution may be applicable should be abolished; and that any law, statute, or usage, authorizing such assessment, should be repealed."
On the question being put on the first Resolution,
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the order in which the Resolutions were brought forward was calculated to create some embarrassment. The first he looked upon as merely ancillary, creating in fact, the machinery by which the system proposed to be introduced by those that followed was to be worked. It was impossible, however, to discuss the first Resolution without feeling himself called upon to enter with some minuteness into the merits of the plan which was involved in the whole series. It was, therefore, that he rose to call the attention of the House to a subject which was unquestionably of great importance; and though, from the situation he filled as one of the Representatives in that House on whom the care of the interests of the Church of Ireland more immediately devolved, he yet did not mean to discuss the subject as one affecting the established Church in Ireland alone, but as one in which the interests of the Established Church in England were equally involved. It was not his intention to protract the measure by needless debate; but he hoped that a question of so much importance would receive a full and ample discussion, and that hon. Members would feel it their duly, before they came to a decision, to enter into an examination of the whole subject. He did not mean to trespass on the House at any extraordinary length, but he must claim the attention of hon. Members for a reasonable time, while he endeavoured to show that the Resolutions were unjust in principle, and were not entitled to support even on the ground of expediency. Before he proceeded to discuss the Resolutions, he begged to state that he had received a number of petitions on the subject of the Bill which had recently been withdrawn, but the leading principles of which were adopted in the Resolutions then under consideration. One of those petitions was from the great body of the Irish Prelates—others from large bodies of the clergy, and several of them were also from the laity. All the petitions expressed the greatest apprehension with
1356
respect to the measures proposed by his Majesty's Government—not, indeed, as to any new arrangement with respect to Church property within the Church, so far as might be deemed conducive to the interests of religion, but the petitioners expressed the greatest reluctance that the property of the church should be interfered with, in the way proposed to the prejudice of existing interests; and they deprecated in the strongest manner the alienation of the least portion of that property to any other than ecclesiastical purposes. He did not stand there to oppose any Reform with respect to sinecures and pluralities in the Church; but he should object, first, to the application of Church properly to any other than Church purposes; and secondly, he should endeavour to prevent any infringement of the rights and interests of the present possessors. The first Resolution of the noble Lord was purely ancillary to carrying into effect the second and third; and, therefore, it was not necessary to make any observation upon it. The second and third Resolutions embraced three distinct points, namely—first, the abolition of the First Fruits; secondly, the abolition of the parish cess; and thirdly, the substituting in place of the First Fruits and the parish cess a tax upon all benefices above the yearly value of 200 l., the produce of which was to be applied to the purposes for which the First Fruit Fund and parish cess were now appropriated. With respect to the First Fruits, if the question were merely as to the abolishing the board of First Fruits and substituting an annual tax in lieu of the First Fruits, he would not object to it; but the project before the House went greatly beyond that. when the House was put in possession of the amount of the First Fruits, and of the tax which was proposed to be substituted for that impost, they would find, that under the colour of a commutation, the noble Lord was about to impose a tax much greater than that which was at present paid. That was not all; individuals would be called on to pay who ought to be altogether exempt from such charge, because they had already contributed to the First Fruits Fund, The House could not legislate on this subject unless the facts were fully before it, and these facts he would immediately detail. He had procured authentic documents connected with this question; documents could not err; and if any hon. Member in the detail upon

1357
which he (Mr. Lefroy) was about to enter could detect him in a mistake, then let everything he said go for nothing. By the accounts relative to the amount of First Fruits, produced in 1827 and 1828, it would appear that the sum total derived from First Fruits for thirty-one years was 9,947 l. 11 s. 2d. That was the sum paid, including benefices of every sort which were [liable to the charges. Those were exempt which were rated in the King's books as under a certain annual value. Of that amount the sum of 3,177 l. 1s. 4d. was paid by Bishops; so that, taking the sum-total for thirty-one years, the average did not exceed the annual sum of 321 l. of which 218 l. was paid by the working clergy of Ireland on account of First Fruits. But what did the noble Lord propose? Why, that a charge of 42,000 l. should be annually levied on the whole Church of Ireland. This, together with the tax on Bishops, would, in fact, amount to an annual sum of 65,000 l., instead of 321 l., which was paid at present on account of First Fruits. This sort of commutation was very like asking a man for change of a shilling, and taking from him a 10 l. note in lieu of it. With what justice could this be viewed as a commutation in lieu of the First Fruits? Could it be considered otherwise than as plundering the Church? If such a transaction took place between man and man on the highway, it would be deemed a high-way robbery; but because it was brought forward by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Reformed Parliament, he supposed it must be considered just and equitable. But the injustice did not rest here. The First Fruits fell only on a portion of the clergy, but this tax would be levied on all. Those who were not now liable to the payment of First Fruits would be exposed to the operation of this tax. All the clergy who were in possession of benefices paid the First Fruits, either on taking the preferment or immediately afterwards; but those who had already paid their First Fruits would now be amenable to the new impost. Was that just? The First Fruits were not one farthing in the pound, while this tax would be from five to fifteen per cent, and even on the noble Lord's own showing would amount on the average to seven per cent. He trusted, therefore, that if any sense of justice remained, the House would not sanction
1358
the substitution of such a monstrous imposition upon a body of men who were already suffering the greatest privations. In the next place, provision was to be made for the Vestry-cess. That, at present, amounted to about 60,000 l. a-year, and was levied on 12,000,000 acres of cultivated land, being not quite one penny an acre, on all the cultivated land in Ireland. The whole of that cess, let it be observed, was not appropriated alone to the purposes of the Church; provision for the poor, coffins, foundlings, &c., the collection of the cess, the expense of the grave-yard—these were all included in its expenditure, and it certainly was not fit that the Church, as was now proposed, should make up that tax. At present the sum levied for ecclesiastical purposes connected with that cess was 17,717 l. 16 s. a-year, which was not one quarter of the tax that would be laid on by the new system. At present no part of the Vestry-cess was laid on the clergy; and he should be glad to know why that burthen, which was now placed on the land, should be transferred to the Church, and wrung from the pockets of the working clergy? It was said, that the revenues of the Irish Church were enormous; but he would lay before the House the exact state of the property of the Irish Church, and it would then be seen that the fact was not so. The noble Lord had himself admitted, on a former occasion, that there was no subject on which so much misrepresentation had taken place as on this, and that greater exaggeration existed with respect to the amount of Church property than on any other subject. The noble Lord in introducing the measure to the House, said—that even he, himself, had been led into most exaggerated views of the subject. It appeared from the reports of the Committees of Lords and Commons on the tithe question, according to the evidence of Mr. Griffith, that the whole amount of tithes in Ireland did not exceed 1s. d. on the Irish acre, and Mr. Delacourstated, that if lands tithe-free were excluded, the whole would not exceed, on a fair computation, 1s. per Irish acre. Mr. Erk, who was examined before a Committee of the House of Lords, produced a table with respect to the charge for tithes. In the province of Leinster it was 1s. 7½d., or 1s. the English acre. Tables were subsequently made out, by direction of

1359
the Lords' Committee, with respect to the other provinces; and it appeared that the charge of tithe in Munster was 1s. 2½d. the Irish, or 9d. the English acre; in Connaught. 10¾d, the Irish, or 6½d. the English acre; and in Ulster, where the two species of measurement were intermixed, the rate was 11½d. per acre. The average of tithes did not exceed the sum of Is. 1½d. the Irish, or 9½d. the English acre for the whole of Ireland. Now, so far as that went, he would ask was that an enormous amount to be vested in the Church? The income of the Bishops did not exceed 130,000 l. a-year—the sum stated by the noble Lord; all above that went to the Bishops' tenants. It appeared from the statement of the noble Lord, that the income of the beneficed or working clergy was 580,000 l. or 60,000 l. a-year. There were, it was said, 1,401 beneficed clergymen; he believed there were 1,424—but he would take the smaller number, and then it would appear that their annual average income was 428 l., excluding curates. Then, by the Bill which was passed last Session on the subject of tithes, there was a deduction from the clergyman's income of fifteen per cent, which the landlord now received: this, on an income of 428 l., amounted to 63 l. which thus reduced the salary to 365 l. a-year. There were no fewer than 662 curates, who were paid by those 1,40 l incumbents on an average of 30 l. a-year to each—so that the income in reality only averaged 335 l. a-year. That was not, of course, the proportion in which Church income was divided in Ireland. That was a matter of regulation; but what he had said was sufficient to show that the Church of Ireland was not extravagantly endowed. No man could assert that that Church was extravagantly endowed, in which the average income of the incumbents could not exceed 335 l. If any of the livings should be found to be too largely endowed, let them be reduced. Be it so; but that could not detract from the weight of the observations which he had just made. He did not stand there to defend abuses. If sinecures in the Church were mischievous, although his Majesty's Government clung to them in the State, let them be abolished. If pluralities in the Church were injurious, although there were some enormous pluralists in the State unobjected to, let them be done away with, but their
1360
existence did not in the least impugn the truth of his argument—namely, that the endowments of the Irish Church were not too great. But the House had been led into one great error, with respect to pluralities in the Church, from which he begged to disabuse hon. Members. With respect to the union of parishes, that was frequently rendered necessary by the vast number of lay impropriators. He knew of one union of seventeen parishes, which produced only 250 l. a-year. Those unions added greatly to the duties of the clergyman, but very little to his emolument. It was found necessary, in order to procure a decent maintenance for the incumbent, to unite a number of these parishes: they were enormous in the extent of duties to be performed—enormous as to the extent of country over which they were spread—but far from enormous as to the amount of revenue derived from them. Another error into which the House had been led was with respect to the parishes in which it was alleged not a single Protestant was to be found. It was not that there were benefices in Ireland in which no Protestants resided—but that in some of the parishes constituting those unions few Protestants were to be found; but in the parishes which constituted the rest of the union Protestants were numerous. He wished that the whole matter might be inquired into by a Committee of the House, or by Commissioners appointed for the purpose, in order that the House might ascertain for itself the true state of the Church in Ireland. Before they proceeded to legislate on the Church of Ireland in the way which was now proposed, the House should inform itself better on the subject than could be done by any casual debate. If there were anything enormous or extravagant connected with the Church of Ireland, let it be removed; but it was not consistent with justice to trench on the property of a Church which was so moderately endowed as he had proved the Protestant Church of Ireland to be. Let the House consider how Church property would be affected under this new system. In the first place, the landlord, by the act of last Session, was entitled to fifteen per cent on the tithes; then there was a charge of twenty per cent, for turning the tithe into land; and, lastly seven per cent, which the noble Lord now proposed to levy on Church

1361
property—making altogether an impost of forty-two per cent, upon all Irish Church property. He would ask on what principle it was, that the present incumbents were to be subjected to such a tax? Why were men who had embraced this profession—who had entered into certain relations of life, on the supposition that they would continue to receive a given income—who had, perhaps, quitted some other profession to adopt this—why were they now to be subjected to this visitation? Why should these men be dealt with in a manner contrary to that which had ever before been acted upon with respect to vested rights? Was it because the clergy did not sit in that House? He trusted the justice of the House would revolt from so unfair a proposition as that contained in the resolutions; and that they would not lend themselves to heaping additional hardships upon those who had already endured so much. If the noble Lord removed the Vestry-cess on account of its being offensive to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, how could he keep it up amongst the Dissenters of England, to whom the cess collected here was equally offensive. The House, in dealing with those Resolutions, must decide whether Church property was to be exclusively devoted to Church purposes; or they must come to this question—whether they were or were not to preserve a Church Establishment? Why was this Vestry-cess, he would ask, to be taken from the Protestant clergy of Ireland, and remitted with reference to the land? Why should the tax be taken off the lay proprietor, and placed on the working clergy? He was willing, if necessary, to relieve the Roman Catholic occupant; but he would not do so at the expense of the Protestant clergyman, which would only enable the Protestant landlord to get better rents for his ground. However reluctant Ministers might be to come to a decision upon the subject—however reluctant they might be in the Cabinet to look one another in the face on this question—they must come to the decision as to whether there should be a Church Establishment or not. That was a Reformed Parliament, and the question ought to be boldly stated. He could understand hon. Members supporting the Resolutions who considered no Church Establishment to be necessary. He could account for the support of such men as those who considered
1362
that, as had been said, a person ought to supply himself with a clergyman as he would with a physician or a lawyer; but he was unable to account for the conduct of men, who, under the pretence of maintaining an establishment, voted for measures which were calculated bit-by-bit to spoliate the property of the Church. If the House had made op its mind to abolish cess, because it was hurtful to the feelings of the Roman Catholics, why, he would ask, was the burthen to be transferred to the clergy? Why was it to be taken off the lay proprietors, on whose land it was a charge, and laid upon the working clergy? The working clergy gave a consideration in return for their incomes. Why was the clergyman out of his income to pay for the repairs of a church which was built and maintained for the accommodation of the Protestant landlord, and which was resorted to by his family? Why, he would repeat, was the clergyman to be taxed, while the land of the Protestant proprietor was to be free from the burthen? But if this burthen was to be borne by ecclesiastical property, why were lay impropriators to be exempt? In what proportion did the House think the lay impropriators of Ireland contributed to the discharge of the spiritual duties of their respective impropriations? He had formed a list of lay impropriators, and opposite to their names he had placed the sums which they contributed to the spiritual duties. Here was one of them, the lay impropriator of twenty-eight parishes, containing 10,481 acres, and what did he pay to the support of a minister? Not a single farthing. He alluded to the Marquess of Drogheda. On the contrary, the spiritual duties of that lay impropriation were performed by the clergyman of the adjoining parish, upon whom that additional burthen was laid without any remuneration for it. Was, he would ask, an additional tax to be laid upon the clergy of Ireland, in order to put money into the pockets of such lay impropriators as the Marquess of Drogheda, who did not contribute a single sixpence towards the performance of the spiritual duties in those parishes from which they derived their money? It was, he would fearlessly say, contrary to law to exonerate the Marquess of Drogheda and other lay impropriators from this burthen—it was directly contrary to the letter of an old Act of Parliament which still existed upon the Statute-book, If they were to have

1363
Reform let them go back to first principles, and not permit duties which the law imposed upon lay impropriators, to be shifted to the clergy. He would only call upon the House to act up to the spirit of that act, which enacted that lay impropriators should provide sufficient funds for the performance of spiritual duties in the parishes which they possessed. The next impropriator in the list to which he had already referred was a Mr. Stepney, who held 6,868 acres of pasture and arable land. There was another lay impropriator who possessed 9,670 acres, and he contributed nothing-. The next on the list held 15,000 acres, and he contributed but 31 l. 4s. 3d. a-year for the spiritual duties those parishes in which his property was situate. There was another who possessed a whole tract of country in seven parishes, he meant Lord Shannon, and the amount of his contribution towards the maintenance of spiritual duties in those parishes was 35 l. There was another, a Mr. Copley, who, in ten parishes, held 10,000 acres, and his contributions amounted to 25 l. a-year. Were those individuals to be relieved from a burthen which in justice they should bear, and was it to be thrown on the working clergy? He had taken those statements us to lay impropriation from the public parliamentary documents, and therefore they must be deemed to be correct. Why, he would ask, should the great London companies, who derived vast incomes from their properties in Ireland, be exonerated from this vestry cess? These companies held large estates in Ire-laud. They derived vast incomes from those properties, which no doubt were expended very joyously in London, and he was ready to admit, that they were good landlords, so far as absentees could be so; but why in the name of justice and common sense, were they to be exonerated from vestry cess at the expense of the clergy? Why, in short, was this tax to fall alone upon the clergy, and why were the lay proprietors of all sorts to be exempted from it? It had been said in justification of the conduct of Parliament interfering with the Church property in Ireland, that the Church derived its property from the authority of Parliament. Now, though that assertion had been very generally made, he would say that there was no proposition more unfounded in point of fact, of history, and of parliamentary law. The Church of
1364
England and Ireland derived its property originally from private grants, or from grants of the Crown. It was true that at the time of the Reformation that property passed from one church to another, but it did not pass by the authority of an Act of Parliament. The national creed was changed—the consequence of which was, that old existing abuses were removed. He had used the word "changed" in order not to give offence, but the cheer he had heard called upon him to speak with more accuracy—it was not a change of the national faith in the proper sense of the word, it was a recurrence to first principles, such as they were told had been the case in the instance of the Reform Bill in modern days. There were not above 200 of the clergy at that time who did not become assenting parties to the reformed faith. The Church property therefore was not taken from one set of men to be given to another. Those who held that property, with the exception of 200, altered their views as to religion, accepted the reformed creed, and transmitted that property to their successors, who did not hold it under the authority of an Act of Parliament, The only property that was so transferred was the property of the monasteries. That property had been forfeited to the Crown, and the Crown made disposition of it afterwards—but even that property had been alienated from the Church, and on the suppression of the monasteries, the monastic property became vested in the Crown. The great body of the Church property the Church held still under the original endowments, and not by Act of Parliament; and what they take under grants from the Crown they take no more under Act of Parliament than any private grant of the Crown. The same thing that took place in England at the Reformation also took place in Ireland. The reformed faith was proposed to the clergy of the Church of Ireland, and they accepted it in a convention of the clergy. The property there did not change hands. The Protestant clergy of Ireland held their titles, their property, upon the same tenure, and no other, that private individuals held their property, and he would ask, whether it was a principle of constitutional legislation to interfere with, in the manner proposed, and to take away, the property of the Church, any more than it was a principle of legislation to take away their property from private individuals? If

1365
such a principle as that were once to be acted upon, might not the private property of individuals be the next object aimed at? Might it not be said that there were a great many Lords in England who possessed in their hands much too large estates, and that such a state of things required reformation? It might, with as much reason and justice, be contended that such property could be interfered with by Parliament, as that the Legislature could interfere with the property of the Church. But it was said, that the Legislature had interfered with the Church property in the instances of the restraining and enabling statutes. But let it be recollected that the restraining statutes were enacted for the purpose of preventing Churchmen from alienating their property to the prejudice of their successors. But in order that the present possessor might have a fair enjoyment of the property, he was enabled to a certain extent to make a lease binding on his successor. But surely there was nothing in these acts to warrant the principle now contended for. They were made for the preservation of Church property, for the successor, and the beneficial enjoyment of it by the person in possession. The present measure went to take away a proportion of the property from both. There was nothing to be found in the annals of legislation to warrant, much less to justify, such an interference with property. It was quite a mockery in the noble Lord to say, that he substituted one tax in lieu of another, when that which had heretofore been paid by the clergy under the name of first fruits was not one-thousandth part of the tax about to be imposed, and it was under the colour of such a mockery as that—that the House was called upon to plunder the Church. He had hitherto considered the case as one to be regulated by precedent, he would now with the permission of the House consider it on the ground of expediency. Upon the mere ground of expediency he would deny that such a measure was called for, or could be justified. The first result of the imposition of this tax upon the clergy of Ireland would be, that it would lead to the dismissal of a large number of the curates. This must follow because it would be utterly impracticable for the rectors, should the Bill pass, to pay them. This he was enabled to state, not merely on his own view of the subject, but from extensive
1366
information derived from his communications with the clergy. The next consequence would be disabling the clergy from performing those offices of humanity and charity to which their duty not more than their inclination prompted them. The clergyman was often, if not the only resident gentleman in the parish, the only one to whom the poor felt they had a right to look up to for relief and assistance, and he would venture to say, there never was a body of men that had more generosity, or had more faithfully discharged their duties, than the established clergy in Ireland. Any hon. Member who had resided in that country was competent to bear testimony to the character of the clergy which he had then given. The next results of the measure would be reducing the clergyman from that station in society which in a country circumstanced as Ireland was, it was most necessary he should occupy. There were two other results to which he felt it necessary to allude. It was with reluctance he touched upon them, but he did so merely to show that they had not escaped his attention, while at the same time he wished to press them upon the notice of the Government and the House, as matters well worthy of their most serious consideration. One of the most disastrous results to be expected from the passing of this measure would be the exciting of universal dissatisfaction among the Protestants of Ireland. If dissatisfaction and disgust should be excited among them at the passing of this measure—and such a result was sure to follow its enactment—was it not to be apprehended that the Protestants of Ireland would begin to doubt as to the utility of the legislative Union? To those apprehensions it should be added, that this measure not only violated the coronation oath, but also directly violated that act of the Legislature under which the union of the two countries under the Crown was established. Was it too much to suppose that the Protestants of Ireland, hitherto the firmest supporters of that Union, should join with those who called for its repeal? He did not like to dwell upon the subject, or suggest what his fears led him to anticipate, but when the petitions with which he had been intrusted should be laid before the House, hon. Members might judge for themselves what grounds he had for entertaining such apprehensions. If the Protestants of Ireland should find

1367
their sovereign violate his coronation oath and those principles which had established his family upon the Throne, where they had been maintained by those very Protestants, might they not consider themselves Treed from the reciprocal obligations which had been imposed upon them? These were times of liberal opinions. He did not teach such doctrines, but others might be found who would call upon the Protestants of Ireland to act upon them. If this measure should lead to a separation of the two Legislatures, without a separation of the Crown, what then would become of the absentee property? It had been already stated in Ireland, on authority of great weight, which even the noble Lord would not question, that no man should hold property in the two countries—that, in point of fact, he must be put to his election. One of the first results, therefore, of a Repeal of the Union must be, that the absentee landholder must give up his land, or if not it would be taken from him. He threw out these observations for the consideration of the House and the Government. Let the House not shut its eyes to the fact, that these were critical times, and with regard to Ireland particularly so. If the Protestants of Ireland should be disgusted with the legislative enactments of that House, there was an end at once of the Union. He felt that the present measure was the commencement of a system that must lead to the overthrow of the Established Church in Ireland—it was the commencement of a bit by bit system of spoliation—and he would implore the House, therefore, before it put its hand to such a work, to reflect upon what the prosperity of this country hitherto had been with a national religion; to consider that this country had been made by Providence the first amongst the nations while it possessed an established religion and a National Church. Let them try what experiments they pleased in politics—but let them not try the awful experiment how far a nation could prosper without a religion. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by saying he should not move his Amendment upon the first Resolution, but should reserve it for the second, which involved the principle of he measure.
Mr. Prymeexpressed his surprise at the arguments which had just been addressed to the House. In his opinion, the Legislature had a perfect right to deal with
1368
Church property, if they did so for the public benefit. The hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the imposition of a tax upon the clergy as equivalent to taking away the estates of an individual. There was, however, no similarity between the two cases. The estates of private individuals were gained, either by the industry of the present possessors, or by the industry and services of their ancestors; whilst the income of the clergy was a stipend paid for public services. They were public functionaries as much as the Judge or the Minister of State, and as such were under the control and superintendence of the Legislature. The hon. Member was mistaken in the history which he had given of the First-Fruits. The fact was, they were taken by the Legislature from the Pope, and converted to the use of the clergy themselves. That was what he supposed the hon. and learned Member would call an act of spoliation. The hon. and learned Member had said much as to the value of livings in Ireland being exaggerated. That, however, if correct, had little to do with the question. If the income of the clergy were less than had been stated, the only result would be this, that the produce of the imposition would be less than what was contemplated. The argument, that the imposition of a tax upon Church property was equivalent to an alienation appeared to him most futile. Had they not repeated and repeated instances of peculiar taxes affecting peculiar species of property? Had they not some taxes which affected personal property only—others, the burthen of which was borne by the landed proprietors? Why, therefore, he should like to know, was Church property alone to remain untaxed? The intimation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given of the course about to be taken by the Protestants of Ireland, if this Bill passed, was rather remarkable. They had certainly heard the same threat from other quarters; but that the intimation should also have proceeded from the hon. and learned Gentleman did much surprise him. He could scarcely have expected to hear that the Orangemen of Ireland were about to throw themselves into the arms of those who had hitherto been their bitterest opponents, and become active agitators for the Repeal of the Union between England and Ireland. He was sure there was no fear of the Protestants believing that it would be their inter-

1369
est to dissolve the Union between the two countries, in order to have sitting in Dublin a parliament of Catholics, or nearly so (for such certainly would be a parliament returned by a population four-fifths of which were Catholics), and whose first act would most probably be the total abolition of the Protestant religion. The hon. and learned Member would in vain endeavour to persuade the House that such were the feelings of the Protestants in Ireland. It was utterly impossible they could be so silly—it was utterly impossible they could so forget the interests of the religion to which they were so strongly attached, as for one moment to contemplate a measure fraught with such consequences. In the eulogy which the hon. and learned Gentleman pronounced upon the Protestant clergy in Ireland he most fully concurred, and he should give his humble support to the Resolutions proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, not alone because they were beneficial to the interests of the inhabitants of Ireland, but because he believed they would promote the interests of the clergy themselves.
Sir John Hanmersaid, that he should not honestly discharge his duty to his constituents if he did not take an early opportunity of entering his most decided protest against the Resolutions of the noble Lord. He presumed that these Resolutions were to be viewed as a prelude to a bill similar in its provisions to that which had already been under the consideration of the House. If so, he could only say, that the House was now called upon to assent to propositions which affirmed the right of the King upon the Throne to violate his Coronation Oath—to violate the provisions of the Act of Union, all the established principles for the protection of property; and, more than he had language to express—went to unsettle all the rights and equities of society. This being his view of the question, he had risen thusearly, young and unknown as he was, to declare his sentiments. From the mistakes already made in the introduction of the measure which had been withdrawn, the House would see that this was no ordinary matter of legislation that they were engaged in. If the delay that had occurred should have the effect of palling and blunting the prevailing appetite for change, it would have been well that the necessity for these Resolutions had been created. By these Resolutions it was proposed to lay a tax upon one portion of their fellow-
1370
subjects. For this purpose it was proposed to exercise the power of Parliament—a power, which, no doubt. Parliament, possessed, because it would be obeyed, although, constitutionally speaking, it was only when Parliament acted justly that its real power existed. Now, he stood there in his place in Parliament, to deny, in the broadest manner, that there was any principle of justice in these Resolutions. The other night the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had refused his assent to a graduated Property-tax. How, then, could the noble Lord reconcile his opinion upon that question with his course upon the present occasion, when he was proposing a graduated tax upon the property of the Church? He had not yet heard the reasons of the noble Lord, but he did not expect to find them satisfactory. He repeated, that he stood there to oppose these Resolutions upon broad constitutional grounds, as a violation of the Coronation Oath, the Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain, and all the principles of equity and the rights of property, which were the boast of the English Constitution. But, leaving these considerations out of the account, he was prepared to contend that, if these Resolutions affected the welfare of the Church, the House was called upon not to pass them without adequate information upon which to guide their judgment, either as to the ratio of imposition upon ecclesiastical incomes, or the necessity of such imposts. Why had the country been agitated for two years, and brought to the brink of a giddy steep, from which it made the mind giddy with terror to look down? Was it not to establish this principle—that no man should have his property taken from him, or his rights invaded, without having an opportunity of being heard in defence of his interests? Yet had the Parliament not sat two months when a measure, framed in a spirit of despotism and tyranny, for the invasion of property, was introduced. Dignities and Prelacies, were the avowed, undisguised, objects of the pursuit of the noble Lord. He would now only ask Ministers to pause and reflect before they committed a gross and wanton spoliation upon the property of the Church. Their proposed taxation upon the Church would be neither more nor less than an act of tyrannous spoliation; and when once Church property was so treated, no man's private property could be secure for a single hour. In fact, he

1371
believed that the winter's snow would not be more evanescent than the property of the Church if the Bill, as it was contemplated by Ministers, should pass into a law. If that were carried, it would be, as it were, the fulcrum on which they would lean to move every other species of property; and, as such, he would give these Resolutions and the Bill to be founded upon them his most strenuous and decided opposition. Thanking the House for the patience with which they had heard him, he would not further trespass on their attention.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the argument drawn from the 5th article of the Act of Union had been relied on by Mr. Canning, and refuted by Mr. Brougham. In 1825, Mr. Canning had called on the clerk to read the article on a Motion of the member for Middlesex relative to the Church. Mr. Brougham observed that the two Churches were to be united in "Government, discipline, and faith." Temporalities were not mentioned. "Expressum fucit cessare taciturn." The framers of the Act of Union could not have omitted the word "temporalities" without a purpose. He thought that this observation was conclusive, unless "discipline and government" were a periphrase for riches, and in the vocabulary of ecclesiastics "faith" was synonymous with gold. He was the worst enemy of the Union who relied on it to sustain the Establishment, and he was the worst enemy of the English who associated it with the Irish Church, it was a junction of the fresh and living with the decomposed and dead, which did not vivify the one, but contaminated and imparted mortality to the other. The member for the University of Dublin had used some menacing intimations. He had threatened the Government with the anger of the Irish Protestants, and hinted that they might throw off their allegiance. Surely the hon. Gentleman, the Representative of the subordination and peaceful habits of a learned and tranquil body, did not mean to say, that Protestant loyalty was the result of Protestant monopoly—that the devotedness to England of that respectable body was of a mercenary character, and that their attachment to their Sovereign was derived from the meanest of all motives, and was little else than the sordid product of pecuniary calculation. He had given notice of an Amendment involving the great question of the right
1372
of the State to legislate for the Church; but another Gentleman having given a similar notice before him, he thought it due to courtesy to give way to that hon. Gentleman. The measures of the Government, besides, rested on the right of appropriation, and the principle was implied. He should apply himself to that question. It was plain to him that the property of a Corporation rested on a title as distinct from that of an individual as the nature of an individual was distinct from that of a Corporation, which was the mere creature of the law, and owed its entire existence to the law. Passing from theory to authority, the highest was to be found in favour of Church reform. Paley laid it down, that the chances being equal that the religion of the majority is as good as that of the Magistrate, the Magistrate ought to consult the religion of the people, and not his own. Warburton said, that the Church exists only for the benefit of the State. "Hence," he said in his Alliance of Church and State, "may be seen why the Episcopal is the Established Church of England and the Presbyterian in Scotland, and the equity of the conversion. Hence the duration of the Alliance. When the Church loses its superiority of extent, the Alliance becomes void; the united Church being no longer able to perform its part of the convention, the State becomes disengaged, and a new Alliance is of course contracted with the now prevailing Church." He expressed himself still more strongly in a note to Clarendon's Rebellion, where, observing on the demand of the Parliament for the alienation of Church lands, he said, that, "the State may resume what the State originally gave." But what had been the practice of all Europe? Peter the Great seized all the property of the Greek Church, and its functionaries were paid from the treasury. The Emperor Joseph seized all the Church property in his dominions. In Prussia, and all the German States, the clergy were paid out of the public coffers. Arthur Young, in his Travels through Italy, said, "Tithes have been abolished in Tuscany, the estates of the priests, with a slight land-tax, have been found adequate to all the purposes of religion, and almost universally through the Italian States the property of the Church is considered as the property of the State." in Adam Smith's chapter "on the Sovereign," in his Wealth of Nations, he said, "in several Protestant

1373
countries, particularly the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, the revenue which anciently belonged to the Roman Catholic Church—the tithes and Church land—has been found a fund suffcient, not only to afford competent salaries to the established clergy, but to defray, with little or no addition, all the other expenses of the State. The Magistrates of the powerful canton of Berne, in particular, have accumulated, out of the savings of this fund, a very large fund, supposed to amount to several millions." Here was a series of strong examples amounting to authority. Was all that spoliation? Had these changes been followed by the invasion of private property? Had convulsions ensued? Those who predicted would do well to look back. The French Revolution would probably be referred to. But what took place before it? The property of the Knights Templars had been seized. It was a constant custom to apply the revenues of Bishoprics to State purposes This was not spoliation before—was it after the Revolution? It was remarkable that Abbe Maury, in resisting the seizure of the French Church property, had relied upon it that it was the property of the poor. But come to England. He should commence with a very recent example. The revenue of the Church of Durham had lately been applied to the establishment of a university. Was this an ecclesiastical purpose? Had mathematics anything to do with mysteries, algebra with theology, chemistry with the Church Establishment? Alchymy had indeed "converso in pretium Deo." This was a strong case. The consent of the prebends was nothing. They could not consent and bar their successors, and plunder the Corporation, if the principles of churchmen were well founded. But go back to the fountain head of English legislation. Edward 1st determined to tax the clergy; Pope Boniface issued a Bull, setting forth strong conservative doctrines—the entire argument on spoliation may be found in this famous document. The British King being put by excommunication out of the pale of the Church, put the clergy out of the pale of the law. The latter gave way and paid the tax. In Rymer's Fœdera would be found the formal recognition of the Bishops in the time of Edward 2nd, that the temporalities of the see came from and belonged to the Crown. In the reign of Edward 3rd Wickliffe appeared. The
1374
Protestants accounted him the precursor of the Reformation, and beheld in his mind the dawn of that light which afterwards grew to the full splendour of day. He translated the Bible, and called on the clergy to obey its precepts. He insisted on the doctrine which the Irish Catholics now maintain—that the Church was under the control of the Legislature, and its possessions might be appropriated. That charge was set forth in the 9th article exhibited against him. In the 15th of Richard 2nd was passed the statute providing that a certain portion of the tithes should be given out of impropriate benefices to the poor. This statute was renewed in the 4th of Henry 4th, In the 6th year of that King's reign the Commons addressed the King, and entreated him to seize a part of the Church revenues. The Archbishop of Canterbury was present when the Address was presented, and, on his observing that the clergy spent their days and nights in praying for the weal of the State, the Speaker said, with a smile, "He feared that his Grace's prayers would make but a slender supply." He would speak next of the Reformation. The reign of Henry 8th was too notorious to require comment; but, in the succeeding reign, the Bishopric of Durham was seized by the Crown, and the Act confiscating the lands belonging to charities was passed. In the reign of Mary the right of the Legislature to seize Church property was recognized, and the titles of the purchasers of the monastic estates were confirmed. Every one knew that Elizabeth had possessed herself of the revenues of several Bishoprics; but observe the effect of the first statute of her feign. The whole Catholic hierarchy were ejected, with the exception of the Bishop of Llandaff, who was called "the calamity of his see." There was a direct transfer of the property of one Church to that of another Church, not with, but against, the consent of the incumbents; for they were all stripped of their authority, of their means of life, and thrown on the world. James 1st possessed himself, with one grasp, of the entire tithes of Scotland. He would next turn to the Church history of that country. His first extract should be from Robertson's third book. He said, "that in December, 1561, a convention of estates was held chiefly on account of ecclesiastical affairs. After much contention the following plan was approved of by a

1375
majority of voices, and acquiesced in even by the popish clergy themselves. An exact account of ecclesiastical benefices through the kingdom was appointed to be taken. The present incumbents, to whatever party they adhered, were allowed to keep possession; two-thirds of their whole revenue were reserved for their own use; the remainder was annexed to the Crown; and out of that the Queen undertook to assign a sufficient maintenance for the Protestant clergy." It was of great importance to consider the doctrines of the great reformers of the time, the fathers of the Scotch Church. In Spottiswood's history of that Church, their tenets would be found. An ecclesiastical Council appointed for the purpose reported to the Parliament a form of doctrine and of discipline. The words in Spottiswood were these: "The 5th head, concerning the provision of ministers, and distribution of the rents and possessions justly appertaining to the Church; "after providing for the clergyman and his widow, the disciples of John Knox went on thus: 'There rest two sorts of people who must be provided for out of the patrimony of the Church—to wit, the poor and the teacher of youth. The poor must be provided for in every parish, for it is a shameful thing that they should be universally contemned and despised. The poor widows, the fatherless, the impotent, maimed persons, the aged, and every one that may not work, or such persons as are fallen by occasion into decay, ought to be provided for'. In page 164 of Spottiswood, the following is stated to be the doctrine of the Church, as expressed in a second rescript:—'Two sorts of men, that is, the preachers of the word and the poor, besides schools, must be sustained from the rents of the Church, and because not only ministers, but also the poor and schools must be sustained upon tithes, we think it more expedient that deacons and common treasurers of the Church be appointed to receive the whole rents appertaining thereto than the ministers themselves. It was deserving of remark, that they rested their arguments on the canon of the Church giving the quarta pars to the poor. Such were the principles laid down at the Reformation in Scotland; and what eloquent lessons did the history of that country present to Statesmen, if they would open their hearts to the philosophy which leaches by example! From 1666
1376
to 1689 what events took place! The efforts made by the Government to inflict episcopacy on the people who repudiated the imposition, produced disaster, bloodshed, insurrection, multifarious crime. The covenant was sworn to at Lanark—the battle of Pentland-hills was fought—the Scotch were defeated—ten were hanged on the same gibbet; thirty-five were hanged at their own doors. Tortures followed—Macail was tormented, and died in a paroxysm of heroism and devotion. The cruelties of Lauderdale succeeded—the Highlanders were called from their savage hills, and quartered on the western counties—Sharpe was murdered in open day, and pierced in the arms of his daughter, who shrieked in vain for mercy—tbe battle of Bothwell-bridge was fought—a reign of terror commenced—Courts-martial, high Courts of novel judicature, were established—blood flowing in torrents—a country covered with soldiers and banditti—misery unspeakable—famine, pestilence, and anguish, were beheld on every side! At last a great event fell out; the Revolution took place, and on the 22nd of June 1689, the following Act of Parliament was passed: "Act Abolishing Episcopacy." It enacted, 'Whereas the estates of this kingdom declared that prelacy is and hath been a great and in-supportable grievance to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people, and therefore ought to be abolished, our Sovereign Lord and Lady do hereby abolish episcopacy; and the King and Queen's Majesty do declare, that they will settle by law that Church government in this kingdom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people'. He had gone through a great deal of citation, and would limit himself to two references more. He would carry them across the Atlantic. In Canada, a case of most peculiar and powerful illustration was presented. By treaty, on the cession of that province, the Roman Catholic Church was declared to be the established one. The revenues of the Church were made payable to the Catholic clergy. That treaty was confirmed by the 14th of George 3rd. Well, what was done? The Protestants were exempted from the payment of tithes on those estates which they purchased from Roman Catholics. The mere sale was sufficient to discharge the property from all ecclesiastical impost if it passed to the hands of

1377
a Protestant. This was not accounted spoliation—this wasconsidered quite legitimate and just. The feelings of Protestants were not to be outraged by a payment to a Roman Catholic establishment. There was no plunder here. If this were wise and just on the banks of the St. Lawrence, how did the principle change on the banks of the Shannon? Did it depend on the latitude, or was it supposed that the Catholic millions of Ireland were less sensitive to wrong, and less alive to humiliation, than the Protestants who were located in the Canadian forests? But having thus sought for examples through the world, it might be asked, whether he could find none in his own country? The precedent of 1735 was universally known. The Irish Parliament passed a resolution against the tithe of agistment, and that resolution was turned into an Act of Parliament at the time of the Union in 1800. That Act had since been violated, and the tithe composition deprived the Irish gentry of a privilege which they had made matter of stipulation. He conceived that the tithe of agistment was virtually imposed by the Composition Act, because all land was now brought within the Act, and pasturage was formerly exempt. But the great point was this, that the Legislature had in Ireland directly interfered with the Church property, and stripped the clergy at once of a large share of their profits. Those accumulated facts established beyond all doubt the constant interference in almost every country with ecclesiastical possessions, and it only remained that the Legislature should, in the present circumstances of the country, act boldly and frankly on the principle which must obviously afford the basis of their enactments. A compromise among themselves would avail nothing. They must build their legislation on some principle, and what could it be except the right of appropriating the surplus revenues of the establishment? Let them say so—let them make proclamation of this principle, and it would do more for the pacification of the country than a whole code of rigorous laws could accomplish.
Mr. Halcombsaid, that he entered upon the discussion fully impressed with a sense of its overwhelming importance. He thought, however, that he should be able to show to the House that the proposed measure was unjust, inexpedient, unconstitutional, and, indeed, contrary to the
1378
law of the country. It was a measure which, if he understood the Resolution before the House, was intended to do away with two alleged grievances; namely, the First Fruits and the Vestry-cess. Now the First Fruits did not amount to more than 321 l. per annum for the last thirty-one years, and the amount of the Church cess applicable to the Church, was not quite 17,000 l. per annum, although the total amount might be from 60,000 l. to 70,000 l But the House should recollect that the Vestry-cess was a tax from which the Irish clergy had always been exempted, and he, therefore, asked whether it would be fair or just on the part of the Legislature to remove an impost of about 55,000 l. from the proprietors of land, and place it on the shoulders of the ecclesiastical establishment? The Vestry cess was a tax which was paid, not by the Roman Catholic tenants, but out of the land; and hence it followed that, if the tax were removed, the remission would go as so much in abatement of the charges on the landlord, instead of his being, as the law intended, subject to the support of the poor in a country where there were no Poor-laws, It was also applicable to the payment of parochial officers, and the building and repairing of churches; and he could not help, therefore, protesting against a change by which the burthen was to be removed from the landed proprietors to be imposed upon the working clergy. He denied the right of interference with Church property, which the House assumed, and contended, that the course proposed to be taken by his Majesty's Government was neither based in justice nor founded upon expediency. He could not but concur with the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, that such a measure would only tend to alienate the affections of the Protestants of Ireland from the government of this country. He did not mean, that the Protestants would go about promulgating sedition, but they certainly would find it their interest to support a Repeal of the Union; for, being left unprotected, they would have no alternative but to yield to the powerful agitation that was allowed to exist in that country, and to the suppression of which the energies of the Government ought to be directed. By the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, he understood that it was intended to apply any surplus that might

1379
remain out of the revenues of the Church, after paying the clergymen of the establishment, to purposes of public utility; but to a proposition so monstrous, and, he would add, so contrary to law, he for one never could agree; for he was prepared to contend, that by law, Church property was exempt from direct taxation, and that that House had no power to apply its revenues for other than ecclesiastical purposes, or without the sanction and superintendence of the clergy. This, in fact, was the amount of the compact that existed between the Monarch and the people; for was not the King by his Coronation Oath bound to preserve the clergy of the Established Church their rights and privileges? If that was not expected of his Majesty, why was the question asked, and why did his Majesty solemnly promise to do so? The present measure was in direct contradiction of that engagement into which the Monarch had entered, and he should therefore like to know how, and in what form it was, that his Majesty had signified that it was his gracious will and pleasure to place at the disposal of Parliament, the temporalities of the Church of Ireland. He wished either that the document in which such a. signification was contained should be produced, or that the noble Lord or any other Gentleman connected with the Government, should explain to the House the authority upon which the statement was founded. He spoke, of course, with profound respect for men who had exhibited so much skill in the conduct of public affairs; and not being willing to attribute improper motives to any one, he did not doubt but that he should receive. I satisfactory answer to his question. He made the inquiry, not only on his own behalf, but on that of his constituents, who were deeply interested in the subject, and who could not understand how it was, that the revenues of the Church were tobe applied for other than ecclesiastical purposes, or that ten bishoprics, on being void, were to be altogether suppressed. They could not comprehend upon what principle of justice it was, that the lands, benefits, and temporalities of the Church were to be taken from the clergy and given in perpetuity to a body who were to supply the place of the convocation; and for his own part he nuist protest against the sort of dictation which had been used to the Throne. That dictation was resorted to, for the first time, on the occasion of the
1380
Reform Bill, but he thought it most irregular, and therefore it was that he objected to the thirty-first clause of this Bill. In making these observations, he was actuated only by honest motives, and instead of opposing the Resolutions, as he felt it his duty to do, he should have gladly voted with the Government if he could have done so conscientiously, as he well knew they required the most strenuous support. A perusal of the Bill had, however, convinced him that its provisions were not only dangerous, but involved a gross violation of constitutional principle. This was a reforming age, but, however desirous he might be of conciliating the Catholics, he would not do that at the expense, not only of the Protestants, but he might say of established principle and precedent, which declared that the Church Establishment was not liable to direct taxation by that House. He could never consent to the suppression of Bishops, and placing the revenues of the Church in the hands of Commissioners, who were to be under the control of the Lord-lieutenant; and, although he was ready to admit, that Ministers had brought the measure forward in the spirit of conciliation, he yet was satisfied that it would not attain that object for them; but, on the contrary, tend to alienate the Protestants from the Government, and lead ultimately to the final separation of the two countries by the system of miserable and diabolical agitation to which he had already alluded.
Mr. Warrewas surprised at the opinions he had heard to-night respecting the violation of the King's Coronation Oath, if he should consent to this measure. It seemed to him that there was no pretence for using any such argument. If he wanted authority to justify him in his opinion he might find it in the sentiments expressed by the Protestant Bishop of Llandaff, who, in writing to a friend in 1805, said, when mentioning this subject, "The Coronation Oath is a confirmation of the promises made by the King to the people. The obligation is broken when it is disregarded, though both the Parliament and the people claim its performance; it is relaxed when the people declare, through their Representatives in Parliament, that they do not require the performance of it." An hon. Member had referred to the fifth article of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, with a view of showing that a measure like the present could not receive

1381
the sanction of the Legislature without breaking the compact made at the Union. That article declared that the Churches of England and Ireland should be united in one Episcopalian Church, to be subject to the same laws; and that the arrangement then made should be taken to be a fundamental part of the Union. But was he to be told, that no alterations were to be made in institutions of human device; and that they should, under no circumstances, be revised by human authority? Could man be so arrogant, as to say, that when he once legislated, he legislated for ever? Eternity and immutability could not belong to anything connected with the institutions of man. What Parliament had done, Parliament might do again; and, however great the wisdom of our ancestors might have been, they could not legislate for ever. With respect to the Church, he trusted that he should not be thought a lax churchman, if he expressed his concurrence with Locke, in saying that a Church was a certain number of people who agreed together in a certain opinion. Elsewhere Mr. Locke had called it "a convention of men." There was a most important distinction between the Church of Christ, and the various structures that had been raised upon it. These structures being formed by men, must depend on their opinions. And on this point he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, that it was necessary to keep before their minds the fact, that that which was the true Church on one side the Tweed, was not the true Church on the other side. When, therefore, they talked of the "true Church," it must be remembered that that must depend upon the preponderating opinion of the majority of the community. It must also depend upon the feelings of the people, whether or not alterations should be made in the doctrines and discipline of the Church. He could not help feeling that the Church of England would have rested upon a much more secure foundation if the articles of that Church had been revised as from time to time had been recommended by some of the brightest of its ornaments; for instance, by Patrick, Talbot, Burnett, and others. He was sure that if this had taken place, when it was first proposed, it would have attracted a more numerous body of adberents to the Establishment. Some parts of the Litany might be altered with advantage
1382
to the Church, although he was of opinion that, altogether, it was the most beautiful form of human prayer that was extant. He felt anxious to state his opinion upon this point, as it was a subject in which he felt deeply interested. It had been truly said, that religion made the Church, and not the Church religion. It had also been remarked by a distinguished author "That whether we look to the Established Church, or any other institution, it must be remembered that we live in days when establishments are regarded and maintained, with a view to their utility, and not merely with regard to their antiquity." The truth was, that, in these days, it was necessary to act on sound principles. If the right hon. member for Tamworth had been present he should have reminded him of Bacon's expression, that "Laws which are not revised, are apt to grow sour." The House should seriously set about a reform in those institutions, into which abuses had imperceptibly been introduced. He had no doubt that a Reformed House of Commons would apply an effectual remedy to such abuses. With respect to the scale of taxation, which his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed, by a slight alteration, it would be materially improved. It was suggested that there should be no charge upon a living of less than 200 l. a-year; and that there should be a charge of five per cent, upon livings between 200 l. and 500 l. a-year. It was objectionable, that while the man with 200 l. a-year paid nothing, the man with 205 l. a-year should have to pay five per cent. That, in many instances, would operate as an inducement to the suppression of the truth. The difficulty, if not altogether removed, would be, to a considerable degree, obviated, by charging a small per-centage on livings between 200 l. and 300 l. a-year; and a per-centage of larger amount on livings of between 300 l. and 400 l.; and again, an increased per-centage on livings of between 400 l. and 500 l. a-year. With respect to the general plan of his Majesty's Ministers, it had his cordial approbation. It was impossible to avoid introducing an efficient reform as regards the Church establishment in Ireland? and the present moment was the best period for effecting it.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that he too thought some change was necessary, but the plan proposed by Ministers was not sufficiently

1383
extensive; it ought to have embraced the abolition of tithes. The hon. member for Dover objected to it for going too far, he objected to it as not going far enough. The Church of Christ must be distinguished from the different Churches that had been founded upon it by the will of men. The Church establishment was a human institution, and as such must require change. Church establishments had been first established by Constantine; they had been marked in their progress with the existence of tithe-proctors, and the course of these persons had, in all countries, occasioned the tears of the widow and the orphan, and might now be traced in the blood of Ireland, which was yet reeking with the slaughter of her citizens. It was unjust to tax a whole; country to support doctrines which its population disavowed; and it was against all reason to suppose that seven millions and a half of Irishmen should willingly continue to pay tithes for the support of a Church to which in sentiment they were opposed. The attempt to make them continue this payment was absurd, as well as unjust, and must fail. To enforce it, a standing army was necessary. There could be no reduction of the burthens of this country—no reduction of the establishments, so long as they were determined to collect the tithes of Ireland. He wished for a reduction of the establishments—it was what the people expected; and as one of the most certain means of obtaining that end, he would move in the progress of the measure a resolution to the effect, that, after the death of the present incumbents, the revenues of the Church of Ireland should be thrown into the general mass of the public property.
Mr. Macaulay,after stating, that he felt considerably embarrassed in rising to address the House on the present occasion, proceeded to say, that he had two species of opposition to contend against—that of those hon. Gentlemen who did not conceive the Bill went far enough, and that of those who either considered that it went too far, or of those who believed that such a measure never should have been entered upon at all. Now, with respect to the first, he was glad, at least, to learn from the hon. and learned Member opposite, that the Bill was satisfactory so far as it went, and that it would not have, in fact, been equally judicious, if at present it did go further. On this opinion of the
1384
hon. and learned Gentleman he was willing to rest his defence of the Ministers for having gone no further. He was heartily glad that the hon. and learned member for Tipperary had withdrawn his notice of Motion, which stood upon the books; and he wished sincerely that that hon. and learned Gentleman's example might prevail with others, and induce them in like manner to withdraw the Motions they had announced. He conceived that it was a matter of extreme importance that this measure should be carried; and he felt that the difficulty of carrying it would be most considerably increased if it were made stronger. He consequently should, if it were necessary, feel no difficulty in moving the previous question, should the hon. Member not consent to withdraw his Amendment. He had now, however, to approach the other species of opposition against which he had to contend, and which was much the more formidable of the two—namely, that the Bill went too far, or rather, that it proceeded on an erroneous principle. Among those who had supported this view of the subject, the hon. and learned member for Dover had contended, that if his Majesty should give his sanction to this measure, it would be given in direct violation of his Coronation Oath. The hon. and learned Member also said, that this measure was a violation of the rights of the Church, and of the rights of property. The argument respecting the Coronation Oath was urged when the questions of the Catholic Emancipation and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts were before the House, and he had thought that that argument had been so completely refuted on those occasions, that it would not have been brought forward again. He was, however, prepared to show that the objection had no force. It was perfectly clear, from the words of the oath, that they could not bear the construction the hon. and learned Member had put upon them. What was the oath?—that the King would maintain for the Church "all such rights as do, or by law shall appertain to the Church." The whole force of the passage rested on the word "shall." In another part of the oath his Majesty says, "We declare to govern all our people according to the Statutes agreed to in Parliament;" but surely that did not mean that his Majesty swore to govern by the Statutes actually in

1385
existence at the moment he came to the Throne. Certainly not; for if that were the sense of the passage, every Act of Parliament to which the Sovereign gave his consent, in the course of his reign, would be an act of perjury upon his part. How much less, then, was there any doubt of the wording with respect to the rights and privileges of the Church. The fact was, the passage was introduced into the oath for the purpose of guarding the Church against such acts as those which James 2nd exercised as head of the Church. The present measure contemplated no interference of that kind with the Church, and it was perfectly clear to him, that the oath had not the smallest reference to the conduct of the King in his legislative capacity, and did not bar him from giving his assent to any measure agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. Allusion had been made to the articles of the Union as if they prevented any change in the established Church of Ireland. The words of the 5th article of the Union were, that "the doctrine, discipline, worship and government of the Church are to be maintained in both countries unchanged. If this measure were passed, all those things would be unchanged." No alteration was to be made in the Articles, the Book of Common Prayer was untouched, and the discipline would still be episcopal, the Archbishops and Bishops would retain all their authority, and the doctrine and discipline would be unaltered. Would it be said, that the union of certain sees in Ireland made any difference in the doctrine, discipline, worship, or government of the Church? He should suppose not. If so, all the fundamental principles of the government of the Church of England were compromised by the junction between the sees of Lichfield and Coventry. Nor were they destroying the Church of Ireland by arrangements contained in the Bill for a different distribution of Church property. Such arrangements had been frequently made by the Legislature. The present case was a parallel to the case of London after the fire. The number of parishes then destroyed was eighty-seven, and soon afterwards an Act passed by which they were consolidated, and reduced to fifty-one, and a commutation of tithes for a fixed money-payment was also ordained. Indeed local Acts of a similar description were continually passed, and every one of them was as much
1386
the destruction of the Church of England as this Bill would be, were it to become a law to-morrow. It had next been asserted that the rights of property had been attacked by this Bill; this, he maintained, was an assertion; if it could be proved, he would give up the Bill. The right of property was of immense importance. To preserve that, Kings, and Parliaments, and Coronation Oaths, all existed. For that alone, law was made. Admitting the momentous nature of this consideration, he denied, that the rights of property had been attacked by the framers of the Bill. No necessity existed which should induce Ministers to infringe on those sacred rights. On the contrary. Ministers felt bound to defend to the utmost the institution of property, believing, as they did, that it was to that institution mankind were indebted for the origin and the progress of civilization—believing that it was in consequence of that institution that we were not now, like our rude ancestors, naked and painted bodies, savages feeding upon acorns and sheltering ourselves in caves. They felt, however, at the same time, that in the institution of property there were many anomalies and evils; and yet these anomalies and evils were not only willingly, but cheerfully borne by the many, in consideration of the manifold blessings which the institution of property conferred upon society at large. He would admit, too, that the anomalies in the distribution of the property of the Church of Ireland were not greater than in the distribution of lay property in other countries. It was an anomaly, that a young man who had never served the commonwealth either with head or hand should hold possession of half a county, while other men, who had deserved well of the State in arts and arms, were left without an acre; and yet this was cheerfully endured by all, rather than derange the settled order of things. This was as great an anomaly as existed between the revenues of the Archbishop of Armagh and the poorest working curate. But, as mankind found no argument in the former for attacking all property, so the latter could supply no inducement to attack the property of the Irish Church. But, the more sacred he regarded the right of property, the more care did it require that the right should not be enfeebled and contaminated by abuses. It was by protecting the abuses with which it was mingled that

1387
the institution itself was brought into disrepute. The House had heard from an eloquent voice, which, alas! they would never hear again, some opinions upon the subject of the institution of property, to which he entirely subscribed. He alluded to his excellent and accomplished friend, the late Sir lames Mackintosh, who in one of the discussions on the Reform Bill, while he supported in the strongest way the institution of property, denied that it was fortified by the abuses which had accumulated around it. He said: 'Of all doctrines which threaten the principle of property, none more dangerous was ever promulgated, than that which confounds it with political privilege. None of the disciples of St. Simon, or of the followers of the ingenious and benevolent Owen, have struck so deadly a blow at property, as those who would reduce it to the level of the elective rights of Gatton and Old Sarum. Property, the nourisher of mankind, the incentive of industry, the cement of human society, will be in a perilous condition, if the people be taught to identify it with political abuses, and to deal with it as being involved in their impending fate.'* He entirely concurred in those observations, and objected strongly to those who cried out that the institution of property was endangered by removing-any of the abuses that had gathered about it. He believed the Government were most anxious to preserve the institution of property; but he thought that the best and truest friends of the institution of property had little reason to be obliged to those who talked of Old Sarum as being property, and vested rights existing in it; and of the anomalies and abuses of the Irish Church being sacred property. He wished to have it understood, at the same time, that he allowed an incumbent had a right of property in his benefice, but not of the same species with the right to landed property. The incumbent was a proprietor, but he was also a public functionary; and his rights in the former capacity were controlled by his duties in the latter. He held this property, as subject not only to the existing regulations, but also to such as the Legislature might choose hereafter to impose. The hon. Gentlemen opposite must allow that, unless they were prepared to charge a number of former Parliaments
* Hansard (third series) iv. p. 685.
1388
with spoliation, and many of the noblest characters whose names graced our history with having encouraged schemes of robbery, there was nothing in this Bill which could authorise the allegations which had been thrown out against it. It was not a spoliation of individuals; it was not a confiscation of property. It did not legalize rapine and plunder. If that were its character, what must the Act of Supremacy have been? That Act deprived Clergymen who took orders under previous circumstances, of their benefices. It was true they were not married, for that was not permitted; but they might have incurred debts, and involved themselves in pecuniary obligations. Yet, without any regard to their possible situation, the Parliament passed an Act of expulsion against any clergyman who refused to acknowledge the supremacy of Queen Elizabeth. He was aware that few clergymen were affected by that Act, because the great majority took the oath; but one instance of a clergyman expelled was as complete an illustration of the principle as a hundred. That Act was passed when the opinions of men were loose and unsettled, but nevertheless that House would not condemn an Act by which the Reformation was firmly established in England. Again, at the time of the Restoration, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, the Prayer Book was altered. It was changed from that which it had been in the reigns of James 1st, and Charles 1st; and those clergymen who might conscientiously object to the new Prayer Book, were liable to be turned out of their benefices. The Clergymen were all told, that if they did not, before a fixed day—and that day was St. Bartholomew—notify their assent to the new Prayer Books, they would be ejected from the Church. The consequence was, that several thousands of the clergy were obliged to abandon their livings, and the Church lost several distinguished men. He admitted, that the authority of many exemplary and excellent individuals was given, to add weight to the principles of this Act; and that it received the sanction of Sheldon, of Juxon, and of other equally celebrated men. That Act was either one of direct spoliation, or else there was an absolute distinction between Church property and other property: since the proprietors of benefices were deprived of their property, for refusing to conform to certain prescribed regulations which were not

1389
enforced until long after they were in possession of their benefices. He would not dwell on the changes at the Revolution, but he would come to an Act passed in our own time, introduced by one who could not be accused of any wish to lessen the right to church property—the late Mr. Perceval—and followed up and perfected by Lord Harrowby. According to the principles laid down to-night, this must have been as complete a spoliation of property as ever was committed. It provided, that all non-resident clergymen should, under certain circumstances, pay a salary to a curate, proceeding upon a graduated scale, almost similar to that re-commended in the measure now before the House. That was as much a violation of the incumbent's right of property as was contemplated by the present Bill. The right hon. member for Tamworth said, on a former debate, that if the Legislature imposed a tax on absentees, it would be neither more nor less than an act of confiscation. He said, that such a proceeding would be utterly inconsistent with the preservation of the rights of property. But, in the Bill he had just alluded to, and which was introduced by one who was a leader of the high Church party, within the last thirty years, there was either a recognition of the difference between Church property and other property; or else it was a positive confiscation of property. His own opinion of Church property was, that it was a sort of mixed property—that it was something more than salary, and something less than an estate; and no man could deny, after the cases he had quoted, that the Legislature had a right to deal with it. In one sense it might be compared to the half-pay of our army and navy. No man would say, that the total abolition of that half-pay would not be a grievous spoliation. Yet, though it was admitted to be the property of the individual, no man would deny the right of the State to regulate it in any manner it pleased. Such power had repeatedly been exercised, in changes and regulations respecting it, both in respect of the amount, and of the administration of the fund from whence it was paid, when the benefit of the service had seemed to require it. If the good of the Church, and the well-being of the community could be promoted by a new distribution of Church property, was there any reason why the Legislature should not make it—provided that exist-
1390
ing interests were honestly and liberally considered? He admitted that this measure would take something from the clergy; but in no case would it take such an amount as to reduce any of them to distress. The money to be taken from them was to be applied to purposes beneficial to the clergy themselves, and to the security of the Church in Ireland, by removing some portion of that odium, which was entertained to an alarming extent against the Establishment in that country. He did not expect to hear any hon. member of that House contend, that not filling up a vacant bishopric was a spoliation, or a violation of property. How could it? There could be no robbery where there was no person to be robbed, and there could be no injury where there was no one to be injured. The bishopric of Waterford, for instance, was vacant, and it was not the intention of Government to fill up the vacancy. To whom was the injury done here? Not to the bishop—for there was none; not to his predecessor, for he was dead; not to any of the 10,000 persons from whom a selection might be made, not one of whom would probably consider his chance of the appointment worth a sovereign. There was, then, no injury to any, unless it could be shown that those who had been under the spiritual care of the preceding bishop were to be left without future spiritual instruction; but if adequate provision were to be made on that head, there could be no injury to any party, but there would be a direct and positive good in the application of the revenues of that see to other Church purposes which required them. He had heard with astonishment the argument of the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, who maintained, "that the whole property of the Church, even for the purpose of distribution, was beyond the control of Parliament, and that no Parliament could sanction any measure of this kind without being guilty of sacrilege." He denied the truth of the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Parliament had the same power to alter and remodel, as to frame; and the Church of England had no rights, except under the Act of the Legislature. Did the hon. and learned Member say, that the unity of the Church would be destroyed by the diminution of ten Bishops in Ireland, when the whole doctrine, and discipline, and worship, continued the same? Or did

1391
he mean to say, that that unity was to be kept up only by its temporalities remaining in the same hands? Did he mean to renew the doctrine of those who once held, that the gold was to be preferred to the temple which sanctified it? Had the clergy of England been as inflexible in doctrine as some of their Bishops at the period of some of the changes of doctrine and worship to which he had already alluded, would not the whole of the Church property of the country have changed hands? What would then have been said of the identity of the Church? What would the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford say to a revision of the wills of those pious men by which the colleges which he represented had been so liberally founded, and so munificently endowed? If he contended that any interference with Church property was spoliation, as no doubt he would contend, what would he say, on referring back to the wills and donations of some of the pious founders of the colleges of Oxford? William of Wyckham; Chicheley, the opponent of the Lollards; Flemming, the enemy of Wickliffe; Cardinal Wolsey, a candidate for the Papal Throne; Sir Thomas Pope, the follower of Mary and the teacher of Elizabeth—would have burned off their hands before they left bequests which they conceived were likely to be used against the religion they professed. If any one had told any of those pious founders, that mass would soon cease to be celebrated in the chapels which they had built, and that the refectories and chambers of the halls and colleges which they had endowed, would no longer be occupied by those who acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in England, they would much rather have left their money for the education of laymen without religion than have it used for the dissemination of doctrines which they considered as atrocious heresy. He would support the measure because he thought it would tend to the peace of Ireland—to the preservation of property there—to the real benefit of the clergy. It was the beginning of a series of judicious measures of reform, which would greatly promote the interests of religion and of the Established Church. He looked upon it also as one which would be for the interest of the people of England. But, before he concluded, he was anxious to remark that one of the objections urged against the
1392
Bill was, that by reducing the number of Bishops they left no room for the expansive force of Protestantism—no machinery by which the affairs of an Enlarged Church might be administered. Ireland was about half the size of England, and she was to have half the number of Bishops which England had. If Protestantism should expand, it would have the machinery necessary for such expansion; but he owned that he did not anticipate any such expansion, with all its wealth, and power, and learning. It had not been deficient in these aids—it had not lacked the aid of whatever they could give of penal laws in its favour; and yet the Protestants of Ireland at the present day were not a fourth of the population, and of that small number more than the half did not belong to the Established Church. Compare the expansive power of Protestantism in Ireland for the last century and a half with that which existed in the 16th century. The spirit—the restless and overmastering spirit—of Protestantism wasmuch changed. That spirit which displayed itself in so eminent a degree in the 16th century, which bore it along triumphantly against Popes and Csesars, and General Councils, and Princes, and Prelates—which enabled it to subdue conquerors, and armies—made it proof against inquisitions, and dungeons, and racks, and slow fires—had fled. The heart and mind of man, supported by the enthusiasm of a pure faith, had then triumphed over all opposition against all. Within a brief period Protestantism had spread from the Vistula to the Danube; from the Pyrenees to the Frozen Ocean. The same person who heard Luther preach his first sermon against indulgences, might, without enjoying a life protracted to a great number of years, have observed Protestantism expanding itself, and established in England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the North of Germany, a part of Switzerland, and struggling in France, not for toleration, but for supremacy. But, as a Protestant, he regretted to say, that Protestantism had made comparatively little progress during the three last centuries. It remained, on the Continent, where it had reached in the days of Philip and Mary, or rather it had receded within the marks to which it had then extended. And what had already arrested its course in Ireland? Was it that the doctrines were less pure, or was it, that from the consti-

1393
tution of the human mind, as men became more and more enlightened, they were less and less capable of perceiving the pure truth? Was it that the Protestant Church in Ireland had not been supported by wealth, and dignity, and power, and by the aid of favouring and penal laws? Certainly not. How then was it? If he were a Roman Catholic, he might say, because the Catholic faith was strong in its strength, and founded on the immortality of truth; but, being a Protestant, he must look for some other reason, and inquire if they had not incumbered the Establishment by worse than superfluous helps, and whether in succeeding to the wealth and pomp of the religion of Rome, Protestantism had not become tainted with something of the languor of the old religion? Had the progress of vigorous and sound thought been arrested by that fatal languor which accounted for the want of success of a great general of antiquity, who declared he had lost more at Capua than he gained at Cannæ. How was it that the spirit of Protestantism had died out where it had been raised to honour and wealth, when it had formerly extended itself, in spite of opposition, over all the kingdoms of Europe? He would not however pursue that painful theme. For himself, at least, he must say, that he did not conceive that there could be any marvellous advantage to the cause of Protestantism, by the retention of the sees which the Bill proposed to dispense with hereafter. If Protestantism depended upon sees, there would not be a Presbyterian in Ulster, nor a Catholic in Connaught. It was time that they should try new councils, and that they should remove the grievances of the Dissenters, and restore peace to Ireland, and its just and proper powers to the Protestant Church.
Sir Robert Ingliswas compelled, by the allusion of his hon. and learned friend, to address the House on the present occasion. If he had reason, on most occasions, to request the indulgence of the House when he spoke, how much stronger reasons had he in this instance, when he rose after the able and eloquent speech which had just been delivered, and when, from indisposition, he could scarcely hope to be audible, and could not go into the subject as he could wish. He hardly expected when he came into the House that he should have been called upon to enter into a defence of the Protestant religion generally,
1394
and of the peculiar Protestant Church of our own country. His hon. and learned friend, in reference to the learned body of which he had the honour of being one of the Representatives, asked what the founders of colleges would have said had they been aware of the purposes to which the revenues they had bequeathed would be devoted. Now, the founders of these colleges certainly left their bequests for the promotion of the glory of God, and the education of the youth of this country. Was not, then, the general tendency of the Protestant religion for the last three centuries to promote the glory of God, and the instruction of the youth of this realm? If those great men had lived in our own times, there was reason to hope, that the same feelings which prompted them to found these institutions for the glory of God in their day, would have equally operated upon them in the better age of the Reformation; and they would have shared in the light and intelligence of that age, like their successors. He might ask whether Chicheley, and Wyckham, and Wainfleet, might not have been like Cran-mer, Ridley, and Latimer, and have been ready, like them, to sacrifice their lives for the pure faith when it was restored. The two last of those illustrious men, were burnt in that very city in the midst of those noble foundations, and exclaimed at the stake that the light was then kindling around them in England which never could be extinguished. His hon. and learned friend had directed his speech to the state of Ireland for the last two centuries, and had stated, that the expansive force of Protestantism, a phrase used on the first opening of this subject, was no longer apparent there. But the spirit of the Protestant Church had prevailed to a great extent in Ireland, and from the period of the Revolution to the Legislative Union, that Church was the only link between the two countries. No man could have read the history of that country without being sensible of the difficulties with which religion had to contend there. He was bound to admit—no man who had read Archbishop Boulter's letters, or knew anything of the Administration of Primate Stone, could fail to admit—that, for the sake of maintaining the connexion of the two countries (" the English interest" in Ireland, as it was always called), the churchmen of those days were, in many cases, too much secularized; and though

1395
there were splendid exceptions, their high and peculiar duties were too often overlooked. But many of these reasons ceased when the local legislature was removed; and it was from the time of the Union that he dated the spiritual foundation of the existing-Church in Ireland, Since then, reformation had been proceeding in the Church, and within the memory of many who heard him, the number of resident incumbents and ministers of the Church in Ireland had been doubled, and not less than 350 churches had been erected where churches did not exist before; further, a body of curates had been established in Ireland, exceeding in number the whole of the beneficed clergy to be found there in 1792. Moreover, wherever these churches had been erected, congregations of active and willing Protestants had been found, so that it had seemed only necessary to build a church for a congregation naturally to come to it. These churches, therefore, had not been built in the desert, or if they were, they soon formed an oasis in it, surrounded by congregations of devout communicants. in considering the expansive force which Protestantism had exerted in Ireland, it ought to be borne in mind how little had been done for it in Ireland from the time of Elizabeth downwards, compared with what had been done for the Church in England. Did the House recollect, that the bishoprics in the north of Ireland, where Protestantism was most prosperous, were not even filled up by Queen Elizabeth, with the exception of one, over which a bishop presided for two years; the queen, as the bishops fell off, appropriating the revenues to her own use. Indeed, this was not the worst particular he had to state, for not only were eight northern bishoprics kept vacant, but four were actually left in the hands of Catholic bishops for 100 years after the Reformation. Protestantism, therefore, had not the same chances of success afforded it in Ireland which were afforded it in England, and which it had a right to expect from those who called themselves the supporters of Protestantism. Short as was the speech of the noble lord, still it opened the whole question of our Church Establishment, and a most important question it undoubtedly was. The question was not now whether they should support the Protestant Church of Ireland, or the Protestantism of the university of
1396
Oxford, or whether they were to impose a graduated Property-tax on a small portion of the community without the consent of the ministers of the Church who were interested in it; the question was not as to the comparative merits of Protestantism and Catholicism, though all these subjects had been discussed. No, the immediate question was, whether an ecclesiastical Commission should be appointed to superintend the affairs of the Church. That was the practical effect of the first resolution, which alone was before the House, and which declared—" That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland should be authorized to appoint Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of carrying into effect any act that may be passed in the present Session of Parliament to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church in Ireland; and that the said Lord-lieutenant be empowered to order and appoint such salary or other emoluments as he shall deem fit to be paid to such commissioners, not being bishops." That Resolution went to divest the Crown in a great measure of the superintendence over Church property in Ireland. Hereafter that power was not to be exercised by the sworn advisers of the Crown, but by Commissioners appointed by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, To such a proposition he could not agree. Was it fitting that one of the highest functions of the Crown should be delegated to that or to any other ecclesiastical Commission? He apprehended also that those Commissioners would have it in their power to suspend the worship of Almighty God in such places as they might think proper. He denied the power of the Crown of England to suspend the exercise of the Christian faith in any place whatsoever; and if the Crown did not possess such a power, how could it be vested in Commissioners? No reason whatever had been shown for taking from the Crown its right of superintendence over Church property, and as little had been advanced to prove the necessity of contracting the number of bishoprics. He should like to know what was to be done with the patronage of the reduced sees. Was it also to be placed at the disposal of these Commissioners? Much mischief had occurred in former times from Ecclesiastical Commissions in England. There was no power to be given to this Commission

1397
which might not be better and more appropriately exercised by the Church itself, through the medium of its dignitaries. He would not then trespass further on the House, but reserve himself for discussing the details of the measure.
Mr. Finchsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned member for Leeds showed clearly enough that Ministers were not fit to undertake Church Reform. Much had been said by the hon. and learned Member as to the Protestant reformation not having been very successful in Ireland; but why was the reformation in that country so long delayed? He would answer, that it was in consequence of misgovernment. The Protestant clergy of Ireland had, however, exerted themselves with great zeal and with not a little success. They had entered on the task of disseminating education with much alacrity; and the consequence was that 200,000 Roman Catholic children were educated by their efforts. That success, too, it should be observed, was obtained in opposition to the exertions of the Roman Catholic priests. The next thing they endeavoured to do was to establish a standard of faith; and-with that view tens of thousands of copies of the Bible were distributed through Ireland; and that likewise in opposition to the exertions of the Catholic priesthood. The Irish language was also studied, and the clergy were thus enabled to preach in that language. So much for what the Protestants had done. But, on the other hand, what was the conduct of the Government? Did Ministers during the last Parliament, evince a desire to uphold that species of education in Ireland? They did not. Instead of proceeding on the old system, they had patronized a new system of education which had the good fortune to be approved of by Dr. Doyle. When Ministers thus gave their hands to the Roman Catholic party, and slighted the Protestant, was it fair for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was a member of the Government to throw the blame on the Protestant clergy? There appeared to be three parties in Ireland who viewed the Church with angry feelings. First, there were the Dissenters; nothing would satisfy them but the separation of Church and State. Second, the Roman Catholics; they expected the restoration of their church; they wished to enjoy supremacy both in Church and State. The third was the revolutionary party, who hated the
1398
Church, because through it men were taught the duties which they owed to their Creator and their country. These were not the parties that ought to be conciliated. Ministers ought, on the contrary, strenuously to support the Church party. If the incomes of any of the Bishops were too large, why, let them be diminished, but let not the Legislature cut down the number of Bishops. As vacancies occur, let men of apostolic habits, of pure morals, who had studied the Irish language, and who could, like the Bishop of Tuam, preach in that tongue,—let such men be appointed and reformation in religion would soon spread throughout Ireland. The noble Lord, in introducing his proposed alteration, had declared it was necessary on account of abuses. He would ask what abuses, for certainly the existence of no abuses had been proved?
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. member for the University of Oxford had observed, that very serious duties would devolve on those Commissioners who were not sworn servants of the King, as in them would be vested the power of superintending Church property in Ireland, which now rested with the Crown. They certainly would be armed with authority to suspend appointments in cases where duty had not been performed for three years prior to the passing of the Bill. Some new powers would undoubtedly be given to them, but not such powers as the Crown now possessed for superintending the Church property of Ireland. The hon. Member had asked what was to become of the Church patronage that now belonged to the see which it was proposed to abolish? It was the intention of the Government that such patronage should remain with the Bishop, to whose see the diocess that was no longer to possess a Bishop should be annexed. It was not intended, as the hon. Member seemed to think, to place that patronage at the disposal of the Commissioners. The Commissioners would not have any of those powers which the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine would supersede the authority of the Crown. No intention of the kind existed. The imiting of sees had not only been done in Ireland, but frequently in England, by Acts of Parliament. There was a remarkable instance of the union of Westminster with the see of London, which took place with the approbation of Cranmer and Ridley. Certainly the alteration as to the levying of the Church cess

1399
would impose a burthen upon the Church, but then it would be for solely ecclesiastical purposes. He did not feel it necessary to go further at present, confining himself as he did, to the Resolution immediately before them. When the other resolutions came successively under consideration, he should go into the details connected with them.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that if every Member who had spoken had adhered to the rule adopted by the noble Lord, and had confined himself strictly to the Resolution before the Committee, he should have been glad to follow such an excellent example. As the first Resolution was a mere resolution of form, a resolution to the effect that certain Commissioners should be appointed, and as the assenting to it would not deprive him of objecting to the appointment of such Commissioners hereafter, he should have made a shorter speech even than that of the noble Lord, had it not been that the whole debate of the night had turned upon the main object of the intended measure, contained in the Resolutions which were to follow; and as it appeared to him more convenient that they should now discuss the main question, instead of resuming the discussion upon it, with five hours and a half of debate lost, he would then enter into that discussion. He begged, before doing so, to observe, with regard to the present Resolution, that he doubted much whether they ought to establish the distinction of salaried and unsalaried Commissioners. It was plain that the ecclesiastical unsalaried Commissioners would be frequently called away to the performance of other duties; that some of them would be summoned annually to London, to attend their parliamentary duties in the House of Lords, and that therefore the whole practical work of the commission would devolve upon those salaried Commissioners who held their situations at the pleasure of the Crown. He should therefore reserve to himself the right of objecting hereafter to granting salaries to those Commissioners. He should now proceed to the main subject of the debate which had been raised by the second and third Resolutions. The second Resolution regarded the abolition of first-fruits, and the provision of a substitute in lieu thereof; and the third Resolution proposed the complete abolition of Vestry-cess. It appeared to him that it would have
1400
been a wiser and a better course of proceeding that the abolition should not take place until the substitute had been provided. In the way they were proceeding at present they were only re-acting the part which they had acted last Session, when they decided on the "extinction of tithes," without providing a substitute; and let the House mark what had been the result. Warned by that example, ought they not to take care that they did not practically put an end to Vestry-cess, from the moment they declared that it ought to be abolished. The second Resolution provided that any loss which the abolition of the Church cess might occasion should be provided for by a tax to be levied separately upon the clergy of Ireland. The noble Lord in his first speech, in introducing the Bill, calculated the Vestry-cess, the abolition of which was contemplated, at 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. a-year, and he said then that it would not be necessary to provide a substitute to a greater amount. Surely the noble Lord should recollect that there were two species of Vestry-cess—one, from the levying of which in vestry, Roman Catholics were excluded, and which was applied to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, and other strictly ecclesiastical purposes. [Here the right hon. Baronet was interrupted by a stranger, who had occupied a seat under the gallery, and who, rushing forward up the floor to the Table where the mace lay, exclaimed, "Stop, Sir Robert Peel. I beg your pardon. I declare there he turned his face to the gallery) that I am a poisoned man. I am poisoned by Earl Grey. I am a poor unfortunate Irishman, and my name is William. I came here to look for justice, and I am poisoned by Earl Grey's orders! "There were loud cries of "Order, order," during the delivery of this incoherent address, and the Chairman having called the Serjeant, the offender was removed in custody out of the House.*] A portion only of the Vestry-cess was applied strictly to ecclesiastical purposes, and before the House of Commons undertook to legislate on a matter of this nature, it ought to ascertain the exact amount of the tax to be
* At the close of the business, a medical gentleman, who had visited the individual (mentioned in the text) was called to the bar, and gave it as his opinion that he was of unsound mind. It was ordered, that he should remain for the present in custody:

1401
taken off, and the amount required from other sources to supply the deficiency. It was only that part of the cess to which he had referred, the impost in lieu of which could with any justice be laid on the Church, and that was greatly exaggerated when its amount was stated by the noble Lord at 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. a-year. It was plain, that the noble Lord had very little information respecting its amount. But, surely, when the noble Lord proposed to lay a tax upon the clergy, he should know the amount of that cess for which the proposed tax was to be a substitute. Surely, if they wished to attach the principles of permanency to the reform which they were about to effect, they should go through all those preliminary considerations by which something like justice might be observed. If Gentlemen wished reform to be beneficial and permanent, it must be just. To be just they ought first to ascertain the amount of the sum, otherwise how could they say, that five, ten, fifteen, or any other per centage on the income of benefices would be sufficient? The intention of the last Resolution was, to relieve the land of Ireland. They were not about to give anything to the poor of Ireland by these Resolutions, but they would relieve the land of a certain burthen, from which however the immediate occupier of the soil would derive no benefit. What could prevent the owner of the soil, when he found the occupier relieved from this charge, from demanding an increase of rent. Was there any precaution to prevent it? He did not know whether it would be possible to prevent it, but that would furnish a topic for future discussion. It was, however, a practical part of the subject which had been overlooked by the hon. and learned member for Leeds. The speech of that hon. and learned Gentleman had nothing to do with the Resolutions before the House. His speech was as applicable to Church property in England as in Ireland, and the gist of it was, that Parliament, not on account of any grave necessity, but on any, the slightest allegation of expediency, had a right to lay a tax upon this species of property. The hon. and learned Gentleman even went further, and exclaimed: "Let us hasten to relieve ourselves from the opprobrium that has befallen us. Every nation in Europe has confiscated Church property, while we are yet behind in that noble career of improvement. Let us
1402
hasten to follow the example of others." The hon. and learned Gentleman was not content with declamation, but referred to authorities. He cited the practice of that great ecclesiastical Reformer—Peter the Great. Joseph the Second was another of his authorities—but the practical result of his Church Reforms in the Netherlands was surely not very encouraging. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone so far back as Philip Le Bel for a precedent by which the fate of the Church of England was to be determined. They had a perfect right, it appeared, to dispose of the Church property, not only in Ireland but in England, because the hon. and learned Gentleman would find examples of confiscation upon the part of despotic sovereigns. He should now apply himself to the Resolutions before the House. He did expect that whatever tax the noble Lord intended to impose would have been specified in the Resolutions; but they had not even as specific a statement of it as was contained in the former Bill. The Resolutions merely contained the vague general principle that a tax should be imposed. What was the object in having a Committee of the whole House in the first instance, if they were not to have a detailed statement as to the nature and amount of this tax? The second Resolution merely established the principle that such a tax should be imposed—it merely stated that "it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the first-fruits in Ireland, and in lieu thereof to levy an annual assessment upon all bishoprics and archbishoprics, and upon all benefices, dignitaries, and other spiritual promotions above the yearly value of 200 l, to be applied to the building, rebuilding, and repairing of churches and other such like ecclesiastical purposes, and to the augmentation of small livings, and to other such purposes as may conduce to the advancement of religion, and the efficiency, permanency, and stability of the United Church of England and Ireland." The effect of that second Resolution, as he had already stated, would be, to relieve the land from a burthen to which it had been hitherto subject, and subject to which it had been taken, and to throw that tax upon the benefices of the clergy, who had entered upon them not subject to such a burthen. This tax, too, was to apply to existing interests. Now, he for one, would be ready to con-

1403
sent to the principle, that first-fruits should be abolished, for he thought the mode of collection a bad one, and that a better one might be devised; but surely every principle of justice required that existing interests should be secured from the imposition to be provided as a substitute. Was it consistent with common justice to throw this imposition upon individuals holding benefices who had taken them upon the implied condition that they should not be subject to it? He would take, as an instance, a benefice that had been entered upon, say three years ago, and the first-fruits of which had been paid, would it not be extremely hard, and most unjust, that the individual thus absolved from the first-fruits because he had already paid them, should be subject to this tax? This was not only subjecting to this tax existing vested interests, but subjecting to it a man who had already given the equivalent for it. There were many such cases in Ireland. He knew himself of the case of a living of l,300 l. or 1,400 l. a-year, wherein the incumbent, owing to family circumstances, had been obliged to ensure his life, and wherein he was now in the receipt of only 300 l. a-year. A great portion of his remaining income would be absorbed by this tax? Was a person so circumstanced to be totally deprived oven of the means of subsistence for himself and his family? It was on the express condition that existing interests should remain untouched that Ministers had obtained his consent to substitute a tax for first-fruits, and he should hesitate to proceed further if the condition was not adhered to. There could be no doubt that Ministers did not originally intend the tax to fall on the existing occupants of benefices; for the Resolution of the Committee of last Session (the right hon. Baronet read the Resolution) declared that the tax in lieu of first-fruits was to affect only benefices hereafter falling in. It was clearly the intention of the framers of the Resolution that the impost was only to be levied upon future incumbents. Thus, then, was the faith of Government pledged to the protection of existing interests. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Macaulay) had endeavoured, but with a very light and timid touch,
Et quæ
Desperat tractata nistescere posse relinquit,
to draw a distinction between the property
1404
of ecclesiastic al and lay corporations; but not one word did he say upon the subject of vested interests. Indeed he seemed to imagine that none existed. He could not admit the justice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, that because there had been a transfer of the property of the Church from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant Church; that therefore, they had now a right to seize upon that property whenever they pleased, and deal with it as they pleased. Parliament had a right to see that the trusts for which the property was granted were performed, and might interfere for that purpose; but that principle could never justify the right of interference, not only as to the distribution, but as to the diversion of the property, for which the learned Gentleman contended. The learned Gentleman seemed very much embarrassed to determine the precise character of Church property. He seemed to labour under considerable difficulty in discovering a resemblance between the condition of clerical property and any other. At length out came the hon. Gentleman's very original idea. A clergyman, he said, in respect of his property, was not like a layman—he was not like the inheritor of an entailed estate—but he was remarkably like a half-pay officer. Now, why he was like a half-pay officer the hon. and learned Gentleman did not condescend to explain; but he must say, that, if wit consisted in finding an analogy between things apparently remote, this observation of the hon. member for Leeds was one of the wittiest things he had heard for a long time. But granted that a clergyman, in respect to his clerical income, was circumstanced like an officer in respect to his half-pay—granted, that there was no wit, nothing but plain truth in the analogy,—how did this help the learned Gentleman's argument? Would he act by the officers on half-pay, as he proposed to act by the Irish clergy? Would he venture to allege, that, because it was inconvenient to the general body of the people to maintain barracks, that therefore taxes to the amount of their maintenance should be abolished, and the deficiency made up out of the vote for half-pay? If any man having a general knowledge of passing affairs, had been told that the House of Commons had been sitting and deliberating upon the Church of Ireland, he would naturally have imagined, considering the destitute

1405
condition of the clergy of that Church, that the object of their deliberations was to provide some adequate relief for the sufferers. What would be his just surprise to learn that that was not the object, but that it was to endeavour to discover the best means of extracting a tax from the impoverished clergy of the Church of Ireland? Many of that clergy had not for three years past, received one shilling of the dues they were legally entitled to. This tax, then, if extorted at all, must be taken out of the first tardy incomings of the clergyman whose family was already reduced to beggary. What would remain for their bare subsistence? How much was wanted in all for the Vestry-cess? Ought they not to be made acquainted with that fact? They had heard of great expectations from the sale of Bishops' lands. Would not the amount realised from that source be sufficient? The Committee would see how important it was, that they should have some estimate of the sum required to enlighten the darkness they were in on the subject. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had told them that the measures of Government last year for the collection of tithe had failed, and that it was their intention to come forward with others. And then, before the noble Lord told them what were his new measures for the relief of the clergy, he called upon them to concur in a tax upon that very clergy. The preamble of the Irish Clergy Relief Act of last Session set forth the "existence of a conspiracy to prevent the collection of tithes, whereby the ordinary process of the law was of no avail," and that" it was expedient to devise some mode of relief for the clergy, who were then in a state of great suffering." The mode of relief was now explained—and it turned out to be a new tax. He felt the absurdity of multiplying arguments against the gross injustice of the noble Lord's proposals. The duty of the House was first to ascertain if there was any income at all collected by the clergy for them to tax; next, to ascertain how much was wanted; and, lastly, to avoid interfering with existing interests. Last year, when the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, used the words "extinction of tithes" in his Resolutions, he (Sir Robert Peel) rose in his place and warned him of the consequences which had since ensued. Although the noble Lord did not intend that these words, going forth from the lips of a Minister of the
1406
Crown amongst a credulous and excitable population should be construed into their obvious meaning—namely, utter and unqualified extinction; yet to that phrase might be traced a great deal of the distress of the clergy of Ireland. The other night he had also cautioned his Majesty's Government against the proviso inserted in the Coercion Bill, that the Lord-lieutenant should not proclaim any district because of the "nonpayment of tithes." An illiterate peasant would naturally conclude that the meaning of the exemption was, that the Legislature looked with jealousy upon the collection of tithes, and encouraged him in his passive resistance to them. He admitted, that for the sake of Protestantism in Ireland, the Church of Ireland should undergo revision. But it must be done deliberately. Their first task was to do their duty to the Church of Ireland. They might then see what property there was to tax. At present there was none. For his own part, he was bound to say, that he did not think the Coronation Oath an insuperable barrier to the King's giving his assent to a well considered measure for the reformation of the Church of Ireland. He had been as active an opponent of the concessions to the Catholics as any one in Parliament, but he had never relied upon the Coronation Oath as an obstacle to those concessions. He had never thought that that oath bound the King to maintain the Church and all its members, in possession of precisely every right and privilege which they might have possessed in 1688. It did bind him to consult all the essential interests of the Church, to provide to the utmost of his power for its security; but it left him a discretion to take the course, which, in his conscience, the King might believe best for those interests and that security. It was a disgraceful fact, that the clergy of Ireland were now subsisting upon eleemosynary aid; and, if in such circumstances, the noble Lord were to interfere with existing interests, he would establish a principle which would assuredly be afterwards visited upon other property. He hoped that before to-morrow the noble Lord would consider this subject, and make some modification of his Resolutions. He would appeal to all Reformers upon this point, and he was sure they would not suffer the principle of Church Reform to be degraded and dishonoured by an act of paltry and unprofitable injustice.
Lord John Russellwould endeavour like the right hon. Baronet to confine himself to the question immediately before the House, but at the same time it was impossible not to see that the whole of the Resolutions were closely connected with the plan of Church reform propounded in the Bill already introduced to the House. He must observe with respect to the general object of these Resolutions, and of the Bill with which they were connected, that it was his wish to maintain the Church of Ireland, although not perhaps exactly in the same manner as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to desire. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was possible to abolish Church-cess, until the House knew its actual amount. Though he did not know exactly the amount used for Church purposes, he believed that the whole sum levied was about 60,000 l.—certainly it did not amount to 70,000 l. The real question before the House was, whether or not they were prepared to abolish Church-cess; which, if it were not the most oppressive tax, was certainly the most obnoxious to the feelings of the people. Let the House conceive a case,—which was by no means of rare occurrence—where only twelve or fourteen persons in the parish were Protestants; and yet all the Catholic inhabitants were called upon to pay this rate. The right hon. Baronet had admitted that some measure should be passed with a view to getting rid of the Church cess. The Committee of last year said, that they thought that it would be well to abolish this tax, and to substitute in its place, a charge upon the clergy to the amount of from twelve to fifteen per cent. It must be recollected that the revenue given to the Church, was not intended for the benefit of individuals; but for general utility. But then, said the right hon. Gentleman, you cannot take the amount of the Church cess from the revenue of the Church, at present; you may impose a tax upon those who, for the future, derive an income from the Church cess; it was unjust and bad in principle to tax the present incumbent. It was desirable that there should be no misunderstanding on this subject,—such as was occasioned last year on the subject of tithes, in consequence of an observation of his right hon. friend who brought that matter under the attention of the House. He believed that it was not only the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but
1408
it was the general feeling of the House, that the Church cess should be extinguished. Now it was the opinion of his Majesty's Ministers that it was desirable to abolish that rate at once, and for ever. If the plan of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted it would be a considerable time before that result could be attained. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect of abolishing Church-cess in one parish, and continuing it, for the lives of the incumbents, in the adjoining parishes. Let him consider what would be the effect of such an arrangement in the minds of the Catholic inhabitants of that country. He was satisfied that the adoption of such a regulation would be attended with the very worst consequences. The hon. member for the University of Oxford said, that William of Wyckham, and the other founders of the academic institutions in that university, were actuated by a view to the promotion of the glory of God, and the good of the people. He was sure that this was the case as regarded the Church Establishment; and in furtherance of that object it was desirable to remove those things which tended to render that institution odious to the people, and to prevent that good resulting from it which would otherwise ensue. The right hon. Gentleman produced a great effect on the House by arguing that the clergy of Ireland required relief, and that instead of a plan of relief, this measure had for its object the taking away a portion of their incomes. But his Majesty's Ministers had proposed a measure to relieve the clergy from the difficulties under which they laboured; and at the same time, while Ministers provided for their relief, they added to their security by endeavouring to prevent those unfortunate collisions from arising between a Catholic population and a Protestant Clergy, which had often been attended with such deplorable consequences. Ministers were anxious to put a stop to the system, by which the occupier of a single acre was taxed for the support of a Protestant Minister, and the repair of a Protestant Church; and which necessarily must increase the odium which the Catholic population might feel towards a Protestant Church. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the situation of the Protestant Church. He admitted that that Establishment had been placed in a dangerous situation, by those who had made false and unfounded statements

1409
respecting the revenue, which the clergy of that Church derive from tithes. Instead of receiving one-tenth of the produce, it appeared that they did not receive one-tenth or one-fifteenth of the produce—but only one fifteenth of the rental. The average rent paid in Ireland (according to the evidence given before the Tithe Committee) was equal to one-third of the produce; so that while the landlord received one-third of the produce, the receipt of the clergyman did not exceed one forty-fifth. To leave the Church of Ireland in its present state was to leave it in greater jeopardy than it could be placed in by almost any regulation; nor would the Church of England escape peril if it were determined that the condition of the
1410
Church of Ireland should not be separately considered. He was satisfied that the revenue of the Church of England was not too much by a single shilling and he should be sorry to see it reduced. The proposed reform he was convinced did not go further than was necessary for the stability of the Church, and it was calculated rather to strengthen than injure the interests of the clergy of Ireland.
Mr. Shawrecommended that the first Resolution should be agreed to, and that the discussion should be continued tomorrow on the second Resolution, which, in fact, was the real subject of debate.
First Resolution agreed to; the House resumed; Committee to sit again.

ERRATUM TO VOL. XV.
The following Speech of Mr. Wm. Roche should have been inserted at Page 523 immediately after the Speech of Mr. Morgan O'Connell.
Mr. William Roche: Sir, the question of the Address, as connected with Irish affairs, having been revived, may I be permitted to say a few words. I know it has and may be remarked, that Irish Members have had more than their due share of the debate; but, Sir, that was rather a matter of necessity than choice, the subject coming more peculiarly home to their business and their bosoms. Sir, it is far from my inclination or intentions to occupy much of the time of the House, or unnecessarily to prolong the discussion of a subject which has been so ably handled, so amply elucidated, so almost perfectly exhausted, as regards the condition and complaints of Ireland, by my hon. and learned friend the member for Dublin, and by the many and eloquent Gentlemen who followed and supported his representations and remonstrances. But, Sir, with my feelings on the wrongs, the wants, and just expectations of Ireland—feelings it would be rather strange, I did not entertain (coming as I do from so historically interesting a portion of that country as the city of Limerick, which I have the honour to represent) a city not only loyal and brave in olden times, but in recent recollections, for it was her regiment of Militia, though vastly out-numbered, that gave the first check to the French invaders under Humbert. But, Sir, in expressing my feelings on Irish affairs, I am no less actuated, I assure the House, by an anxious desire for the prosperity, harmony, and consequent strength of the empire at large—and I also desire to express them in deference to the constituency which sent me here. It is, therefore, Sir, that I wish to declare my coincidence in the sentiments of regret and disappointment, which have fallen from my hon. precursors in the debate, as regards the meditated conduct towards Ireland, one of unwise, unkind, and uncalled for mixture of coercion and concession. Sir, I could not but be struck during the course of this debate by
the painful necessity which every Gentleman felt, on alluding to Ireland, to use the epithet 'unfortunate,' which, however true, and arising from sympathetic feelings, must have been no less grating to those who uttered it than mortifying to us Irish Members who heard it. Into an analysis of the causes which produced this unhappy condition, I shall not now enter further than to say, that as it was produced by bad treatment and bad government, the total reversal of that conduct and that system must be the obvious remedy. Sir, if even at this late period of Ireland's misrule and misfortunes, measures were adopted, couched in a spirit of thorough redress and sincere conciliation, unmixed and unalloyed by those announcements of menace and coercion so utterly unnecessary in the present ample sufficiency of the law,—so susceptible is the Irish character of grateful emotions, so disposed towards an oblivion of the past, in the anticipation of the future, that the post which wafted over to its shores such glad tidings, and such an auspicious Royal Speech, would accomplish more in one day to allay discontent and ferment, by inducing amity of hearts and interests, than the most powerful combination of military and constabulary force, which tends rather to exasperate than cure the disease. But, Sir, when it is seen, that the case of Ireland is so misunderstood and distorted—when it is seen that the cure of its evils forms such a compound of contrarieties, coercion and conciliation—irritation and counter-irritation (to use a medical phrase)—what good can be expected from such conflicting remedies, or from concessions attended by the old hacknied and inveterate habit of disparaging and neutralizing every boon (or rather act of justice) by some counteracting restraint; and truly has it been observed in the debate, what a different line of conduct is pursued towards this country when any circumstance disturbs

1367
its quiet. Investigation and redress are at once adopted, and rigorous measures postponed to wiser maxims. Adopt the same conduct towards Ireland, and similar will be the result. But, Sir, it may be replied that the character of the Irish is formed of different materials; if it be so, it must be the result of different treatment and vicious demoralising policy, for human nature is found, under similar circumstances, to be nearly the same everywhere; and as regards Irish love and respect for justice, English historians themselves have promulgated it centuries ago. I, myself, Sir, can, in a limited way, bear testimony to this observation, for though being obliged as Magistrate of the city which I represent, to punish many offenders, yet I am sure I have not a personal enemy among them, because they are conscious I was actuated by no selfish, vindictive, or improper motive, but by the impartial exercise of an unavoidable duty. Let, Sir, in a more enlarged sphere, the same principles of jurisprudence and justice be adopted, and most beneficial will be the result. Sir, I shall not now enter into a detail of the various grievances and complaints, which have so long oppressed and depressed Ireland, as they will come, during the Session, progressively before the House, and shall conclude by briefly adverting to that most important topic the repeal of the Legislative Union. Sir, on that question, I came into Parliament with my mind disengaged, that is, so far as an indignant sense of the vicious system of Legislation and Government, and its evil consequences, could leave any sensitive mind disengaged. But I was still unwilling to control myself by any positive obligation—desirous of seeing whether a
1368
Reformed Parliament would be more disposed than its predecessors, to act with sympathy and justice towards Ireland, not by confining measures of a petty paltry nature, but by an ample and prompt uprooting of abuses. I was also desirous of seeing the question, one of such magnitude, developed and discussed in all its bearings, in order that it may be canvassed and understood by the intelligence of the country, and because discussion always tends to promote and advance every sound and salutary measure; but. Sir, as scarcely any state of things can be less endurable than the present condition of Ireland, as regards the rights, liberties, and happiness of the people, so will they fly to any legitimate remedy if they are permitted to despair of adequate redress—an impression which the unwise and unkind association of coercion and concession, and the disposition to close all deliberation on the question of Repeal, is little calculated to allay—an effort that will rather tend to augment than subdue the intensity of existing interest on the subject. Redress, ample redress, is the only panacea. In that spirit. Sir, there is one effectual remedy for the evils of Ireland, indeed of every country, that of consulting the interests of the many of the millions, in I preference to the aggrandizement of the few. Adopt that maxim towards Ireland, and, as the celebrated Burke said on another occasion, 10,000, nay, 100,000 Irish swords will leap from the scabbards to avenge a wrong or an insult to their King and country, and peace, contentment, and prosperity will at length prevail in that hitherto abused, and therefore distracted land.

MINUTES
Paper ordered. On the Motion of Earl FITZ-WILLIAM, an Account of the Average price of Wheat as fixed under the 9th of George 4th, cap. 60, from 11th February, 1850, to the latest period.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Selkirk, for the Better Regulation of Factories.—By Earl GREY, from Kilnahue, for a Clause in the Grand Jury Bill, for the snore equal applottnig of Church Cess.—By Lord TEVNHAM, from the Barony of Gallen, for Vote by Ballot; and from Shreen for a Repeal of the Union.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Kilchrenan and Delavich, to secure to the People of Scotland their just Rights in the choice of their Minister!;.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWN from a Congregation at Nottingham; and by Earl EGREY, from the Presbytery of Northumberland,—fora Removal of the Disabilities affecting the Dissenters.—By the Duke Of GORDON, the Martiucss of STAFFORD, and the Bishop

1291
of LINCOLN, from several Places,—for the Better Observ-ance of [the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, by Earl GREY, by the Earl of UXBRIDGE, and by Lord SUFFIELD, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By the Marquess of WESTMINSTERS, from St. Bride's, London, against the Assessed Taxes.—By the Earl of LIMERICK, from Limerick, against the Duty on Soap.—By the Marquess of STAFFORD, from a Number of Places, for a Removal of the Disabilities affecting the Dissenters.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (WALES).
The Marquess of Westminsterpresented a Petition from Welchmen resident in London, for the removal of the abuses in the Church Establishment of Wales. He considered that those who wished for the removal of lite abuses of the Establishment were its best friends. The present petitioners particularly desired, that all the ministers of religion resident in Wales should understand the Welch language. They also hoped that all Magistrates and Judges, who had to administer the law, would be compelled to obtain the same knowledge; and they therefore prayed, to attain this end, that a professorship of the Welch language might be instituted in each university. While he was on the subject, he would take the liberty of saying, that he thought the attack which a right reverend Prelate had, on a former evening, made on the author of a work relative to the causes of dissent in Wales had been most ably answered. He took it for granted, that the reverend Prelate had read the letter which, on this subject, had been addressed to one of the morning papers.
Lord Wynfordexpressed his surprise, that the noble Marquess could speak in terms of commendation of Mr. Johnes's letter. A grosser breach of privilege than the publication of that letter had never been committed; for the writer of it avowed that he had been present at the debate, that he had heard certain expressions used in it, and that he was compelled to make such and such comments upon it. He was certain that the noble Lord could not have looked at all carefully at that letter; for if he had, he never would have said one word in commendation of a man who had so grossly violated the privileges of the House.
The Marquess of Westminstersaid, the attack was made on Mr. Johnes, where he could not defend himself, and he might think himself justified in what he had done.
Lord Kingregretted the absence of one of the rev. Prelates who had taken so active a part in the debate on this subject on Friday last; for if that rev. Prelate had been present, he should have given the
1292
right rev. Prelate an opportunity of retracting certain sentiments which he had then expressed. The rev. Prelate had charged the writer of a book which he (Lord King) had quoted with having given circulation to the grossest falsehoods, and he was prepared to show that that charge was a matter of pure invention.
The Duke of Buckinghamwas surprised that the noble Lord should have used such language respecting a right rev. Prelate in his absence; he might at least have waited till the right rev. Prelate was present. He would retort upon the noble Lord in his presence, that which the noble Lord had said of the rev. Prelate in his absence.
Lord Kingwas now ready with the book in his hand to prove the incorrectness of the right rev. Prelate's assertion. He would give notice that to-morrow night he would show how incorrect the statement of the rev. Prelate was.
The Bishop of Bristolsaid, that the noble Baron had not stated the circumstances of this case fairly. The right rev. Prelate had stated that the book in question contained many instances of gross falsehood, but that he would only produce two instances of it. He then produced them, and said; "Ex uno disce omnes." He was quite sure that his rev, brother would to-morrow substantiate the correctness of what he had said on Friday. It was harsh in the extreme for the noble Lord to attack in so violent a manner a right rev. Prelate, who had enjoyed all his life long the highest character for probity and integrity. The noble Baron was in the habit of bringing forward charges of this description. It was of no use to overturn the noble Baron's statements. The noble Baron fell, indeed, to the ground, but then he rose from each fall with renovated strength. The noble Baron reminded him of an old officer who used to be elected annually in one of our universities to bring the most ridiculous charges against men of high character. This officer was styled terrœ flius. He wished the noble Baron would be a candidate for that office in that House, and then all their Lordships might profit from his mode of performing its duties.
Petition laid on the Table.

CHURCH REFORM (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Bristolpresented a petition from the clergy of his diocess against the proposed plan for reforming the Church of

1293
Ireland. That plan was subversive of the rights of property and of the rights of the Church, and equally destructive to the best interests of Government and to the soundest principles of religion.
The Earl of Eldon,wondered how any man could doubt that the Bill for accomplishing the spoliation of the Irish Church, which had been introduced elsewhere, was a tax-bill. No man who had read the Bill half through could have a doubt upon the point. With regard to the measure itself, he hoped that the last act of his life might be passed in opposing it to the utmost of his power. It was adverse to every established principle of Government. He had never seen any Bill so full of spoliation as this was. As his life had been spent in the defence of the Church of England, he should be guilty of a base dereliction of all his former principles if he did not at once avow that he would rather perish in the House than give his assent to so abominable and infamous a measure.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Lord Wharncliffe,in presenting a petition for the better observance of the Sabath, said that he could not give his assent to the measure which had been introduced upon this subject in another place, and which it was quite impossible ever to make palatable to the people of this country.
The Bishop of Londonpresented petitions from the parishes of St. Bride, and of St. John, Hampstead, for the better observance of the Sabbath. In presenting these petitions he said that he knew nothing of the measure which had been introduced elsewhere, except what he had seen in the newspapers. He thought, however, that such tradesmen as wished for the cessation of business on Sunday, not merely from the dictates of conscience, but also from the desire to obtain a little temporary ease, were entitled to the protection of their Lordships. He agreed with the noble Baron, that in legislating upon such subjects it was better not to go too far; and if this measure did go too far, he trusted that their Lordships would not be deterred from doing something on a matter of so much importance.
Lord Ellenboroughrecommended the right rev. Prelate, or some other right rev. Prelate, to introduce a rational measure upon this subject; for the measure which had been introduced into the other
1294
House would, he was certain, disappoint all the objects which the right rev. Bench had at heart at present. The only means of accomplishing their object was by introducing immediately a more rational measure.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES, (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Earl Grey, the order of the day was read for summoning the House to take into consideration the Bill, as amended by the Commons, intituled "An Act for the more effectual suppression of local disturbances and dangerous associations in Ireland."
Earl Grey rose and proposed the adoption of the following clause—(the words printed in italics being the amendments of the Commons):—
"And be it enacted, that any person liable to be prosecuted for any offence committed within any district proclaimed as aforesaid, contrary to the provisions of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the 27th year of the reign of King George 3rd intituled 'An Act to prevent tumultuous risings and assemblies, and for the more effectual punishment of persons guilty of outrage, riot, and illegal combination, and of administering and taking unlawful oaths, or contrary to the provisions of an Act passed in the 50th year of the same reign, intituled An Act for the more effectually preventing the administering and taking of unlawful oaths in Ireland, and for the protection of Magistrates and witnesses in criminal cases;' or contrary to the provisions of a certain other Act, passed in the 1st and 2nd years of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled An Act to amend an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the 15th and 16th years of the reign of his Majesty King George 3rd intituled an Act to prevent and punish tumultuous risings of persons within this kingdom, and for other purposes therein mentioned; or contrary to the provisions of the said Act of the 15th and 16th years of King George 3rd therein referred to; or contrary to the provisions of a certain other Act passed in the 2nd and 3rd years of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled 'An Act to restrain for five years, in certain cases, party processions in Ireland;' or contrary to the provision of any Act or Acts to continue the said Acts or any of them, and also every person charged with any offence contrary to the provisions of this Act, ex-

1295
cept any offence created by this Act, and directed to be tried and prosecuted according to the course of the common law, shall and may be tried by and before a Court-martial to be appointed as aforesaid, and whether the offence so charged shall or shall not have been committed before the issuing-of any proclamation under this Act: provided always, that in case the Lord-lieutenant should direct that any person charged with any offence contrary to any of the Acts aforesaid, which by law now is or may be punishable with death, shall be tried before any Court-martial appointed under this Act, such Court, in case of conviction, shall, instead of the punishment of death, sentence such convict to transportation for life, or for any period not less than seven years: and provided also, that such Courts shall in no case impose the penalty of whipping on any person convicted by or before such Courts: provided always, that it shall not be lawful for any such Court-martial to convict or try any person for any offence whatsoever committed at any time before the passing of this Act: provided also, that nothing in this Act shall he deemed, or taken to give such Court-martial any power or jurisdiction to try any person or persons charged or to be charged with the printing, publishing, or circulating of any libel, or with any combination or confederacy contrary to the provisions of the said recited Statute of the 27 th year of the reign of King George 3rd or with any prevention or obstruction of any person, or any act to defraud any person in the assertion or enforcement of any civil right or claim contrary to the provisions of the said last-mentioned Statute, unless such combination or prevention, obstruction or act, shall be accompanied by force or by threats; but that all such offences, unaccompanied by force or threat as aforesaid, shall remain triable according to the course of the common law."
The Noble Earl said, that the Amendment in the clause was to the effect that offences of a political nature should not be tried by a Court-martial, but according to the course of the common law.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that if the Amendments were to be made on the grounds stated by the noble Earl, they were not sufficient. The original enactments stood upon the ground that there was good reason to suppose that Jurors had been intimidated, and that substantial
1296
justice could not be obtained according to the usual course of the common law, and that being so, it was without any violation of the liberty of the subject, enacted that such offences as those to which this Bill referred should be tried by Courts-martial. The noble Earl could only have been right before upon the supposition that justice was not to be obtained in Ireland according to the course of the common law. If that were still the case, why alter the provisions of the Bill? The provisions of this Bill, as they originally stood, were most stringent. When the Bill, of which this was in part an imitation, passed in 1829, the degree of political agitation in Ireland was most violent; it was much greater than at present. The election for Clare had just brought to the world the knowledge of the fact, that there was a sort of military organization among the people of Ireland—they were not riotous—they paid an insulting obedience to the law—there was throughout the country a latent rebellion that might be called into active exertion by those who were at the head of the Catholic Association; yet the Government of that day did not introduce such enactments as were to be found in this Bill. If the noble Earl was prepared to show that the condition of Ireland was improved, he should be most ready to accede to the Amendments now proposed, but as the noble Earl had said nothing of the kind—as he had given no explanation that could lead him to draw such an inference—he should with the greatest reluctance be compelled to refrain from giving his support to Amendments, which, if the state of things in Ireland was not altered, appeared to have been somewhat irrationally introduced into this Bill.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that their Lordships were at this moment engaged in discussing one of the most important constitutional questions that he had ever seen introduced in Parliament since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. It involved the principle that what necessity compelled necessity justified. If the Minister was prepared to come down to the House and say, that necessity warranted the suspension of the Constitution—and it was a suspension of one of the most important parts of the Constitution—the Trial by Jury—if he were prepared to do this, their Lordships might understand the grounds on which they were proceeding; but, if that was not so—if the ne-

1297
cessity did not exist—the rule of justification was applied to a state of circumstances that did not warrant it. He had long been the political opponent of the noble Earl, but he had never in his life uttered anything of him that was disrespectful, and in what he was urging he had no wish to do so. But was not the whole conduct of the noble Earl on this matter quite inconsistent in its character? One of the most important alterations that could be proposed would soon be submitted to them, and it was this—that the subjects of Ireland were now to be tried by Juries, who were destined to be tried by Courts-martial six weeks ago. He felt somewhat strongly upon this subject, on account of the position in which that House was by this measure placed with regard to the country. The men who had been opposed to the Reform Act had been represented as enemies of civil liberty, and of the rights which all men in this country were entitled to enjoy. He warned the noble Earl to observe how soon that sort of language might be altered in its application. He was really ashamed to see how the noble Earl was now made the subject of abuse throughout the country. The country papers said, with regard to that measure of Reform, which they called a restitution of the old law of the country, but which was no more a restitution of the old law of the country than it was a restitution of the principles of the Constitution of France: the country papers said, with regard to that measure something of the same kind that they now repeated with regard to this measure—they said, "No matter what the House of Lords says, or what the opinion of the House of Lords is, we will go to the House of Commons and get all that altered." The noble Earl should take heed of this. There were various ways in which a Bill might be brought into Parliament. This Bill had been brought into the House of Lords, and had passed through that House upon the responsibility of the Ministers, If the Bill was not wanted, the Ministers alone were responsible. He would not stand before his country, and be abused as a man who would give up the Constitution of his country, when he could say to that country, "[did not consent to this Bill, but on the responsibility of those who told us that Ireland could not be saved without it." If the whole people of England could be brought within a distance to hear him, he
1298
should declare to them that he would rather suffer death than take away from the subject the right to Trial by Jury, and make him liable to be tried by Courts-martial, if he had not thought that such a measure was absolutely necessary for the safety and protection of the people of Ireland. Under these circumstances, he must press the noble Earl for an answer to the question, whether this measure was necessary now? To pledge that House to measures, and then in this way to abandon them, without any apparent reason whatever, was to do that which must tend to the destruction of that House and of the Constitution. He hoped, that the House would never be pledged in that manner again. When a noble Lord, whom he now saw in his place, had come down to Parliament as a Minister on a similar occasion, he had done so under the absolute pressure of necessity, and, under that necessity, had got a Bill read three times in one night. But that was when the mischief was so immediate that forms were necessarily sacrificed. He had no object but to do his duty; and he would not allow himself to be called an enemy of his country because he had only done that which appeared to be his duty, upon the representation of a responsible Minister.
Earl Grey: My Lords, no one is more willing than I am to give credit to the noble Earl for the purity of his motives—for his regard to the Constitution—and for the sound reason with which he desires that all his actions shall be governed. I subscribe to the position he has laid down, that this was a measure of necessity—it was introduced as a measure of necessity, and, therefore, without the usual formality of the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, as it was thought that the circumstances were such as to carry with them a complete justification of the Bill; and I had the satisfaction of seeing that view of the subject adopted in this House almost unanimously, while its justice was admitted by considerable majorities elsewhere. I subscribe also in some measure to the proposition, not that what necessity compels necessity justifies, but that what necessity compels necessity limits. This I measure, which went to deprive the subject of part of his legal rights, I introduced with the most painful feelings; and if what I have done has exposed me to the severe reflections that the noble Earl intimates, I shall console myself with the

1299
reflection that it was a painful discharge of that duty which my conscience required me to perform. The noble Earl has argued as if the whole ground of necessity was abandoned by the introduction of these Amendments. I cannot understand this to be the case. The necessity which, as I have before stated, compelled the measure, ought to limit it; and if, in the discussion of a measure, it is shown that with certain limitations it would be as efficient as the case of necessity required it to be, then, as it seems to me, the Houses of Parliament are bound to admit those limitations, and to alter the measure accordingly. Undoubtedly, as the Bill originally stood, the offences which are enumerated in the clause we are now discussing, subjected those who committed them to be tried by Courts-martial. If the objects of that provision can be attained in another way, I am bound to consider whether I cannot dispense with these provisions in the particular case, and if I can, without injuring the general efficiency of the measure, I am bound to do so. One part of this Bill relates to meetings of an illegal nature, and which are calculated to produce most evil effects. It was to stop such political agitation that this Bill was proposed. I will not stop to inquire whether that agitation was greater or less than in 1829, but it was of so great an extent, and threatened such dangerous consequences, that there was no one who did not feel the necessity of some measure to repress the evil. It is not necessary for me to go further than to the repeated calls made on me for some measure of this nature for a long period before it was introduced. The meetings, that are the subject of this enactment, have been held generally in districts which there is no reason for proclaiming. As it is almost impossible that meetings should continue to be held in such districts, the question is, whether we shall continue this provision of the law with regard to them. After carefully considering the subject, I am of opinion, that the measure may, with perfect safety to its general efficiency, be limited in the way now proposed by these Amendments, and I shall therefore give them my support. I have been called on to state whether Ireland is in an improved state. In some districts there has been some improvement, but not in all, and not enough to justify the remission of this measure. During the last circuit, Juries
1300
have performed their duty better than they did formerly, but still it is frequently impossible to carry the law fully into effect, in consequence of the difficulty of getting witnesses to come forward. I have a letter from one of the highest law authorities in Ireland, stating that the very expectation of this Bill has produced a most salutary effect, and when carried into execution, I hope it will be found to answer its purpose. That being the case, I appeal to your Lordships whether I am liable to be attacked for inconsistency—to be accused of abandoning principles, or to be charged with acting in contradiction to the necessity of the case, if, in this particular instance of limitation, I propose to you to acquiesce in the Amendments that have been agreed to in the House of Commons—Amendments which, I think, may be adopted with safety, and without diminishing the efficiency of the Bill? What was the object of this Bill in the first instance? It was to institute Courts-martial, for the purpose of preventing the punishment of death from being visited upon those who did their duty as Jurymen or witnesses. The Amendments will not diminish the power of Courts-martial in that respect; and as to the taking away from me, and giving to the noble Earl opposite that popularity which he now seems so earnestly to desire, I must be content to suffer the loss in consequence of having done my duty, and must permit the noble Earl to receive all the advantage of it. I do think that the Amendments now proposed may be agreed to, consistently with the principles stated by the noble Earl and the noble Lord opposite, and consequently it is their duty to assent to these Amendments. It is on these grounds generally that I shall assent to them. It was with the deepest regret, that I found myself compelled to propose the measure. Feeling the necessity of it, I did not shrink from doing my duty, however painful that duty was, and consistently with that principle I would not preserve part of the Bill which can be safely done away with.
The Duke of Wellingtoneither had not understood the original provisions of the Bill before it underwent alteration, he would not call it amendment, in the other House, or the noble Earl had not fully stated its existing powers. It appeared to him that according to the original provisions of the Bill, as it was introduced to

1301
their Lordships' House, there were three modes of dealing with the particular offence of assembling after the Proclamation Act, two of which related to meetings in districts not proclaimed under the second portion of the Bill, and the other to offences in districts which were proclaimed. The first of these modes related to summary convictions before two Magistrates, according to the Bill of 1829; the second to convictions according to the ordinary course of common law; and the third related to convictions by Courts-martial in districts proclaimed under the operation of the second part of the Bill. Now what was the alteration which the Bill had undergone? Why that, whether the offence was committed in a part of the kingdom that was not proclaimed or in a district that was proclaimed—whether it was committed in such a manner as that, under the original Bill, it might be tried in a summary way before two Magistrates, or whether it might have come under the jurisdiction of a Court-martial—it was in every case to be tried according to the common law. Was not this, he asked, a complete revolution in principle? The preamble of the Bill, if such an amendment was adopted, should be altered, if it went to state the expediency of certain measures which the details would not contain. The preamble expressly placed the trial of offences connected with the holding of unlawful assemblies in proclaimed districts to Courts-martial, and in districts not proclaimed by the ordinary courts appointed to try misdemeanors. But what was the alteration made by the House of Commons? Why, it completely put an end to the power of trial by summary process, and provided that the offence, even in proclaimed districts, should not be tried either in a summary manner by two Magistrates, or by Courts-martial, but by the ordinary courts of common law. Now he felt called upon to say that, if the courts of common law were found capable of doing any business whatever, they were capable, if properly exercised, and ought to be used, in discharging all the judicial functions of the country. He repeated that, if the courts of common law were now found adequate for the trial of offences connected with illegal assemblies, they ought to be deemed equally adequate for the trial of all manner of violations of the law, and Courts-martial
1302
ought not to be employed at all. If, however, on the contrary, it were true that Courts-martial were requisite for the discharge of the judicial business of the country—if it were true that owing to intimidation neither Jurors nor witnesses could be obtained, and if it were true that the ordinary tribunals could not be relied upon for the vindication of the law, their Lordships ought not to shrink from doing that which was necessary, however harsh, nor suffer a measure which they believed called for, to be idly frittered away. The question to be considered was, whether justice could be administered in proclaimed districts without having recourse to military tribunals? If it could, Courts-martial should not be called into existence at all. If such a hope, however, could not be obtained, and if it were necessary to establish military tribunals, he took upon himself to say they would be useless unless they were vested with the powers to try the particular species of offence to which the Amendment under consideration referred, as well as every other species of offence which under the other provisions of the Act, might come before them.
Lord Plunkettthought that the noble Duke had in some measure mistaken the question. The noble Duke argued as if those Amendments which were now the subject of discussion went to take away all the provisions of the Bill, which were adapted to give effect to the law in Ireland. The noble Duke, at the conclusion of his observations, had put a sort of dilemma, in which he supposed the Ministers to be involved. The noble Duke said, that if the ordinary law were sufficient to put down those offences. Courts-martial was not required; if it were not, and Courts-martial were established, then said the noble Duke, you ought not to go back to the common law. But that dilemma could not be sustained. It was not stated that the institution of Courts-martial was every where necessary. The provisions contained in the other parts of the Bill would have the effect of giving protection to people in those parts of the country which were not proclaimed, and would enable the courts of law there to do their duty with effect. But such was not likely to be the case in the proclaimed districts, and therefore, though the Courts-martial might be indispensable in one place and for one class of offences, they

1303
might not be required in another and for another species of crime. He believed there had existed, and he was sorry to say, that he believed there did still exist, a most unexampled state of disorganization in many parts of Ireland. The unfortunate people of that country had been oppressed with an iron tyranny such as no other part of the world had ever seen since the days of Robespierre. The Bill was still necessary, although not as a measure of coercion, but of protection to the unfortunate people. His noble friend at the head of the Government said, that he was not desirous of carrying it further than he was absolutely compelled to do, and was he therefore to be described as giving up the Bill altogether? His noble friend did not wish to lose sight of those principles which ought not to be broken in upon except in case of absolute necessity, and which ought to be infringed no further than the limits which that necessity positively prescribed. The question had not been argued as fairly by other noble Lords as by the noble Duke, but had been argued as a matter of personal blame to the noble Earl at the head of the Government. They were asked why the Bill had been introduced in that House? and they were told in effect, that if they were now to adopt these Amendments they would be bringing their own House into disrespect. The noble Earl opposite had spoken much of the Constitution. Was that one of the principles of the Constitution which the noble Earl would rather suffer death than violate, to refuse to consent to Amendments made in a Bill by the House of Commons? At least, it was not supposed to be so in the other House, where Amendments made by their Lordships in a Bill relating to Trial by Jury had been readily adopted. It was, indeed, one of the advantages of the Constitution, that a measure brought into one House was corrected afterwards by the examination of the other. He did not consider that the Bill had received any such alterations in the other House as would render it inefficacious. A considerable effect had already been produced in Ireland by the mere announcement of this measure, which, for his own part, he considered was required by, and still adapted to the situation in which Ireland was now placed. The noble Earl stated, that he understood the trials on the late circuits had produced satisfactory results—that there was at
1304
length freedom of opinion and of action—that Jurors were not afraid, nor witnesses intimidated. But the real question was, if there were perfect freedom, would not more cases have been brought forward for trial? Were prosecutors in that situation which they ought to be? He would state one remarkable fact which occurred lately. It was a prosecution against a police officer for murder, in which the relatives of the deceased had to appear in the character of public prosecutors. Allowance ought certainly to be made for the natural feelings of individuals in such circumstances; but these feelings were carried too far when they attacked the prerogatives of the Crown, in such a way as had rarely or ever been done, by challenging every Juror from whom an impartial verdict might be expected. When the Jury were impanelled, the prosecutors thought that Roman Catholics were more likely to give a verdict according to their wishes than Protestants, and in consequence nine jurors of the former and three of the latter persuasion, were sworn in. The party was acquitted, as he was in fact blameless; that showed, he admitted, an improved state of feeling. He had very strong hopes that this Bill would not be required to be put in force in any single instance; but that did not prove that it was not necessary to enact it. He would beg their Lordships to consider the description of crime to which it was still applicable—that almost every case which could possibly arise, connected with the intimidation of witnesses, or the attempt to turn public functionaries from their duties, was embraced by it. All these offences were met by its provisions. Though founded on the Proclamation Act of 1829, it went much farther, and was far more comprehensive in its nature; for it gave the Lord Lieutenant the means, when the ordinary powers could not reach offenders, of directly attacking and putting an end to outrage. It gave great facilities for carrying the common law into effect in the districts where it was yet in force, and in any other parts of the country it gave military courts as they were properly called, power over all those offences which impeded the administration of justice. What had been the state of Ireland for the last twelvemonths? Not merely had the ill-disposed been rioting in every kind of lawlessness, but they compelled others to join in their train—the well disposed,

1305
who were anxious to fulfil their duties—to pay their rents—to be peaceable, loyal, and good subjects, had been in many instances forced into a reluctant concert with evil doers. It was to put an end to this frightful state of things, that the Bill had been brought in; and without stating that all the alterations were absolute improvements in the Bill, he would still say that it was a good Bill, and sufficient for the purpose. He was satisfied to take it as it was, being convinced that it would preserve peace, ensure order, and protect life; and he therefore put it to their Lordships whether, under such circumstances, they would do anything to defeat or impair it?
Lord Wynfordsaid, if he believed that there was such a happy change in the constitution of society in Ireland as to justify these changes in the Bill, he should feel it his duty to oppose every Amendment, and in order to procure the rejection of the Bill, because he would never wantonly consent to the violation of the established Constitution of the country. But he did not think that any change of a salutary nature had taken place on which they could congratulate themselves. He would beg to state that the averment of the noble Lord, that it was exceedingly doubtful if the Bill would ever be put in force, in consequence of the Amendment in the state of the country, was to him a source of uneasiness. If a noble Lord in another place had been correctly reported, he had described this supposed improvement as the very circumstance which was of the most alarming character. And in that opinion he (Lord Wynford) most certainly agreed; for it was a calm of a delusive and portentous nature, and only showed the immense and unwholesome control which certain individuals could exercise over their fellow-countrymen. It was evident there were persons of influence sufficient to suppress their angry passions, and almost on the instant to make them quiescent and apparently obedient to the law, but who, when it suited their purpose, could bring them forward in most formidable array—a thing which he denounced as wholly inconsistent with the peace and good government of the country. But in reference to this boasted improvement, he would beg to ask whether the case of the Rev. Mr. Doyle, whose trial at Naas, which had been published in the papers of that
1306
morning, had been read by their Lordships, and whether it showed any features which should induce their Lordships to consent to this Amendment made by the Commons? That Rev. gentleman had been indicted for publishing seditious libels and attending illegal meetings, and the second count, for being present at such meetings, applied to the part now under consideration. This Rev. gentleman, who talked of getting rid of all tithes, and who attacked the Aristocracy in every way, would have been as he expected convicted; but after four hours deliberation the Rev. gentleman had been acquitted. Now he considered that unlawful assemblies, in the present temper of Ireland, were, of all things in the world, her greatest curse, and ought, above all things, to be vigorously met and resolutely put down. How could the fidelity of the preamble be maintained under these alterations? What did it complain of? Why, that there were unlawful assemblies which afflicted and disturbed the country. Then, he contended, that these unlawful and tumultuous assemblages were the worst part of the grievances of Ireland, and ought not to have been withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Courts-martial If they wanted evidence of the injurious tendency of these meetings, let them look to the last eighteen months, ever since another individual of the name of Doyle had written a certain letter, which had produced dissension and disturbance as surely as thunder followed lightning. These offences were the foundation of all others—they were the parents of all the outrage and all the intimidation which had lately prevailed; and if they could not be tried by the ordinary course of the law, as the noble Premier had at first stated, and which had not since been contradicted, they ought to be assigned for decision to the Courts-martial. These meetings were all for political purposes, and all in their consequences contributed to the disruption of society. If such meetings were not to be attacked, punished, and put down, it was a mere mockery to pass this Bill, and it would be wise to come to some understanding at once and reject it. He should oppose to the utmost any attempt to destroy the Church of Ireland because he was bound to protect his Sovereign, and his Sovereign was bound to protect that Church. Now any attempts to injure or destroy that, or to

1307
intimidate its Ministers, were political offences, and the King, as parens patriœ, was bound to take every measure to defend it, and their Lordships, as the great supporters of the Throne, were called upon to assist him in maintaining order and enforcing justice. If they could not do this by the ordinary law they were bound to go beyond it, no matter for what offence. They ought, then, after the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, to decide on these political offences at once. If they withdrew thorn from the Courts-martial Clause, the Bill was merely a bit of waste paper. It was folly to talk of murders and maraudings only being subject to such courts. They could not re-animate the murdered body—they could not restore vigour to the limb when the mortal blow had been given by the midnight assassin; but they could prevent those tumultuous meetings which first gave birth to such enormities, which engendered such atrocities, which excited such evil and such horrid passions, and they ought to do so. He was satisfied that the Bill, as formerly sent down from that House, was a necessary, a just, and an efficient measure, wholly equal to its end. It was not so now. He had a high respect for the other House; but he had also a proper respect for that House to which he had the honour to belong; and he therefore called upon their Lordships to respect their own privileges, and not give way on the present occasion, by agreeing to Amendments winch were at once unwise and uncalled for.
The Earl of Wicklowhoped no one would suppose that any objections had been taken to the Amendments, in consequence of their being more lenient than the original provisions of the Bill. Such, he was convinced, was not the case; and he had heard with pleasure from his Majesty's Ministers that the Bill, as it now stood, was competent to their wishes; that under such a Bill, they would be able to maintain peace and security in Ireland. He must say, however, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government, had placed their Lordships in a very difficult position. As the responsible Minister of the Crown, the noble Earl had brought in a Bill of extraordinary, if not unprecedented, severity; and their Lordships, reposing perfect confidence in the positive statement of the noble Earl as to its abso-
1308
lute necessity, had adopted the measure. But now, after a period of six weeks, the noble Earl brought forward the same measure, if so it was to be called, but greatly and most essentially altered, and asked their Lordships' concurrence with the alterations, on the ground that the state of Ireland was altered, and that the discussions in another place had thrown a new light upon the subject. Of such conduct the House had surely a right to complain. It was evident, that either the noble Earl (Grey) when he made his first statement was ignorant of the real state of Ireland, or that knowing the state of Ireland, he had asked for a measure as absolutely necessary, which he now said was not absolutely necessary, or even justifiable. If any improvement had taken place in Ireland since the bringing forward of this Bill, it was occasioned by the confidence which the mooting of such a measure had given to the well-disposed part of the community in the Government. But a short time back, the peaceable and the loyal had felt themselves left at the mercy of the ruffian; but when they saw this measure brought forward, they concluded that the Government meant to assert its supremacy for the security of the people, and under that conviction they had given their exertions to maintain the law. That, he contended, was a strong reason for maintaining the disposition first evinced. Nothing short of it on the part of the Legislature would give peace to Ireland. In its present shape, the Bill was greatly impaired. The noble Earl said, it was as efficient as when it was sent to the Commons, and fully equal to the wants of the Government. If it would enable the Government—if, as the Ministers said upon their responsibility, that with the Bill, as amended, they could maintain peace, and secure property and life in Ireland—he had no objection to it; but he must deny, that the Bill, as amended, was calculated to effect what the original Bill would have effected. The original Bill brought two distinct classes of persons within its scope. First, the political agitator, against whom, indeed, the strongest passages in the noble Earl's speech on introducing the Bill had been directed. In the second place, all persons in proclaimed districts, who should be absent from their houses in the night time. Whereas, now, the only persons who would be amenable to be tried under the measure

1309
were those who had actually been guilty of violence, such as midnight incendiaries and assassins. He repeated, however, that he was glad to hear, from Ministers, that the Bill, with all its material alterations, was adequate to the maintenance of peace and security in Ireland; and he had only to regret that the noble Earl (Grey) had before so completely misled their Lordships, by his positive declaration of the absolute necessity of so great a departure from the Constitution as he then proposed.
Viscount Melbournemaintained, that the Bill still gave abundant power to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to put down illegal meetings. The meetings, the proceedings at which, in the Bill as it originally stood, were to be brought within the purview of Courts-martial, were only meetings in proclaimed districts. Now it was well known, that the principal body aimed at by the Bill was the Volunteers. But meetings of the Volunteers were very rarely held in these districts likely to be proclaimed, so that the efficiency of this Bill was not diminished as regarded them. It was true that an improvement had manifested itself in the state of Ireland, and that Juries had lately done their duty; and he agreed with the noble Earl, that one cause of that improvement was the encouragement given to the well-disposed, by the introduction of the Bill into Parliament. But it was not less true, that while the convictions were going on to which he alluded, outrages were prevailing to an extent which proved that the ordinary laws were not enough to repress them. He could not admit, that that House at all compromised its dignity, by agreeing to amendments which proceeded from the other House. All that their Lordships ought to do, was to consider whether those Amendments were right or not; and, if right, to agree to them. But it was maintained by the noble Earl (if his objections meant anything), that the Bill ought to be brought in precisely as it was ultimately to pass. Did the noble Earl ever know a Bill of severity of this kind go through both Houses of Parliament without receiving sufficient modifications? was not that the case with the Bills of 1794? And did not the measures known by the name of the Six Acts undergo this most material alteration, that their operation was confined to meetings in the open air?
The Duke of Wellingtoncomplained, that the provisions of the Bill were now inconsistent with the preamble, and that those meetings against which it was declared in the preamble, that some extraordinary measure of legislation was necessary, were now not included in the operation of the Bill, but were submitted to a different mode of punishment. If, however, his Majesty's Ministers conceived that the measure, in its present form, was sufficient for the purpose in view, he, for one, would not wish them to carry it one iota further. He did not complain of the Amendments, but he complained of the inconsistency of the preamble with the provisions of the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdownobserved, that even if the Amendments exposed the framers of the Bill to the charge of inconsistency, and they were at the same time thought right, they ought to be adopted. But he denied the validity of the noble Duke's argument. No difference whatever had been made in the mode of punishment, the only difference was in the mode in which guilt was to be ascertained. If it were discovered that only one case out of one hundred of those to which the provisions of the Bill originally applied, did not need the application of extraordinary powers, that case ought to be removed, and restored to the dominion of the ordinary law. If there was one thing of which he was more confident than another, it was this, that if their Lordships passed the Bill as it stood, they would hear no more of those assemblies which all parties agreed were destructive of the peace and prosperity of Ireland.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that when the noble Earl (Earl Grey) first introduced the measure in February, one of the strongest arguments he pressed upon the House was the necessity of adopting some measure which should enable the Government to put down the political agitators. Now, however, the noble Earl took quite a different view. It was now thought necessary only to arrest and punish the dupes of the agitators, and to leave the agitators to be dealt with by that which the noble Earl had expressly declared to be incompetent to their suppression, the common law. For his own part there was but one Amendment upon which he should feel it his duty to take the sense of their Lordships, and that occurred in

1311
the fourth clause, and respected the clergy. With respect to the Bill itself, as sent to the House of Commons and as it now appeared, what had been said of the month of March might with justice be applied to it—it went in like a lion and came out like a lamb. He was not unwilling to admit some benefit had already arisen out of the measure in the security which it promised to witnesses and Jurors, and the consequent confidence which it inspired in those classes of persons. It was to it he in a great measure ascribed the attendance of Jurors at the last Assizes, but he feared that those good effects would be neutralized by the Amendments which were made in the Bill. This was a view of the case which their Lordships ought not to forget, and they should take especial care that none of the benefits which the Bill had produced should be in any way frustrated. He was free to confess that the Bill was a measure of unprecedented harshness, and could only be justified by the necessity of the case. The Bill was a Whig Bill, but it was not on that account he found fault with it but because of the injudicious alterations, How could the noble Earl opposite and his colleagues justify those alterations? What had occurred since it had been introduced into that House to change the opinion of his Majesty's Ministers? They could not say that the state of Ireland was different now to what it was in February. If the Bill was justifiable at that time it was so up to the present moment. If it were not, in the opinion of his Majesty's Ministers, justifiable at that time, they were guilty of a great injustice to that House in throwing the odium of so harsh a measure upon their Lordships' shoulders. It was unfair towards their Lordships to make them appear the originators of unnecessarily harsh measures, and then to propose or admit of modifications to such measures elsewhere. But, in point of fact, there was no just reason for those alterations. The state of Ireland continued still equally alarming, as was proved by insurrectionary outrages of all descriptions. These were becoming every day more numerous and notorious; and authentic statements of them were every day published and were known to both Houses of Parliament. The Bill, too, was called for by the peaceable, the loyal, and respectable portions of the Irish community. Their Lordships
1312
would see, from the Resolutions entered into by the Lord-lieutenants, Noblemen, Sheriffs, Magistrates, and gentry of Kilkenny, how much the Bill was desired in that part of Ireland; and yet, notwithstanding such testimony in favour of the efficacy of the Bill in its original shape, they had it now brought down to them from the other House, frittered away and deprived of some of its most essential points. In fact the Bill was now almost nothing. It would be wholly inoperative in what he considered its vital features. He saw nothing at all to gratify him in the changes that were made—nothing to redeem or compensate the advantages which were thrown away. The tendency of those alterations must necessarily be to throw odium on the aristocracy, to give them an unjust character for severity and harshness, and to give credit to others for mild and conciliatory dispositions. However that might be, there was another objection to those Amendments, which, in the mind of every friend to order, was of great importance. The great object of the Bill was to put down agitation, and most willingly did he give his support to a measure having that object in view. When he supported the Bill he chiefly approved of that clause which was directed against agitation and agitators and he had no doubt but that it would be retained; it was therefore with great regret he perceived that an alteration had been made under which the great agitators would escape, though their unfortunate dupes might be handed over to a Court-martini. There was no one subject upon which their Lordships ought to be more resolute than in suppressing agitation in Ireland; if it continued the Catholics would be emboldened by success, while the Protestants would be disgusted by the repeated disappointment of their hopes of protection. These feelings might create the most disastrous results. Their Lordships might rest assured that nothing was more conducive to the peace and security of Ireland, and to the integrity of the empire, which depended so much upon the Union of the two countries, than making a marked distinction between the two great parties in Ireland. The protection of the Protestant interest by the British Legislature was essential to the maintenance of the Union; and if ever they should, through disgust or disappointment, coalesce with the other party

1313
it would be utterly impossible to prevent a Repeal of the Union, or, in other words, a dismemberment of the Empire. He objected to those Amendments on several grounds, and on none more particularly than that the higher classes of agitators and offenders were exempted from summary jurisdiction and military tribunals, whilst their humbler dupes, led on by artifice, operating unfortunately too often upon distress, would be handed over to those tribunals which he had hoped were intended principally for the punishment of the ringleaders. He did not mean to divide the House upon the Amendment, but if any noble Lord proposed its rejection he should have his support.
Lord Teynhamremarked, that half a million of people in England had petitioned against the passing of the Bill at all. It was a measure which certainly established a tremendous gulf between England and Ireland. He certainly did not mean to say, that the Bill was not necessary, but he deeply deplored that necessity, feeling, as he did, that Ireland ought to be governed by other means than by the sword.
Earl Greydenied that his conduct was justly liable to the charge which had been preferred against it. He certainly should have done very wrong if he had proposed any measure stronger than what the necessity of the case seemed to him at the time to require. But after much consideration, the Bill which he had had the honour to introduce to their Lordships was framed in conformity with what that necessity appeared to justify, and had been adopted by their Lordships in consequence of his statement. It then went to the other House of Parliament, which had an undoubted right to make what alterations in the Bill they thought proper. For those alterations he was not responsible. Some of them he wished had not been made. But when the Bill came back with these alterations, it was for their Lordships to consider whether it was not still sufficient for its purpose. That was the true ground on which the question stood. A noble Earl had alleged that the course which had been adopted was calculated to blacken the aristocracy in the minds of the people. If that reproach was applicable to the House for adopting the measure, how much more applicable must it be to him who proposed the measure? But he must deny that either the House or the
1314
individual who was then addressing them was justly subject to the reproach. When the Bill came from the other House of Parliament with alterations, it was their Lordships' duty to examine those alterations; and if they considered them beneficial, to adopt them. And even if they considered those alterations objectionable, yet not so objectionable as to warrant risking the loss or the delay of the Bill, they would then pay a proper deference to the other branch of the Legislature, as well as to their duty to the public, by agreeing to the alterations. He did not think that this alteration with respect to Courts-martial materially affected the Bill. These were the only alterations made in the first part of the Bill, and he did not think that they militated against its efficiency. He now approached the second part; and though there were numerous alterations made in it, yet they were not of any particular importance, with the exception of that which limited the power of the Lord-lieutenant, so that he could not apply the provisions of the Act to districts merely because tithes had not been paid. That clause had certainly made a great change in the operation of the Bill, but he hoped that the difference was not so great as to prevent their Lordships from passing it. With respect to the preamble, he thought that it was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. It stated that the laws now in force had been found inadequate to the prompt and effectual suppression of the disturbances, and that the interposition of Parliament was necessary, for the purpose of checking their further progress and to maintain the peace. He conceived that that had been fully made out, and the provisions of the Bill would carry it into effect. He agreed in opinion with the petitioners from Kilkenny, who stated in their last resolution that the least possible delay should be allowed to intervene in passing the measure into a law. He thought that the Bill, as amended, would have the effect of tranquillizing Ireland; and he was sure that the noble Duke opposite (than whom there could not be a higher authority on military matter) would declare that, with the Bill as it then stood in his hand, he would answer for the peace of that country. He would conclude by saying, that it was for their Lordships to say whether they would receive the Bill as amended, or whether they would reject any, or which

1315
of the Amendments made in the other House.
Clause with Amendments agreed to.
Several verbal Amendments were agreed to. On the Question being put, on the omission of the words in the 4th clause "shall be cognizable by any Court appointed as hereinafter mentioned, and if not committed within any such district—"
Lord Ellenboroughrose and said, that undoubtedly the Amendment in this clause made a great alteration in the working of the Bill: inasmuch as those attending meetings were only liable to be punished at common law as the clause now stood, whereas they could be punished summarily as the clause stood formerly. He recollected that when he formerly objected to the clause, it was said, that as the punishment inflicted was less than that awarded at common law, it would operate better than if more severe punishment were ordained, in consequence of the summary jurisdiction under which it might be awarded. He did not conceive that the clause, as amended, was more favourable to liberty than formerly, but quite the reverse. Though it was generally proper to confine observations to the clause under discussion, he thought it worthy of observation at that time, how unequally the Bill acted. By the 22nd clause it was enacted, that every person who should injure the property or person of any one who had appeared as a juror, witness, or prosecutor, or for the purpose of any prosecution or civil proceeding, or who by menaces, or otherwise, should deter any one from appearing as a juror, witness, &c., or otherwise, should be triable for such offence, if committed within any proclaimed district, by a Court-martial, and on conviction be liable to transportation for seven or fourteen years. This brought the poorer classes under the jurisdiction of Courts-martial, while the great agitators, who were the cause of the disturbances, were specially excepted by the clause then under consideration. If the alterations in the Bill had been made in the other House, contrary to the wishes of Government, and by an overwhelming majority of that House, then the Ministers and their Lordships would all be placed in the same situation. But that was not the case. Ministers not only agreed to many material changes, but they even suggested some amendments themselves. They must, therefore, have offered a measure for their
1316
Lordships' adoption, which was either inadequate to the case in point, or which they were not justified in passing. He did not like that provision of the Bill which enacted that the poor should be tried by Courts-martial, while the great agitators were tried by common law. It was not consistent with ordinary justice—it was not calculated to raise their Lordships in the opinion of the country—nor was it consistent with the grounds on which the noble Earl had founded his case for the necessity of the additional powers conferred on the Government by the Bill.
Earl Greysaid, that the noble Baron had endeavoured to create the impression that the Ministers were dealing leniently towards the great agitators, who caused the disturbances, while they oppressed the poor who only acted as their followers. He was convinced that the sense of the country would reject the imputation which the noble Baron endeavoured to cast upon Ministers. The noble Baron would allow that there was a difference between the culprit who practised midnight outrages, and plotted in secret, and him who went boldly in the face of the law, and that different modes of punishment were applicable to the two species of crime. That was the reason why the difference drawn between him who maliciously injured property, or deterred a juror from attending on any trial, or any offence of that sort—and the agitator. And as a proof that these agitators themselves did not consider that they were favoured by the measure, he might mention that persons addicted to such practices were those most opposed to its enactments. He thought, therefore, that whether their Lordships adhered to the clause as amended or not, they would acquit his Majesty's Government of any intention to truckle to the great agitators. He now came to the part of the noble Lord's statement which regarded the taking the power of summary punishment from the Justices of the Peace. The question was, whether the increased punishment would not he sufficient to answer the ends of justice. In his opinion it would; especially as any Magistrate, Peace Officer, or other person, authorized by the Lord-lieutenant, could commit to prison any one found out of his house at certain hours, or who contravened the provisions of the Act. If the punishment of the common law were found effectual, he could not but consider it desirable that it

1317
should be adhered to, as there was always a prejudice entertained against a conviction by a Magistrate without the intervention of a Jury. He, therefore, thought that their Lordships would consider that the Amendment might be agreed to, without destroying the efficacy of the Bill.
The Amendment agreed to.
Several verbal amendments agreed to—Upon the Amendment to the 4th clause being read, which provides that it shall not be in the power of the Lord-lieutenant to apply the provisions of the Bill merely because tithes had not been paid.
Earl Greysaid, that he could not but acknowledge that he approached that Amendment with great regret. He hoped, however, that the difference which it made in the operation of the Bill was not such as would induce their Lordships to reject the whole Bill. He, however, saw no greater difficulty in adopting the provision than that it was useless and clearly inoperative.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he objected to the Amendment because it was inconsistent with the previous part of the clause. The commencement of the clause gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of declaring a district in a state of insubordination, and then the clause went on to say that it should not be lawful for the Lord-lieutenant to apply the provisions of this act to any county or district merely because tithes should not have been paid. But a county or district might be disturbed in consequence of outrages arising from tithes, and it was surely not intended that the Lord-lieutenant was not then to proclaim the district. The Amendment at the end therefore did not take from the Lord-lieutenant the power given by the first part of the clause, though it appeared to do so, as far as tithes were concerned. But that was not his greatest objection to the clause. He objected to it more particularly because it gave the sanction of Parliament to a most improper distinction between tithes and other property, and deprived the clergy of that protection which was extended to every other class of his Majesty's subjects. He objected to it too, as the clause, if it meant anything went to put down tithes; and if it did not mean that, it meant nothing. Two years ago a party in Ireland had determined that tithes should be put down, and the Legislature had passed an Act to defeat their intentions, and compel the payment
1318
of tithes, yet that very Act was now to be defeated by the clause in question. Why did not the framers of the Bill begin their preamble with "Whereas it is expedient that no payment of tithe shall take place in Ireland." It would have been better to have done so at once, than thus to wink and connive at the injustice to which the Irish clergy were to be subjected by the Bill. There was another amended clause to which he would make some allusion—namely, that which related to combination to defeat the law. It was to the following effect:—" Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for any such Court-martial to convict or try any person for any offence whatsoever committed at any time before the passing of this Act: provided also, that nothing in this Act shall be deemed or taken to give to such Court-martial any power or jurisdiction to try any person or persons charged or to be charged with the printing, publishing, or circulating of any libel, or with any combination or confederacy contrary to the provisions of the said recited Statute of the 27th year of the reign of King George 3rd, or with any prevention or obstruction of any person, or any act to defraud any person in the assertion or enforcement of any civil right or claim contrary to the provisions of the said last-mentioned Statute, unless such combination or prevention, obstruction, or act, shall be accompanied by force or by threats; but that all such offences, unaccompanied by force or threats as aforesaid, shall remain triable according to the course of the common law." Their Lordships would bear in mind that Courts-martial could try no man except directed so to do by the Lord-lieutenant. They would also bear in mind, that the Legislature passed the Act 27th of George 3rd, referred to in the Clause for the protection of this species of property in the clergy. It contained this clause:—" And be it enacted, that any person who shall, voluntarily, enter into any unlawful combination or confederacy to defraud any clergy man of the Church of Ireland, or lay impropriator, of any tithes or dues, or any part thereof, or obstruct him in the collection thereof, or shall, by force, threats, or other unlawful means, prevent any clergyman, or lay impropriator, or any person or persons employed by him, from selling or disposing of any tithes, or do any act to defraud any clergyman or lay impropriator, of his tithes, or any part thereof, &c." Now it would be

1319
seen by the clause he had before quoted, that the Lord-lieutenant had the power to Older all other offences to be tried before Courts-martial; but he was not allowed to order offences connected with the collection of tithes, so that the clergy were not to have the same protection as the rest of his Majesty's subjects. He said it would be disgraceful if such an Act found a place on the Statute-book. He wished the sentiment embodied in those never-to-be-forgotten words which fell from the lips of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, at the beginning of the Session, a allusion to the Bill, had been acted on in the present instance. The noble and learned Lord then expressed himself in the following terms:—'The duties between the subject and the Government were reciprocal, and that Legislature, in which was vested the supreme power of the State, had no right to claim obedience to the law, nor had the Crown any right to claim allegiance, until that Legislature should secure, and that Crown command, complete and effectual protection for the life, liberty, and property of the subject. That Legislature was to be deemed as having abandoned its functions, and that Crown was to be considered in the hands of a usurper, and not qualified to claim allegiance, from the very moment it could be shown that the protection of the subject was at an end'.* He must contend that, if ever there was a case in which the protection of the Legislature was required for a body of men who willingly paid allegiance to the Crown, this was the case; and that, if ever there was a case in which it was clear that protection was refused, merely because it was the Church of Ireland and its property, which consisted principally of tithes, that demanded it, this, too, was that case. He objected to the first Amendment, because it gave a sanction for the spoliation of the Church of Ireland; and to the second, because it took away from the Lord-lieutenant the power of sending any offence which connected itself in any shape with tithe to be tried by Courts-martial. Their Lordships were in the habit of hearing a great deal said about the distress of the people of Ireland. Now, if there were distress in that country, it was attributable to the insecurity of property there, which prevented the rich man from engaging in
* Hansard (third series) xv. P. 752.
1320
those enterprises which might produce an increase of capital to himself, but were certain to produce an increase of employment to his poor labourers.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, if he thought those alterations objected to by the noble Duke could prevent the operation of the Bill, and leave the peaceable and loyal inhabitants unprotected, and deprived of that security which it was the main object of the Bill to give, be could not agree in sanctioning, but must refuse to adopt, such a clause. But because he had no such opinion he would concur in the Amendment. Had such a clause been proposed in that House, he should have agreed to it with great reluctance, because he looked upon it as absolutely and utterly inoperative. With regard to the other clause alluded to by the noble Duke, he did not consider it would, in the smallest degree, impair the efficiency of the measure. For these reasons he could not concur in the opinion expressed by the noble Duke. He had the greatest respect for the quarter whence the Amendment came. The authority of the other House must always carry with it great weight, but, in this instance, he must say he could see no sound reason or argument for the change, and it was with the greatest repugnance that he gave it his support. It would, however, be wholly inoperative, and could not have the slightest effect in modifying the measure, or diminishing that protection which they were bound to give to his Majesty's peaceable subjects. Objection was made to the clause because it did not apply to the peaceable refusal to pay tithes; but might not a complaint on the same grounds be also made, because it did not apply to the peaceable refusal to pay rent or just debts? Why, was it not said, that no district should be declared disturbed and insubordinate, on account of men not paying their tradesmen's bills, or on account of the non-payment of the King's taxes. Why, in short, was the Lord-lieutenant warned, not on any account to take a peaceable and quiet district for a disturbed and insubordinate one. But the patience of their Lordships was already sufficiently exhausted, without his dwelling for a moment longer upon this Amendment, which, in justice to those who proposed it, he must say was not without a precedent; for, he was sorry to observe, that the records of our Statute-book presented numberless instances of over caution,

1321
of contriving how to avoid doubts where doubts could never exist, and of introducing provisoes without any necessity whatever. However indefensible this Amendment might be in other respects, he must say, that it was utterly harmless and innocent. No man's rights were injured by it—no man's privileges were taken away or interfered with by it; and he was not prepared, on account of the Amendment in this clause alone, to dissent from the alterations made by the House of Commons. But it was said, that this Amendment gave an indication as if Parliament had different feelings on the subject of non-payment of tithes, from those which it ought to have; that it countenanced a belief that the Legislature was not so determined as it ought to be to protect all rights of property, and ecclesiastical property as well as any other property. He discovered nothing however in the rest of the measure, in the motives from which it was brought forward, or in the principles upon which it was framed, to give the least reason to suppose that Parliament was not determined, until the law should be changed, so long as the rights of landlords and tenants and of the Church should continue upon their present footing, to give to all those rights, and to all descriptions of property, ecclesiastical and otherwise, the protection to which the law of the land entitled it. And this brought him to consider the last section to which the noble Duke had referred—namely, the restriction of the power of bringing certain cases to trial by Courts-martial, by excepting offences cognizable under the 27th of George 3rd. Upon full consideration of this Amendment, he was inclined to think that those offences were well and wisely exempted from trial by Courts-martial. To this point it was but justice to say that, in his judgment the House of Commons had rather improved the Bill than altered it for the worse, although he confessed that the improvement never occurred to him when the Bill was before their Lordships. From the nature of those cases, he thought, on reflection, that they could not be well taken out of the hands of the ordinary tribunals, For offences of combination and conspiracy were the most nice, the most delicate, and the most difficult for Juries, nay, even for Judges themselves, as well as for Juries; they were, he said, the most difficult questions which in ordinary cases came before
1322
Courts of Justice. The nicety of the evidence and of the matter of the charge, as contrasted with the evidence, inclined him to think that it would be well to keep such cases in the ordinary Courts. But he had a second reason, and it was this; he was sure it was not the wish of the opponents of this Amendment, any more than of its supporters, to bring tithes into greater disrepute and odium than at present attached to then), and he thought that to embody such unpopular tribunals as Courts-martial for the purpose of enforcing tithe, would be to take a very injudicious mode of regaining for them the respect which they had lost in the public mind. A third reason which influenced his judgment upon the effect of this Amendment was, that there was an important limitation to the exception. Whenever these combinations were attended with violence, they were excepted from the exception, and left to be dealt with by the Bill as it originally passed their Lordships' House; that is to say, they were left to the jurisdiction of Courts-martial in proclaimed districts. As to any insinuations that might be thrown out against him, he disregarded them utterly and totally; he was going to say indignantly, but that his indignation was not at all moved by them. If he felt, as he did, a reluctance to resort to such a measure as the present Bill, and if that repugnance was only mitigated, never overcome, by the absolute necessity of the case, which left his Majesty's Government no choice but this measure, or some other equally objectionable; if concurring in the measure on this ground, anything had escaped him, or any oversight had been committed by him or his colleagues in framing the principles of the Bill, or devising the machinery by which they were to be carried into effect, were they to reject the suggestions of others, simply because they had not occurred to themselves, and because some factious or captious persons might say, "You passed these things over, and you are taking a leaf out of other men's books." He would never reject a leaf of another man's book, so that the book were better than his own, and that he had the choice between the two. He would therefore adopt this alteration. Even if it were against his better judgment, he might, perhaps, have been prepared to accede to it as all Ministers acceded to such alterations in all times.

1323
He believed his noble friend, if the noble Baron (Lord Ellenborough) would allow him to call him so, who made on this ground a charge of inconsistency against his Majesty's Government, was pretty nearly the only one at that side of the House who was entitled, if even he was entitled, to bring such a charge against Ministers. He could refer to the Six Acts, in which very important alterations were made; for instance, restricting their operation to meetings in the open air, and rendering them only temporary instead of permanent. These changes were adopted with great reluctance, and no charge of inconsistency was ever breathed against the Government of the day for complying with them. But it was said, that this Bill was totally different from the Bill as it was first brought in, and that it retained none of its effective provisions. What! was it nothing to enable the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to make the attending any society whatever, whether under cover or in the open air, for whatever purpose convened, and however peaceably conducted, a misdemeanor, and to render the party Punishable for attending at it? But it seemed the Bill made the great agitators free. Yes, if they chose to go to prison they were free; they were free if they chose to attend a meeting which might be innocent or laudable in itself until the proclamation of the Lord-lieutenant made it illegal. But then the agitator was not to be tried by Court-martial, while his dupe, his cat's-paw was. Could any man give any other than one answer to a plain question which he was about to put? Courts-martial were to exist only in proclaimed districts. Now, he asked, could there be any agitation in proclaimed districts? The answer was, that the cat would as soon go voluntarily into the fire, as the other animal thrust himself into a proclaimed district. The Bill was still a very effective one. That alteration in the Bill which enabled the police at any period to ascertain in a short time the inmates of a house by having a list of them, had increased its severity and efficacy. As much had been said against the House of Commons for depriving the Bill of its efficacy, he must do them the justice to say, that in this point they had increased the efficacy of the Bill.
The Duke of Buckinghamcomplained of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack having employed all his in-
1324
genuity and all his skill to lead the attention of the House away from the point at issue. The noble and learned Lord seemed aware that the month of March had expired, and that he was therefore at liberty to make April fools of their Lordships. Nothing could be so ridiculous, so feeble, so burlesque, as the noble and learned Lord had made this piece of legislation appear, which the noble and learned Lord had nevertheless supported. If he had wanted arguments against this part of the Bill, he should have found them in the statements of the noble and learned Lord and of the noble Earl. That it was totally unnecessary had been proved by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had been prolific in abuse of the clause of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary for Ireland, and is now Secretary of State for the Colonies, and of the unfortunate Gentleman who proposed, and those who supported the Amendment, though the noble and learned Lord called them his political friends. He should not lavish his abuse upon them in imitation of the noble and learned Lord; he should content himself by saying that the proviso was useless, and mischievous because it was useless. It was to him a strong objection that by it tithes was the only species of property that was not protected by this measure. Those who proposed this proviso seemed to have no objection to give a broad hint to the clergy of Ireland that they were not to be protected. He did not say that there was such an intention on the part of Ministers, but it seemed, by their assenting to this clause, that they had no objection to prostrate the Protestant Church of Ireland. This was, in his opinion, the first step towards the ruin of that Church. Whether it had been well done or not he did not say, but it was by means of that Church that Ireland had been governed; and he desired to know, if its place were not supplied by something equally strong, what was to prevent the separation of the two countries? They must make the King the head of the Catholic Church, or they would not be able to preserve the Union. The Bishop of London agreed with many of the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke. When he had heard the noble Lord on the Woolsack take such pains to demonstrate the absurdity of

1325
this proviso, and its incongruity with the other parts of the Bill, he could not do otherwise than hope that the noble and learned Lord meant to resist it. He agreed with the noble Duke that it would make the Bill inoperative, and worse than inoperative. They were not to judge of the feelings of the Irish by the feelings of well-educated Englishmen. Certainly, the clause would not, in the minds of the English, sanction the non-payment of the dues of the Establishment. They would discriminate between the sanction and the prohibition to the Lord-lieutenant. But the Irish, he was afraid, would suppose that this limitation was meant for a settled purpose, and that purpose, they were likely to suppose, was the encouragement of tithe-payers not to pay tithes. That such would at least be its effect, it was not possible, he believed, to deny. As a minister of the United Church of England and Ireland, he could not sanction the Amendment. The only objection, perhaps, which could be made to rejecting the Amendment was, that it would delay the Bill, and that the Bill was necessary to tranquillize Ireland. But he did not believe that rejecting it would cause any serious delay. It was owing, he understood, to peculiar circumstances and to misapprehension, that the proviso was carried at all. He anticipated, therefore, if the Bill were sent back to the Commons with the clause struck out, that it would occasion no discussion, and he believed would not be followed by a division. If their Lordships divided on the clause, he could not withhold his support from those who objected to this Amendment.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that the clause was of trifling importance when taken in conjunction with the rest of the Bill. It did not, in fact, exonerate the non-tithe-payers from any of the enactments or provisions of the Bill, nor was there any disposition in the Government to encourage them not to pay their dues. When an accusation was made, that Ministers sought to prostrate the Protestant Church, their Lordships ought to look at the conduct of Ministers, to see what they had done, and what they proposed to do, and their Lordships would find in that, a complete refutation of the opinion that such was the intention of Ministers. Government, in fact, had brought on itself a great deal of odium, and had exposed itself to much obloquy, by exciting itself to
1326
collect the tithes. Its exertions on that point, he had a right to complain, were not met by that corresponding support from the other side which it was entitled to expect. The clergy, he admitted, were in great distress; but it was by facts—not suppositions or reports in newspapers—that the intentions and conduct of Government should be judged. He was sure that no instance could be adduced in which, the Government had refused to employ the military or civil force to support the clergy. He was of opinion that the clause, as it now stood, gave the clergy much greater protection than they had before. It made the combination to resist tithes liable to be tried by a Court-martial. It was intended to protect, and it would protect, the property of the clergy.
The Bishop of Londonwished it to be understood, that his observations had been exclusively confined to the proviso in the fourth clause.
The Duke of Buckinghamcould assure the noble and learned Lord that he judged of the Ministers by their acts alone.
Lord Wynfordobjected to the proviso. There might be a conspiracy in a district to prevent the payment of tithes, while, by this proviso, the Lord-lieutenant would be unable to proclaim it. He considered that the property of the Church was most sacred, and ought to be protected to the utmost.
The Marquess of Westmeathsupported the Amendments, not because he approved of them, but because he thought opposition might delay the Bill, which was much wanted in Ireland.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that this was the only Amendment to which he should object. He considered that the clause as it now stood would stultify their Lordships' whole proceedings on this Bill, To him the clause appeared totally unintelligible, useless, and foolish. It was the produce, indeed, of an inveterate feeling against the Protestant clergy. It came from the inveterate enemies of that Church, and he was determined to take the sense of the House upon it. This proviso was originated and supported by gentlemen in the other House, who openly and fairly declared what their object was in carrying-measures of Church spoliation into effect. He found fault with his Majesty's Government for conceding this point—certainly not with the noble Earl personally, but

1327
with the noble Earl's colleagues in the other House, for consenting to a clause which they themselves condemned. His; Majesty's Government now asked their Lordships to consent to a clause, the folly of which they admitted. But if they, found fault with it, they were bound to act upon their opinion; and he trusted they would not, for the sake of a delay of twenty-four hours, suffer so objectionable a proviso to pass. He knew that his Majesty's Ministers were very obnoxious in Ireland. They were obnoxious to both parties; but that they had rendered themselves obnoxious by any exertions which they had made to enforce the payment of tithes he utterly denied. It might be true that the Government never refused any application made by a clergyman for military aid; but that was not enough; something more was required; for there were many clergymen in Ireland who would, and did endure the most severe privation, rather than run the risk of being instrumental in the shedding of human blood. The Government had omitted to give sufficient proof of the wish that tithes should be collected. There was one case which recurred to him at that moment which proved his assertion. A Magistrate of the county of Meath had, some time since, presided at an anti-tithe meeting in a Roman Catholic chapel, where he and those present had entered into resolutions not to pay tithes; and yet that Magistrate still remained in the commission of the peace, though his conduct had been fully represented to his Majesty's Government [Name]. He had no objection to name. The Magistrate who presided was Mr. Taaf, of Meath county. He certainly thought his Majesty's Government had to answer for the present state of things in Ireland. He knew several cases in which farmers had said, "Let the Government show that they are in earnest in wishing tithes to be collected, and we will pay them; but under the present system of intimidation we dare not." He believed that much of the blood which had been shed in Ireland must rest upon the heads of the Government.
Lord Wharncliffemuch regretted the alteration made in the other House of Parliament, which was admitted to be perfectly useless. He felt as unwilling to delay this Bill as the noble Earl opposite, but he could not admit that for the sake of a delay of twenty-four hours they were
1328
to permit this clause to remain. It was said on the other side that it was totally inoperative; but though it might be inoperative, it did not therefore follow that it was innocent. When one side admitted it to be absurd, and the other believed it to be far from innocent, he hoped the House would not, for fear of a delay of twenty-four hours, consent to pass the clause in its present state.
Earl Greyentreated the noble Lord and the House not to believe that the rejection of this clause would lead to a delay of twenty-four hours only. The consequence of its rejection would be a conference between the two Houses, and it would be utterly impossible for them to get the Bill through before Easter, unless they sat after Good Friday. So long a delay would be productive of great inconvenience and danger. He did not take upon himself to defend the clause; he agreed with his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He much regretted its introduction. But it would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the efficacy of the Bill, for the clause was totally inoperative, and for that reason, and to avoid delay, he was prepared to waive his objections. With regard to the conclusions which would be drawn in Ireland from the introduction of this clause, he thought there had been much exaggeration on the part of those who objected to it. There was nothing like a disposition on the part of the Government to give less protection to tithes than to any other species of property. He quite agreed with his noble friend that they were entitled to equal protection. He denied—he indignantly denied—that the Government had ever refused to give equal protection to tithe-owners as to the owners of other species of property; and if he believed that it would encourage any such delusion as had been stated, he would I most certainly reject the clause. But it would go forth to the country with a complete disclaimer on the part of the Government, and he could not anticipate any such results as had been predicted. He regretted those general observations which had been indulged in, and the general attack which had been made on the members of the Administration; but he would say this, that had those parties who were loudest in blaming the conduct of the Government in Ireland been as anxious to repress the first symptoms of disorder

1329
there, as to avail themselves of them as a means of embarrassing the Ministry, the present measure of coercion would, in all probability, not have been required. The Government was most anxious to suppress disturbance by a vigorous exercise of the powers of the law as they found it, and it was not until they found these powers unavailing, that they felt themselves justified in calling for additional authority. The present Bill left the clergy in full possession of all the powers they now had to collect their tithes, and gave them the same protection that it held out to all other owners of property. He should, therefore, vote for the clause as it stood.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate had rendered it unnecessary for him to state his view of the question. The people of Ireland would look to the parties who proposed the clause, and, knowing that they introduced it with ulterior views, they would believe those ulterior views to have obtained the sanction of Parliament if the clause were suffered to remain. Yet so strongly was he impressed with an apprehension of the evil consequences of delay that be would rather swallow the pill, bitter as it was, than lose time. He thought, however, that the clause might be rendered harmless without requiring the delay supposed by the noble Earl. To make a conference necessary there must be an alteration of the proviso; but, if only certain words were introduced, the Amendment upon the Amendment might be agreed to in the other House and the Bill sent up. The great evil of the clause as it stood was that it made a distinction between tithes and other property. It was admitted, that this distinction would be inoperative, and it had, therefore, occurred to him, that by the introduction of some other grounds of exemption the distinction itself would be destroyed. He should therefore move, after the words which made it not lawful for the Lord-lieutenant to apply the provisions of the Act to meetings relating to the payment of tithes, to insert the words "or rent or taxes."
Viscount Melbourneobjected to the Amendment, as likely to lead to a very great discussion and delay. Besides, if it really was the opinion of the noble Lord opposite, that the exception of tithes would create an impression that tithes ought not to be paid, the addition of the
1330
words "rent and taxes" would only have the effect of extending that impression to them.
The Lord Chancellorcould not concur in the proposition of the noble Earl. He quite agreed with his noble friend who spoke last. It would create new grounds of discussion. He was quite confident that the introduction of those words would prove a fruitful source of delay, discussion and opposition in the other House. It had been suggested, that the insertion of those words might induce the peasantry of Ireland to evade rent and taxes as they evaded tithes, and to make then" believe, that the evasion would be looked upon with a lenient eye—such an inference would be most illogical and erroneous; but was not more illogical, or more erroneous than the original supposition that this exception of tithe in any way warranted or justified its non-payment.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he should greatly prefer the omission of the Clause.
The House divided on the Amendment, when there appeared—Not content, present 46; proxies 39–85:—Content, present 40; proxies 5–45:—Majority 40.
The Clause as amended by the Commons agreed to.
On the Amendment on the Clause respecting the search for arms being read.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he thought the alteration impaired the efficacy of the Bill. If it was intended that they were not to go into a house and desire the inmates to come forth till the lists were ready, great delay would be occasioned—indeed it must necessarily occupy some time before the census could be made. He would, however, offer no opposition to the Amendment, though he considered it necessary to put on record his opinion upon the subject.
The Amendments made by the Commons were all agreed to.

List of the Not-CONENTS.

Present.

The Lord Chancellor

EARLS.

DUKES.

Devonshire

Amherst

Norfolk

Cawdor

Richmond

Charlemont

Somerset

Denbigh

Sutherland

Fitzwilliam

MARQUESSES.

Gosford

Grey

Cleveland

Gower (Stafford)

Lansdown

Rosebery

Westraeath

Sefton

1331

VISCOUNTS.

Lilford

Melbourne

Minster (Conyngham)

St. Vincent

Monteagle (Sligo)

LORDS.

Poltimore

Alvanley

Paget (Uxbridge)

Auckland

Panmure

Byron

Plunkett

Cloncurry

Somerhill (Clanricarde)

Dinorben

Dundas

Suffield

Foley

Saye and Sele

Goderich

Teynham

Hill

Sundbridge (Argyll)

Holland

BISHOP.

Howland (Tavistock)

Lichfield

Lynedoch

Proxies.

DUKES.

LORDS.

Bedford

Braybrook

Leinster

Boyle

Portland

Carleton

MARQUESSES.

Chaworth

Anglesey

Clements

Wellesley

Clifford

Dover

EARLS.

Ducie

Buckinghamshire

Erskine

Burlington

Godolphin

Carlisle

Hunsdon (Falkland)

Camperdown

Howard de Walden

Durham

Howard of Effingham

Essex

Kenlis (Headfort)

Fingall

Kilmarnock (Errol)

Grey of Groby

Middleton

Ilchester

Rossie (Kinnaird)

Ranfurly

Stanley

Spencer

Stourton

VISCOUNT.

Segrave

Lake

Yarborough

List of the CONTENTS.

Present.

DUKES.

Ellenborough

Cumberland

Kenyon

Wellington

Wynford

Newcastle

Colchester

Buckingham

Colville

MARQUESSES.

Wallace

Cholmondeley

Cowley

Salisbury

Arden

Thomond

Sidmouth

EARLS.

Bexley

Aberdeen

Carbery

Roden

Strangford

Eldon

Wharncliffe

Harrowby

Saltoun

Wicklow

Calthorpe

Courtown

ARCHBISHOP.

Shaftesbury

Canterbury

Rosslyn

BISHOPS.

Beverley

London

VISCOUNT.

Bangor

Beresford

Lincoln

LORDS.

Bristol

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

Lichfield

Carlisle

1332

Proxies.

EARLS.

Rolle

Clancarty

BISHOP.

Oxford

Worcester

LORDS.

Sheffield (Earl of)