Sitting of 6 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Spring Quarter Sessions; County Rates.
Petitions presented. By Mr. VERNON SMITH, from Belper, in favour of, and from Smisby, against, the Claims of the Dissenters; from two Places, against, Drunkenness; and from the same Place, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Viscount EBRINGTON, and Messrs. BROUGHAM, SHAW LEFEVRE, CHARLES TYRELL, HAWKINS, Lord NORREYS, Colonel WILLIAMS, Messrs. BLACKBURNE, STRUTT, and GISBORNE, from several Places,—against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Sheriff and others of Kent, against Tithes.—By Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT, from Hertford, against the Importation of Corn from Jersey, &c.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, Lord NORREYS, Lord JERMYN, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. ESTCOURT, Mr. HALFORD, and Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from several Places,—against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities, and for Protection to the Church of England, and against the Separation of Church and State.—By Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Perth, for Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. E. COOPER, from Sligo, for the Re-establishment of the Linen Board, and for Relief to the Linen Trade.—By Mr. OSWALD, from Kilwinning, for the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. ATHERLY and Colonel WILLIAMS,—against the proposed Measure of Church Rates.—By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from five Places, against the Beer Bill, and against Drunkenness.—By Mr. OSWALD, from Largs, for Simplifying the Proceedings in Courts of Justice; from the Parochial Schoolmasters of Ayr, for an increased Stipend; from two Places, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord DALMENY, from Tarbolton, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from Clapham; &c., against the Separation of Church and State.—By Colonel WILLIAMS, from Staley-Bridge, in favour of the Lord's Day Bill; from Ashton-under-Lyne, for the Remission of the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from Heckmondwicke and Plympton, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
On the Question, that the Speaker leave the Chair—
Mr. Cobbettexpressed his wish, that the House would inquire into the cause of the increase of pauperism before it passed this measure; it would thus ascertain whether it was necessary to pass it at all. If it were found that the evils had not increased, or that they were stationary, it might not be wise to legislate
310
upon the subject. The instructions to the Commissioners stated, that "if the evils of the system appeared to he diminished, or to be stationary, it would be better to endure them than to incur the probable hazard of an extensive alteration." As to the poor-rates, it appeared that though they had augmented of late years, yet, that in the last year they had diminished four per cent. all over the kingdom; so that, according to the rule prescribed to the Commissioners, the House ought not to interpose, and the Bill upon the Table ought to proceed no farther. At least Parliament ought to pause and investigate the fact before it ventured to make so extensive an alteration. The House, in fact, treated the subject as if the poor had been guilty of some crime, when the fact was, that neither Magistrates, Overseers, nor poor were in fault: the fault lay in the acts of the House itself, and it was so duly sensible of that fact, that it was afraid to investigate the causes of the present condition of the poor. The Commissioners had now and then let out facts that did not quite make for the end they had in view, pleasing those who appointed them, and it was in evidence in their Report, that in the parish of Breed, in Sussex, fifty years ago, there was but one cottage that did not belong to the labourers who occupied them: now there were but two cottages the property of labourers, 182 of whom were upon the rates. In another place the labourers formerly brewed their own beer: now they neither brewed beer nor drank it. In the Report of the Agricultural Committee it was stated, that a want of employment was one of the great causes of the increase of the poor-rate, and that this want of employment occurred while at the same time a large quantity of land either was entirely uncultivated, or stood in need of better cultivation. Now what he (Mr. Cobbett) wished to know was, what the cause was of all this? He thought it ought to be explained before they proceeded with the Bill, the tendency of which was more than half to revolutionize the country. Before they proceeded with that Bill, they ought to solve the problem contained in the passage which he had referred to in the Report of the Agricultural Committee. It was his intention on the next occasion when it was proposed that the House should resolve itself into this Committee to move that, before any further

311
proceeding with the Bill, an inquiry should be instituted of the causes of the great evils which existed under the present Administration of the Poor-laws; and also that a copy of the instructions which had been given to the Barristers who drew up the Bill should be laid on the Table.
Mr. Claywished to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was not his intention to admit of appeals against the decisions of the Poor-law Commissioners being moved by writ of certiorari into the King's Bench.
Lord Althorpdid not see any importance in retaining that clause which gave the Commissioners the power of acting as justices of the peace; but with respect to the clause which provided that the orders framed by the Commissioners should not be removable by writ of certiorari into any of his Majesty's Courts of Record, he did not think, after the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, that it would be desirable to remove that clause from the Bill. If, however, before the Report of the Committee any mode could be devised of trying the legality of the Commissioners' orders, without suspending them, he should not be indisposed to adopt it; but to proceeding by writ of certiorari he decidedly objected, because it would have the effect of suspending the Orders of the Commissioners, and interfering very inconveniently with the action of the Bill.
Sir James Scarlettconceived, that the noble Lord, by adhering to that clause, was about to establish an absolute tyranny on the part of the Commissioners. These officers would not be responsible for any of their conduct under the Bill; no action could be brought against them; there would be no tribunal to try the case or to correct anything they might do. He for one did not think that the people of England were disposed to submit to such a power, either in the Poor-law Commissioners or in that House itself. If the Commissioners were under any obligation to make only legal orders, who was to judge of the legality unless it were some of the superior Law Courts? This would be the only remedy. An action must be brought in order to ascertain whether the orders of the Commissioners were legal; but by the Bill the Commissioners, it seemed, were to be relieved from all responsibility, The noble Lord was about to
312
establish an absolute irresponsible power which no Court of Law could control. The question was, did it become the House of Commons to intrust such a power with any man or body of men whatsoever. Unless the writ of certiorari was allowed to exist as at common law the first part of the Amendment which he understood the noble Lord was to move to the Bill would pass for nothing at all. The noble Lord was really about to establish a perfect tyranny unless he admitted of the control of the Court of King's Bench, or of some control besides that of submitting the orders of the Commissioners to the Secretary of State.
Lord Althorpexplained, that his objection to allowing the orders of the Commissioners to be removed by writ of certiorari to the Court of King's Bench arose out of the delay which such a proceeding was calculated to produce. But he repeated, some unobjectionable mode of ascertaining the legality of the Commissioners' orders could very probably be devised before the termination of the Committee. He did not so much object to allowing a question to be raised respecting their legality previous to their operation, as he did to having their legality disputed after they had been acted upon.
Mr. Grotetrusted, that the powers of the Commissioners would not be crippled. If the efficiency of the measure was destroyed, the House would incur the odium of passing an unconstitutional measure, without having the consolation of being able to derive any benefit from it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the orders of the Commissioners would contain matter of a mixed nature, being both legal and political; and he, therefore, did not think that they could properly be submitted to the consideration of his Majesty's Courts of Record. There was a great distinction between applying to a court of justice by writ of certiorari, on a specific question of law, and going there to get its sanction to a whole code of laws before they were issued.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
On the 21st clause, requiring the Commissioners to inquire into the expense of the poor belonging to each parish for three years, being read,
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, that he felt great objection to this clause, as it gave to

313
the Commissioners the power of imposing a tax to whatever extent they pleased on any parish, without the consent of the rate-payers and the owners of property within the parish. In his opinion, the present clause completely annulled the provision in the 19th clause, restricting the amount of money which the Commissioners were empowered to raise to 50 l. from each parish, and might have the effect of altering the value of every estate in the kingdom, by making the inhabitants of a well-managed parish united to a pauperized parish pay for the erection of workhouses for which they themselves had no need. He should, therefore, propose that the Commissioners should have the power of taxing any parish without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers and owners of property.
Lord Althorpunderstood the objection of the hon. Gentleman to the clause was, that it gave the Commissioners the power of taxing parishes to any extent. The ground for the assumption was, that the Commissioners had the power of building workhouses in any parishes they pleased. The Commissioners had no such power; they merely were enabled to direct the forming unions of parishes, and they had merely the power of recommending the erection of workhouses; the parish, however, could refuse. The amount of expenditure that the Commissioners could order was comparatively small. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that parishes with small rates would object to contribute towards building workhouses. He (Lord Althorp) did not anticipate that that would be the case; he thought, that it was more likely, that parishes paying large rates would object to pay their proportion to funds for building workhouses. If the Commissioners were to have the power of building workhouses the objection of the hon. Baronet would be of some weight; but, although this was recommended in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, his Majesty's Government would not consent to give them such power.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that it appeared to him that there was some ground for the objection of the hon. Baronet, but not to the extent that he supposed. As the Bill stood, the Commissioners would have the power of calling upon parishes to give up workhouses that were now adequate to their wants, and to
314
contribute to the building of a general workhouse.
Mr. Grotethought that the clause did not bear the construction put on it by the hon. Baronet. It did not appear to him, however, that in cases of unions of parishes there was sufficient provision made for ensuring that the proportionate expenses of building the workhouse should be fairly assessed.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that he should support the proposition of the hon. Baronet because it tended to render the Bill absurd, although it was sufficiently absurd already. He objected to the Bill in every possible form, and thought it wrong in its object, wrong in its details, and wrong in its principles. The noble Lord had nine large volumes on the subject of the Poor Laws which no human being had ever read through, or indeed through any one of them. The noble Lord said, that his Bill was founded on the evidence contained in those volumes. This assertion reminded him of the story of a negro who had been sent by his master to count the pebbles on the shore, and who in a short time returned to his master and said, that there were 21,000,000,000. His master charged him with telling a falsehood, but the negro replied, "Go, master, and count them, and you will find I am correct." So it was with the noble Lord, who said that his Bill was founded on the facts contained in the evidence annexed to the Report, and told Members to go and read it. But he could tell the noble Lord that there was not a man in that House who could get through those volumes. The whole Bill was founded on the assumption of arbitrary power, and would, if carried, rob the poorer classes in the most shameful manner, indeed as much as was done by the Act by which a return was ordered to cash payments. Why did the noble Lord attempt to force such a Bill down the throats of the people? For his part he had never heard of any grievances growing out of the Poor-laws. The amount of the poor-rates paid at present was not greater than it was forty years ago, if they took into consideration the increase of population. At present the poor-rates of Birmingham amounted to nearly 40,000 l. But the Bill of 1819 robbed the people of Birmingham of 4,000,000 l. a-year. The noble Lord could not expect to live much longer. He (Mr. Attwood) therefore wished the

315
noble Lord had, for the sake of his reputation, ended his political career before he brought forward this absurd Bill.
Lord Althorpwas not surprised that the hon. Gentleman objected to every part of the Bill when he said, that he had never heard of any defects in the Poor-laws.
Sir Henry Willoughbysaid, there were not less than 220 parishes in which from one-fifth to one-twentieth of the population were said in the Report of the Commissioners to be out of employment during part of the year. Now he wished to know whether they could establish a workhouse system in parishes of this kind? He could mention one parish in which there were 100 out of work in summer and 120 in winter. Now were all those men who could not always procure work to be forced into workhouses? There were some parishes in which the single men would be quite sufficient to do all the work of the parish. The consequence in such parishes must be to send all the men with families into the workhouse, or else compel them to accept of very reduced wages. If the system in the workhouse was too stringent men would feel reluctance to enter it, and the effect would be to minimize wages in such a parish. It was well known that persons who once entered a workhouse seldom left it. He was checkmated for ever after. He was surprised to hear any man say, that this was a constitutional measure, and consistent with the Poor-laws of this country. The fact was, that the word "workhouse" did not once occur in the 43rd of Elizabeth. He would be quite satisfied if it could be shown to him that by a system of workhouses work could be procured for the redundant population.
Mr. Towersaid, he was surprised to hear the member for Birmingham say, that there were no complaints of the Poor-laws. This might be true of manufacturing districts, for they did not press so heavily upon the manufacturing as upon the agricultural interest, the former paying in the proportion of only one to twenty-two or twenty-five. He would oppose the Amendment because it tended to smother the Commissioners with two great a variety of work, and thus to impair their efficacy.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmoreexpressed his surprise at the objection taken by his hon. friend (Sir Henry Willoughby) to the
316
workhouse system altogether. If the Amendment of the hon. Baronet were carried, it would prevent many parishes in union from contributing their quota to the relief of the poor. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill gave the Commissioners a power to erect a general system of workhouses all over the country.
Mr. Robert Palmerdid not understand that the Bill gave the power to erect workhouses without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers of a parish. He wished to know from the noble Lord what it was the Bill proposed to do in that respect?
Lord Althorpwas glad that the hon. member for Berkshire had given him the opportunity of stating, that the Bill did not give the power to build workhouses without the consent of the majority of the rate-payers of the parish. The Commissioners had the power to suggest to the parish the erection of a workhouse, but the erection was not to take place without the consent of the rate-payers, not even in unions of parishes. The Bill did not involve the necessity of giving no relief out of the workhouse, or of erecting workhouses throughout the country, without the consent of the majority of the owners of property. The question whether the workhouse system might not be better applied was a different thing; but it would be absurd to suppose that the Bill meant to sanction a general system of workhouses throughout the country. The power of giving relief out of doors would still remain as before. The only difference would be, that the Magistrates would not have the same power as formerly to award relief, that power resting with the guardians of the poor.
Mr. Benettcontended, that the parish would have no effectual control over the erection of workhouses unless the clause were worded "and" with the consent, instead of "or" with the consent of the guardians of the poor. He had the strongest objection to a general workhouse system, and on that ground he would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it had been stated by the hon. member for Wiltshire that country gentlemen would, under this Bill, no longer be guardians of the poor in their respective parishes. If his hon. friend would look more closely into the Act, he would find that the fact was decidedly the reverse, for one Magistrate in

317
each district would be a guardian of the poor.
Mr. Hodgeslooked upon the measure as one for giving aid to the sick and employment to the able-bodied poor. Now, in this clause the Commissioners were directed to inquire into the expenses incurred for three previous years in the parishes about to be united for the support of the poor, and thereupon to strike an average for the whole. It appeared to him, that they should, in inquiring into such expense, make an analytical division of it, showing how much had been incurred for the support of the aged and impotent, and how much for the support of the able-bodied poor in each parish. It was for the able-bodied paupers that those workhouses were intended, and it was according to the expense that had been incurred in each separate parish for the support of that class of paupers that parishes, when united, should be rated towards the expense of erecting those workhouses. Unless an analysis were made of the mode in which the expenses connected with the support of the poor for the three previous years had been incurred much injustice might be done, for in some parishes little or none might have been laid out in the support of able-bodied poor, while, owing to law expenses and other accidental causes, the outlay in other respects might have been considerable. With regard to this incorporation of parishes for the erection of workhouses, it had been tried already in Suffolk for a period of fifty years, and instead of lessening it had increased the expenditure for the poor in the parishes that had adopted it. He thought the principle erroneous and mischievous.
Mr. Poulett Scropeagreed with the hon. member for Kent in the objections which he had taken to this clause. If passed in its present form, it would press with great hardness and severity upon those smaller parishes who at present had no workhouses at all, but who supported their poor at their own homes humanely and well. It would be extremely hard to compel those parishes, by uniting them to other and larger parishes, to contribute to the erection of workhouses that they did not want. The hon. member for Kent had referred to the failure that had attended the trial of this workhouse system in Suffolk, where it had existed for a long period. In corroboration of that opinion he
318
would just read to the House a few extracts from the Report of Mr. Stuart, one of the Assistant-Commissioners, with regard to the incorporated hundreds in that county. The House would see what had been the effect of this incorporated workhouse system there, and they would also perceive that it had been tried exactly in the manner that this Bill proposed to introduce it all over the country. The hon. Member accordingly read a long passage from the Report, stating that the workhouse system had there failed, and that the workhouses had become prisons. The hon. Member contended, that this extract faithfully depicted what was the object, and what would be the consequences of the workhouse system as proposed to be established by this Bill. They would in fact become, as they had in Suffolk, prisons for the purpose of terrifying applicants from seeking for relief; and though such a cruel expedient might be resorted to, it would be seen that it had little chance of being attended with success. The hon. Member also read an extract from a letter of Mr. Becher, who had been described as a patron of workhouses, in which he stated, that the workhouse system as proposed under this Bill would be productive of great mischief. He (Mr. Scrope) could not support the Amendment, as it would take away altogether the power of uniting parishes, but he trusted that the noble Lord would introduce hereafter a modification of the clause so as to prevent the injustice of driving a large portion of the people into workhouses, which would be so many large prisons.
The House divided on the Amendment—Ayes 12; Noes 113; Majority 101.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir J.

Fryer, R.

Attwood, T.

Godson, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Guise, Sir W.

Benett, J.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, T.

Tower, C. T.

Butler, Colonel

TELLER.

Faithfull, G.

Willoughby, Sir H.

The clauses as far as the thirty-second were agreed to. The Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Friendly Societies; Navy Pay.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from Ellon, against altering the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from three Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, Earl HOWE, and the Bishop of LONDON, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, from several Bodies of the Clergy, against admitting Dissenters to the Universities.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of WINCHESTER, from seven Places,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from West Bergholt, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Bishop or WINCHESTER, from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath. By Lord SUF-
240
FIELD, and the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from several Places,—in favour of the Chimney Sweepers' Regulation Bill.

MINISTERIAL CHANGES.
The Duke of Newcastlewas anxious, before proceeding to the order of the day, to address a few words to their Lordships on a subject which he had hoped would have attracted the attention of some other noble Lord, better qualified than himself to do it justice—he alluded to the late changes in the Administration. He was very desirous their Lordships should be rightly informed as to the precise footing on which the Cabinet about to be completed would stand. He feared he must conclude, judging from circumstances which were too notorious, that it was formed on principles entirely adverse to the Established Church of the country; and if anything were necessary to confirm that belief, it was the secession of certain members from the Cabinet, who had retired in a manner highly honourable to themselves, refusing to participate in those measures of spoliation and injustice which their colleagues in a manner so frightful and reckless had determined to pursue, which would justly draw down on them the malediction of the present generation and of all who should come after them. If he were right in supposing that the present Administration was formed on principles hostile to the Established Church, there was a strange and alarming discrepancy to which he desired to advert. Their Lordships had no doubt read a speech which had been pronounced by his most gracious Majesty to the Bishops on a late interesting occasion—a speech which he rejoiced and exulted in saying, would have been quite worthy of the gracious and venerated sire of his Majesty, which was the highest eulogium he could pronounce. What did that speech prove? It proved, beyond all contradiction, that his Majesty was firmly attached to the religious institutions of his country, and that it was his fixed purpose to maintain them. Here, then, was the discrepancy. On the one side they had an Administration formed on the principles of opposition, insult, injury, and persecution to the Church of England, and on the other, a Sovereign determined to uphold the religion and Established Church of the country, as he was, in fact, bound to do by his most solemn asseveration. In those circumstances, he did not think he

241
should apologise to their Lordships for calling on his Majesty's Government to explain to that House, and to lay before the country at the present critical juncture of affairs, the grounds on which their Administration was formed and was to be conducted, and to ask them whether they were prepared to violate the conscience of their Sovereign, and subject his will to,—
Earl Fitzwilliamrose to order. He appealed to noble Lords more conversant than himself with the forms of that House, whether the strain in which the noble Duke was proceeding were consistent with its established and recognized orders? The noble Duke had asked whether the present Cabinet, or that about to be formed, was prepared to call upon his Majesty to violate his conscience, having in a former part of his speech quoted the name of an exalted personage in a manner which certainly appeared to him (Earl Fitzwilliam) to trench very much upon freedom of debate, and the usually recognised forms of the House. It was, therefore, a matter of very grave consideration, whether the course pursued by the noble Duke was likely to conduce either to order of procedure, or to maintain the proper freedom and independence of that House.
Lord Kenyonrose to order. The noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) had not interfered at the proper time. Had the noble Earl interfered when the name of his Majesty was first introduced, he might have been quite consistent in calling the noble Duke to order. But the noble Earl not having then interfered, and having allowed the noble Duke to proceed in his statement, and put a question to his Majesty's Government, it was not competent for the noble Earl to interfere. Nothing could be more proper or constitutional than for any peer of that House to call on his Majesty's Ministers to explain the grounds on which their Administration was formed, and the principles by which they would be guided.
The Duke of Newcastleresumed. He should not have introduced the name of his Majesty, but that it was absolutely necessary, however unwilling he was to do so; and certainly the name of his Majesty had been in that House very improperly used on former occasions. He would therefore press the question, whether it was the intention of Government to attempt to control his Majesty, and induce him to forswear his most
242
solemn engagements? ["Order, Order."]
The Earl of Mulgravefelt great unwillingness to interrupt the noble Duke, but he felt solemnly convinced that the course the noble Duke was pursuing was utterly at variance with the recognised orders of the House. The name of his Majesty should not be introduced on such an occasion; and therefore he put it to the noble Duke himself, without appealing generally to their Lordships, whether he would proceed in a course which the noble Duke himself must acknowledge was at variance with the established rules of the House?
Earl Greysaid: Nobody, my Lords, is more ready than I am to admit the privilege which every noble Lord possesses, of asking, upon any occasion, questions of any member of his Majesty's Government, nor shall I be found unwilling to answer those questions when properly put. I must, however, say, on the present occasion, that the question itself is a very strange and extraordinary one, and that the grounds on which it is founded are altogether inconsistent with the orders of your Lordships' House. The noble Duke first of all says, that there is, what he calls a discrepancy between certain declarations said to have been made by his Majesty and the formation of the present Administration. My Lords, with respect to the speech supposed to have been delivered by his Majesty, I can say nothing, not having advised his Majesty—being in no way responsible for it—not knowing by whom it was reported, or on what authority it rests; I can say nothing but this—if that speech expressed his Majesty's determination to uphold the Church, I am certain it expressed truly the feelings and determination of his Majesty on that important point. My Lords, give me leave further to say, with respect to the inference which the noble Duke appears to draw, from what premises I know not, that there is, in the constitution of the present Administration, something inconsistent with that declaration of the Sovereign to support the Church, that the noble Duke's inference is unwarranted, and I beg leave to give his assertion the most positive contradiction. But the noble Duke has referred to the secession of some individuals lately members of his Majesty's Administration. Nobody, my Lords, regrets that secession, nobody has, both upon personal and public grounds,

243
more reason to regret it than I have. But I am sure, that, in leaving his Majesty's councils upon grounds which, in conscience, in honour, and in duty, they found themselves compelled to act, they will give me credit for an equally sincere conviction, though, on certain points of opinion, I may differ from them, as well as an equally sincere desire with themselves, to uphold and secure the interest of the Protestant Establishment in these realms. More than this, my Lords, I will not say on the present occasion, as we may soon, possibly on this very night, have an opportunity of going more into the circumstances connected with this subject; but I must protest, distinctly and decidedly, against any interpretation which the noble Duke, or any other Peer, may put upon the changes that have unfortunately lately taken place in his Majesty's advisers, leading to the conclusion that there is in those who remain in his Majesty's confidence any other than a sincere and conscientious desire to maintain, by all the means in their power, inviolate in efficiency, in dignity, and in usefulness, the Established Church of these kingdoms. So much, my Lords, in reply to the general assertion of the noble Duke; but I must be allowed to add, that the manner in which the question was put was most extraordinary. For, what was the question? The noble Duke called upon me, unworthily placed as I am at the head of his Majesty's Councils, to answer a question which, I believe, never before entered into the mind of any man but that of the noble Duke himself—namely, whether the Administration had been formed on the principle of forcing his Majesty's conscience? Is it possible, my Lords, that the noble Duke could have thought of seriously proposing such a question, or that there could have been any but one answer to it? The noble Duke may think the measures of his Majesty's Government inconsistent with the duties which they owe to their Sovereign, their country, and the Established Church. He may condemn those measures as loudly and vehemently as he pleases; but, can he believe, that any man could deliberately entertain the intention which he ascribes to his Majesty's Government, or give any answer to the question but one—that they never had attempted, and never could attempt, to control or force his Majesty's conscience?
244
My Lords, I can answer for it, if an attempt were made by any member of the present Administration, or of any other Administration, to propose to his Majesty anything which he thought inconsistent with the duties which he owes to the people as their protector and father, the Sovereign would at once reject such a proposition with indignation, and would not suffer such an individual to continue for one instant longer in his royal confidence. My Lords, I have thought it necessary to say thus much in answer to the noble Duke's question—a question which I think altogether improper—a question far from consistent with the orders and rules of this House; and, having answered it, I may now say, that I am ready to meet any charge which the noble Duke or any other Peer is prepared to bring against me; and, if the noble Duke thinks his Majesty's present Ministers are unworthy the confidence of this House, the proper course which he is bound in honour, and I think in duty, to take, is to move an address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to remove them from his Councils—a Motion, my Lords, which I shall be prepared to meet, and, on the result of which, I shall be prepared to act, as my duty and conscience shall dictate.

CHURCH OF IRELAND—COMMISSION.
The Earl of Wicklow, in rising to submit to their Lordships the Motion of which he had given notice, said, he would make no apology for bringing this subject before them. If any apology were due, it was to that country of which he was one of the Representatives; for not having, at an earlier period, taken an opportunity to call on the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government for some explanations which might have the effect of tranquillizing the public mind on those points in which not only the friends of the Church in Ireland, but in this country also were at present so anxiously, he might say so painfully, interested. He trusted, that noble Lords opposite would not believe, that he brought this question forward with any wish, to add to the embarrassment in which they were involved. During the whole of the Session, he had abstained from pursuing any course which might impede their career, and however much he objected to it, he sought no opportunity of embarrassing them. He really felt a desire to be able

245
to support their measures. He thought, too, that he could perceive some dawning of improvement in the mode of their conducting our domestic concerns; and that, particularly in that part of the empire with which he was connected, a disposition was evinced to alter the course which formerly they had pursued. He hoped that they had at last learned the vanity and futility of those concessions which they had formerly made to a base and mischievous faction which could not be appeased without a systematic spoliation of property, totally inconsistent with the first elements of all government. But he confessed, that he was altogether disappointed. He now saw, from the position which the present Government had assumed, that their policy, far from being improved, was likely to become considerably worse. They had divested themselves of the aid of those to whom the country had hitherto looked up with some degree of confidence and thus had thrown aside the drag-chain, which might be said to have impeded their rapid course in the down path of revolutionary spoliation. With reference to the Commission, viewed abstractedly from the circumstances and events with which it was connected, he was at a loss to see on what principle or ground it could be maintained. Was it the result of any Motion in that or in the other House of Parliament? Was it required by any deliberations or acts of either House? Certainly not. The only measure in progress which it might be said in some degree to affect was, the Irish Tithe Bill. But could it be said that Government required the Church Commission in order to carry that measure into effect? Assuredly not. The Bill had laid on the Table of the other House for a considerable time, and had resulted from the united wisdom of a united Cabinet. It had been read a second time—it now stood for the Committee; its principles were acknowledged and it had in general received the sanction of a large majority of that House. It could not therefore be said that Government required to issue the Commission in order to afford satisfactory information upon that measure. On what ground, then, could it be defended? It was strange that this Commission should have been announced on the eve of that gracious speech alluded to by the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle). He did not
246
require anything which had taken place in the House that evening, to inform him that it was irregular to allude to any speech of his Majesty, particularly of a private nature; but when a document of that description had been published in the newspapers of the day, when it was declared to be the speech of the Sovereign, and when there was no contradiction to it, he thought that he had a right to consider it, he would not say as the speech of the Sovereign, but, at all events, to allude to it as a document of public notoriety. He would not say, that his Majesty had made that speech; but he would put the case hypothetically, and he would say, if any Sovereign of England did utter such a speech, it was one which did equal honour to his head and his heart. It proved, that the Sovereign was not unmindful of the sacred duties which he had to perform—that he had duly studied the annals of his country and family to some effect and purpose—that he well knew the principles and causes which placed the house of Hanover on the throne of these realms, and which cast into exile the house of Stuart; he well knew the lights which were to guide his path, and the beacons which warned him of that which he ought to shun. Was it not then strange, that on the very eve of that declaration when the tears were yet moist on the royal check, that the Ministers of the Crown should propose to the Sovereign the issuing of this Commission? He should like to know if the reasons given in another place, and which from their publicity he had a right to allude to, had been assigned to the Sovereign, in order to induce him to put his name to this Commission? He should like to know if it were really true that a Commission of this sort, which everybody knew required some time and considerable formality, had actually been signed and issued, bona fide, on Monday? At all events, it was evident that it had been got up with extreme rapidity, and had been brought to the Sovereign on the very day it had been determined on. He found by the public papers that a noble Lord, high in his Majesty's Councils, had in another place made use of the following language:—"He needed not, he thought, to say, that no man in his senses could think of advising his Majesty to issue such a Commission unless he was prepared to act on whatever the report of that Commission should be." A

247
Minister of the Crown, a person high in rank in the Administration of the country, the leader of the House of Commons, had made that declaration. Had they then come to this? Were the duties of the Administration to be thus delegated to Commissioners? Was such a Commission, like a Roman dictator, to supersede all law and the established institutions of the country? But another declaration made by another noble Lord, a Member of his Majesty's Government, was to the following effect:—"He stated, that he differed from the hon. member for St. Alban's, when he said, that Ministers must dissent from his Resolution because they did not adopt it; he thought, in fact, that Government were adopting the very best method of carrying his principle into effect." Thus, then, had the objects of the Commission been openly, broadly, and distinctly avowed in another place by the members of his Majesty's Government. Were such sentiments to be re-echoed within those walls? Would the noble Earl at the head of Government, and the noble Marquess the President of the Council, give their countenance to such opinions? The Resolutions themselves were before the world, and he did not need to repeat them; it was enough for him to say, that they not only declared the competency of the State to lay violent hands on the property of the Church, but that the time had come when that interference was necessary. The noble Earl opposite, he trusted, would be glad of the opportunity of repelling the foul imputations which such sentiments must direct against the character and principles of the Government. He could not, indeed, attribute them to the Administration, but rather to the fault and inaccuracy of parliamentary reporters. At no period of our history had such a shameless attack been made on Church property. It was reserved for Whiggism, for the Millennium of Reform, to avow such sentiments, and to carry them into effect. To show what was the general feeling of the country on this subject, he would read a passage from the writings of a man whom all their Lordships honoured. Mr. Burke said, 'The people of England have incorporated and identified the estates of the Church with the mass of private property, of which the State is not the proprietor, either for use or dominion, but the guardian only, and the regulators They
248
have ordained, that the provision for the Establishment should be as stable as the earth on which it stands, and should remain inviolable. It was dangerous here to talk of "more or less:" "too much," and "too little," were treason against property; sacrilege, and pre scription, were not among the Ways and Means of our Committees of Supply.' These were sentiments worthy of an honest Whig. But it might be said, that Burke at that period was not a Whig. True, he had separated from that party who had called themselves his friends and Whigs, but he had perceived, when the trying occasion came, that if he was to be enabled to serve his country, and protect her from the poisoning influence of French democratical principles, it was only to be done by quitting their mischievous connexion. Those opinions were promulgated to the world when the noble Earl now at the head of his Majesty's Government was commencing his public career. True, the spheres in which they both moved were very different. They might by possibility have both been wrong, but both could not have been right. Most probably the noble Earl was satisfied with the line which he had taken, but he must remember, that his public character was public property, and open to public animadversion. It was matter of history—and he believed the historian of the time would not fail to mark it—that the dawn of the noble Earl's political career was in the midst of the dissemination of French Jacobinical principles over the world, and that its setting would be the downfall of the Church of England. He could not lose sight of the effects which this Commission must have as a matter of course in that country to which it was directed. This was a part of the case with respect to which, as a Representative Peer of Ireland, he might be expected to feel more warmly than some of their Lordships; but he would most solemnly avow, that of all the plans which the most wild, and reckless, and mischievous Administration could devise in order most effectually to convulse that country, this was the most calculated to open afresh all those wounds which the Government of later times had been endeavouring to close up, and to produce a train of the most direful and alarming consequences. He particularly deprecated the effects of this Commission in consequence of the present state of

249
commotion which prevailed in Ireland, and which had for so long a time been the bane of that country. So alarming, indeed, had become the condition of society in that country, that one of the severest measures of coercion had become indispensably necessary for the protection of life and property. That Act would terminate within a month from the present time. Was it then safe, in such a state of things, with the elements of the social system disorganized, to allow this demon of discord to stalk abroad—to enter every parish, hamlet, and habitation, great or small—and for what? To separate the religious sects, the Protestant from the Catholic—to set the great majority on the one side, and mark the small minority for the odium and ridicule of the predominant party. The measures of the noble Lord were said to be based on the principle of doing away with all religious difference. Was this the manner in which it was to be effected? Already emigration from Ireland prevailed to a great extent, in consequence of the insecurity of life and property. The emigrants were chiefly Protestant respectable farmers, who left Ireland to obtain in foreign lands that security which was denied them in their own. They went, because there was amongst them a deep-rooted impression, that they were forsaken by the Government, and that unfortunate impression would be strengthened by the present conduct of the Government. He must attribute that conduct to ignorance of the condition of Ireland, for he could not attribute it to a worse motive. He trusted, however, that the country would open its eyes to the course which was now being pursued, and that the people would bestir themselves in defence of all that they held sacred and dear. He hoped that, at least, their Lordships would let the people of this country know, that if there was a House of Commons clamorous for the sanctioning of measures of the kind now proposed, and a Government ready to pander to the passions of agitators, there was still in their Lordships' House a body willing to support them and capable of doing so. He sincerely hoped, that their Lordships would hear sentiments uttered by his Majesty's Ministers in that House different from those which had been attributed to their colleagues in another place. He turned with confidence to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdown)
250
who had always shown himself the friend of the country. He was not one of those statesmen who, in their career, reminded one of the sea weed cast up from the bottom, to float for a time on the surface of the flood, ready to sink to its original position as soon as the agitation of the waters should subside. The noble Marquess had long occupied an honourable position in public estimation, and until he heard him in his place avow that he concurred in the sentiments uttered by his colleagues in the other House, he would never believe that he could do so. The question which he had brought before their Lordships must have an answer. The usual policy of Ministers would not succeed. Silence would be damnatory. There was manliness in an open and candid bearing, but silence was cowardice. A declaration must be made, and therefore he asked the noble Earl, whether the Cabinet was determined to advocate the principle, that it was legal to seize upon the property of the Church, and apply it, under the name of religious and moral purposes, to purposes other than those of the Church of England? Whether, in fact, the Government could seize upon the property of the Church, and apply it to the religious purposes of the Roman Catholic population? The noble Earl concluded by moving, "that an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct a copy of the Commission issued relative to the Church of Ireland, to be laid upon the Table of the House."
Earl Greyspoke to the following effect:—My Lords, it is not, I believe, my usual practice to shelter myself beneath a cowardly silence, and most assuredly I will not do so on the present occasion. I will proceed to state, with as much distinctness as I can, what are the views, the motives, and the principles which induced me and my colleagues to advise his Majesty to issue the Commission which is the subject of this night's discussion. Before, however, I enter into a consideration of those circumstances which naturally arise out of the speech delivered by the noble Earl, I must offer a remark on the nature of the Motion which he has submitted. The Motion is simply for the production of a copy of the Commission. To that Motion no objection will be made from this side of the House. The noble Earl must have been assured that the Motion

251
would not be opposed, because a similar Motion has been acceded to in the House of Commons, and a copy of the commission is actually now upon the Table of that House. The noble Earl, however, not choosing to wait for the production of the commission, has been pleased to offer various comments upon what he considered its objects, and to lay the foundation for a future Motion—for, if upon examination, the commission should be found to bear the character which the noble Earl has attributed to it, I must tell the noble Earl,—as I told the noble Duke at the commencement of the business this evening,—that his duty will not conclude with the speech which he has delivered, but that he must take one of three courses. If the Commission should prove to be such as he has described it, and to be issued from the motives which he supposes, he must either propose a vote of censure upon us who advised the issuing of it, or he must move an Address to his Majesty to revoke the Commission; or he must move an Address praying his Majesty at once to dismiss the Ministers who have been guilty of the inexpiable crime of advising him to issue a Commission which is founded on principles of injustice and spoliation, and is calculated to set Ireland in a flame. It is the duty of the noble Earl and those who take the same view of the matter that he does, not to content themselves with more declamation, but to adopt practical measures, and to do what in them lies to show the country the great danger which will be incurred by suffering the Government to continue in the hands of those who at present administer it. I say there can be no shrinking from this course. The noble Earl must be prepared to follow up the Motion of this night with another, having for its object the putting of an end to an Administration which, in his opinion, is likely to produce so much mischief to the country. Having said thus much, I will wait anxiously for the further proceedings on the part of the noble Earl, which, I think, he is bound to institute, and will now proceed to notice some of the arguments which he has employed on the present occasion. The noble Earl supposes that the commission can have been issued with no other intention than that of sanctioning the spoliation of the Church. I deny that such is the case. I say, that myself and my colleagues do not look forward to any thing that can justly
252
deserve the name of spoliation. We certainly look forward to a great alteration, but to nothing beyond that. When the noble Earl talks of the Commission being paramount to the Government, and of its being invested with power to dictate to the Ministers of the Crown, and quotes for his authority an extract from a speech delivered by my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the other House (whether correctly reported or not, I do not know,) I must say, that he puts a false construction both upon the grounds on which the Commission has been issued, and the motives of those who have advised it. The Commission is to inquire, not into opinions, but facts, for the purpose of collecting information on which, ultimately, the Government and Parliament may form an opinion and pass any law which may be necessary. The Commission prejudges nothing, decides nothing. But, says the noble Earl, a principle is involved in the issuing of the Commission which no administration ought to sanction, and no Legislature support, namely, the principle, as the noble Earl states, of seizing upon the property of the Church. I deny that that is the principle of the Commission. The Commission is issued with a view to the regulation, with a view, if you will, to a different appropriation, of the revenues of the Church. I ask the noble Earl, whether, in the country which is naturally the first object of his solicitude, he can meet with many persons who think that the state of the Church in Ireland, is such as not to require the most careful attention? I have, all my life, hated the discussing of abstract principles, and that which is involved by the present discussion, is certainly rather of a speculative than of a practical nature; but if I am called upon to avow my opinions on the point, I trust that I have too much manliness to shrink from declaring them. It was certainly my wish, that the property involved in the Bill to which the noble Earl, in the course of his speech adverted, should be secured; but I never met with any person, either belonging to the sister country or to this, who would not admit, that the Church in Ireland stood in a different situation from the Church in England. It is true, that they are united by law (the policy of which may, perhaps, be disputed); but it is universally admitted, that the circumstances connected with the churches of the two countries are so different, that different

253
measures of improvement are necessary for that of Ireland, from those which are applicable to the Church in this part of the empire. Under these circumstances, I contend, that the property of the Church does not stand on the same footing in both countries. The rights of the present possessors, I hold sacred; but I maintain, that the property of the Church is a subject for the exercise of the discretion of Parliament. Is this opinion exclusively mine? I certainly do not like the practice, which is inconsistent with the orders of the House, of quoting from speeches made elsewhere; but as the noble Earl has set the example, I will quote from the speech of one whom I regard as a very high authority, and whom the noble Earl will readily admit to be so. In a recent debate in the House of Commons, I find these words attributed to a right hon. Baronet:—'He was prepared to meet the Motion of the hon. member for St. Alban's with a direct negative. But if he did so, it would be extremely unjust to imply, that he was contented with the present condition of the Established Church in Ireland. Two years ago, when a Committee was appointed on the subject, those who were connected with that Committee could bear testimony, that he (Sir Robert Peel) admitted himself ready to consider any measures calculated to correct any abuses that prevailed in that establishment. He stated his opinion at that time,—an opinion which still remained the same,—that the state of the Protestant Church of Ireland was such, that the time might come when they ought to consider whether or no measures might not be devised for appropriating a portion of the Church property of Ireland, not to other objects, but so as to facilitate the propagation 'of divine truth, which was the great end and aim of that establishment.' [Cries "of Hear."] Noble Lords cry "hear;" and I respond to that acclamation. I certainly think, that the passage I have read asserts the true principle on which we should proceed. When Sir Robert Peel—a name I mention only for the purpose of honour—when Sir Robert Peel, I say, expressed himself dissatisfied with the present condition of the Church in Ireland, and said, that the time must come when it would be necessary to decide pon a different appropriation of its evenues, he stated the principles which
254
I have acceded to by the issuing of the Commission. I will fairly avow my opinions with respect to the property of the Church in Ireland. I think, that if a considerable excess of revenue should remain beyond what is required to support the efficiency of the Church, and those other purposes connected, as Sir Robert Peel says, with the interests of true religion, I avow the principle, that the State has a right to deal with that surplus, with a view to the exigencies of the State and the general interests of the country. This may or may not be an erroneous opinion; but I can assure your Lordships, that it is the conscientious opinion of one who is as sincere a well-wisher and supporter of the Church as any one of your Lordships. When I contemplated the measures and proceedings in the other House of Parliament, I certainly did think (and it is surprising to me, that any one with his eyes open, can come to any other conclusion) that a full investigation into the state of the Irish Church, with a view to such alterations as may be found expedient, and, amongst others, with a view to a different appropriation of its revenues, was absolutely necessary. The noble Earl says, that the issuing of the Commission will establish a precedent for a similar proceeding with respect to the Church in England; I hope not; I trust, that the Protestant established religion will be preserved and maintained in all the purity in which it now exists in this country; but I am sure, that those who endeavour to connect the two Churches, in spite of the anomalous circumstances in which the Church in Ireland is placed—circumstances so anomalous that nothing like them was ever before known in the history of the world—do not benefit the Church in England, and give no support to the Church in Ireland. Can any one, who looks at the state of the Irish Church fail to perceive, that it must necessarily be a subject of anxious consideration with every statesman? The revenues of the Church of England are, if properly distributed, no more than sufficient to ensure its efficiency; but, in Ireland, where not more than one-seventh of the population is Protestant, and only-one tenth belongs to the Established Church, the revenues of the Establishment are enormously disproportionate to its wants. Is it possible to believe, that this state of things can exist without

255
some inquiry upon the subject? Feeling that this is a subject which has attracted general attention—to which not a few factious demagogues, as the noble Earl described them, but a great number of sincere well-wishers of the Established Church, looked with deep anxiety—believing that it is one with respect to which the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons is no longer dubious, his Majesty's Ministers have thought it right to recommend the issuing of a Commission to obtain all the information which is requisite to enable Parliament to ascertain in what manner the Irish Church should hereafter be dealt with. In doing this, I disclaim any intention to sanction the principle of spoliation, I wish morely to effect a new appropriation of the revenues of the Church. This is a principle which every country in Europe has recognized and acted upon. All I can say is, that believing it to be our duty to support the Protestant religion, and the Irish Church, by rendering the latter less odious in the eyes of the people of that country than it is at present, we have recommended the appointment of the Commission for the purpose of laying before his Majesty and Parliament such a body of facts as will enable them to come to a clear and impartial decision on the subject. The noble Earl says, that there is no just motive for the step we have taken. Has the noble Earl attended to the opinions, not, I say again, of violent men, who are ready to rush into any extravagant excess, but of the sober, reflecting part of the community, and, above all, of the House of Commons? Let us, for a moment, advert to the numbers of the late division in the House of Commons. The numbers appear by the notes to have been 396 to 120, the minority being in favour of a proposition which, had I been a Member of the House, I would have opposed. Those who voted for that proposition desire a larger measure of alteration than I do. The numbers of those who voted for the previous question, and of those who supported the original Motion, united, amount to 516. Now, deducting from this number my right hon. friend, the late Secretary for the Colonies, and those who with him deny the power of Parliament, under any circumstances, or at any time, to divert the revenues of the Church, whether they be wanted or not, from their original purposes (whose number I esti-
256
mate at 100), there still remain 416 Members of the House of Commons, that is to say, a considerable majority of the whole House, decidedly in favour of a measure of this description. I ask the noble Earl whether, under these circumstances, he thinks that the danger which threatens the Church in Ireland would have been averted by our showing no inclination to yield to the expressed wish of the House of Commons? Would it have been better if, instead of the Government taking the matter into its own hands and issuing a Commission, we had allowed the House of Commons against our wishes, to address his Majesty praying for an inquiry into the state of the Irish Church? I and my colleagues must have retired as soon as the result of the division had been made known; and who, I should like to know, would have answered the address of the House of Commons? Another Administration would probably have been formed on principles more congenial to the sentiments of the noble Earl, who might have advised his Majesty to give such an answer to the Address which would perhaps have led to consequences which I cannot contemplate without the greatest apprehension. Under the circumstances in which we were placed, I certainly concurred in advising his Majesty to do what I think will—unless it be made the subject of party violence—be best for the interests of the country. The noble Earl has fixed upon a particular expression in the speech of my noble friend in the other House of Parliament, and, with reference to that, says, that we would not have issued the Commission without being prepared to act upon it. Undoubtedly we would not; but we are not prepared to do what the noble Earl apprehends, namely, to take the revenues of the Protestant Church and give them to the Catholic Church. I know that such an imputation has been cast upon us; I am aware that I have been charged with having such an intention; but I disclaim it as most unjust. What I and my colleagues propose to do is simply this—we are prepared to act upon the Commission as far as this—that when it produces such a body of information as we expect, we will take it into consideration, and be prepared to act upon it honestly and conscientiously, with a view to the general interests of the country. We are accused of precipitancy. The noble Earl says,

257
that we have decided upon issuing the Commission in the heat of the moment, without due deliberation. In order to relieve the noble Earl from all anxiety on account of the rash proceedings of his Majesty's Ministers, I humbly beg leave to inform him that this Commission is no new matter, but that several months ago—my noble friend near me informs me it was on the 18th of January last—a despatch (able as every thing is which proceeds from the noble Marquess) was received from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, recommending that such a commission should be issued. If we have any thing to reproach ourselves with, it is, perhaps, with not having acted sooner on the noble Marquess's recommendation. I have now announced the principles on which the Government is prepared to act, and I believe, that in acting upon them, we shall not be pursuing a course that will endanger the general interest of society or of religion. I may be mistaken—I may be misguided—I may be wrong; but these are the principles upon which I am prepared to act, conscientiously believing that by such a course alone can the affairs of Ireland be brought to a satisfactory result. The noble Earl says, that we Whigs are acting upon principles which are not the principles of Whigs, as described by Mr. Burke; and he also alluded to an early period of my life, and said that I began my career by assisting in the dissemination of jacobinical principles, and am now about to conclude it by effecting the downfall of the Church. I hope the noble Earl's prophecy may prove as false as his facts. In early life I certainly took up with all the fervour of youth the great question of Parliamentary Reform, which in my latter days I have brought to a successful termination. With respect to Mr. Burke, I can never speak of that illustrious person without the greatest admiration of his talents, his unbounded knowledge, his extraordinary attainments, and without a deep sense of the important services which he rendered his country. There is no author from whose pages I would more willingly extract the principles of Whiggism than from those of Mr. Burke; but it unfortunately happens, at the same time, that there is no Tory, let him be ever so violent, who cannot from other parts of that illustrious man's writings adduce principles consistent with those which he
258
professes, particularly with respect to the Irish Church. The noble Earl says, that having passed the measure of Parliamentary Reform, we have since been proceeding in a mad career of revolution. It has been my anxious desire and endeavour, to do exactly the contrary of what the noble Earl attributes to me. It is undoubtedly true, that I and every member of the late administration, except one, felt the necessity of introducing the measure of Parliamentary Reform. We thought it right, also, that it should be extensive, in order that we might afterwards take our stand upon it; and I appeal to your Lordships and the country whether I have not resisted every attempt to push the principles of that measure further. Having, however, secured to the people of England their own Representation, by means of which they can correct existing abuses, and prevent the introduction of new ones, it was my anxious desire, that in the prosecution of further salutary improvements, the Government should proceed in a regular course, on moderate and constitutional improvements, and not be urged by clamour from without into extreme and dangerous measures. This course I have endeavoured to pursue in spite of misrepresentations from both sides. I have been attacked on one side (unjustly, I think upon some occasions) for feebleness and indecision; and on the other for precipitancy and violence. I have endeavoured to avoid both extremes. I have always felt a deep anxiety, which may, perhaps, have obstructed my course, to avoid collision between this and the other House of Parliament. Your Lordships are aware of the feeling which prevails upon this subject, and I am sure that you will do your duty fearlessly and honourably, but I beg to warn you against the consequences of a collision which, whatever party might gain the victory—and I think that on which side victory would be, can hardly be doubted—cannot be attended by anything but consequences of the most dangerous nature. I stand, my Lords, as the Minister of the Crown before your Lordships and the country, asking only for a candid interpretation of my motives and actions, and prepared to stand or fall by them. I appeal to my late and present colleagues whether they have found me at any time much attached to office. The time must come when, from the infirmity of age, I can no longer

259
retain office, and if I am at this moment in the situation of Minister of the Crown, it is only in consequence of an imperative sense of the duty which I owe to his Majesty, to whom I am bound by obligations, greater perhaps than ever before bound a subject to his sovereign, carefully to guard the peace and safety of the country. Would there not I ask, have been inconvenience, if not danger, in breaking up the Government at the present period of the Session; thus interrupting the measures which are in progress, and preventing the introduction of others which I believe to be absolutely necessary? These are the grounds upon which I have acted. In the statement I have made, I have had no reservation; I have concealed nothing which an honest man ought to state. I leave my case to the judgment of your Lordships, only stating that, desirous as I am to uphold the character of this House, I am bound to say that its safety, honour, and usefulness, depend on its acting, not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the spirit of the age. When Napoleon was in captivity at St. Helena, he said to his attendants, "I have fallen, not in consequence of the combination which was against me, but because I opposed the spirit of the age. The Bourbons will for a time act in accordance with that spirit, but they will soon fall back into their old habits, and then the irresistible power of the age will destroy them; and this, too, will be the fate of all the old Governments of Europe, if they do not adapt their policy to the necessities of the times." These were sound principles, inculcated by a high authority who, under the pressure of the calamities which he acknowledged he had brought upon himself, took a calm and philosophical review of the events in which he had been a principle actor. I trust that your Lordships will not be led away by general declamation about the destruction of the Church, but that you will consider seriously and calmly, whether it is possible that the Church of Ireland can be maintained in the state in which it stands at the present moment, and whether it is not only the part of true wisdom, but the bounden duty of Parliament, acting on sound statesmanlike views and principles, to adopt measures which will prove salutary to the Church itself. To the Motion submitted by the noble Earl I have, as I before said, no objection but if the noble Earl really en-
260
tertains the opinions which he has declared with respect to the conduct of the Administration, and the effect that will be produced by issuing the Commission, he is bound not to let the matter rest on the point where he has placed it. It is his duty, for the sake of the country, to submit a Motion which will have for its object to take from our hands the administration of public affairs. In that case my only prayer will be, that the Government may be placed in hands that will conduct it on sound and safe principles; but I tell your Lordships again, that the principles on which it is conducted must be in conformity with the spirit of the age, in order that progress may be made in those further salutary improvements which necessarily grow out of the great measure of Reform. I can declare to your Lordships that I experience no great satisfaction in occupying my present situation. Give me leave to assure you, that it cannot be very agreeable to me to sit here, night after night, to see arranged on the opposite benches a number of your Lordships, who I know, whenever called into a division, must decide any question against me. Nevertheless, I have persevered, under all the difficulties and disadvantages incident to this state of things, in the hope that better times would occur. The noble Earl says, that he is disappointed in the expectations which he formed with respect to the conduct of Government. I also have been disappointed in another respect; for, notwithstanding the forbearance, for observing which during the present Session the noble Earl takes so much credit to himself, symptoms of a bitterness of spirit which I cannot help deploring have manifested themselves. In conclusion I will observe, that if the noble Earl has good reason for entertaining the opinion which he has expressed respecting the conduct of Government, he cannot in honour let the matter rest, but he must adopt measures to effect our removal from office; if he will not do this, let him at least permit our measures to proceed, without endeavouring to excite throughout the country a factious spirit of discontent.
The Earl of Riponwas conscious that he was scarcely entitled to arrest their attention with what he had to submit to them, little interesting as must he to their Lordships any matters that could be considered as affecting himself personally; but he took another view of the course which he

261
thought it his duty to pursue. He should not have said one word upon this subject—and they were a very few words which he had to say—if he did not feel, that an individual who had taken on himself a responsible situation under the Crown was as much bound to give an account of, and to justify his abandonment of that situation, as he was, after having accepted it, to account for and to justify any act he performed while holding such office. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would pardon him while he stated the grounds on which he had acted on the late unfortunate occasion—unfortunate he called it, and he indeed considered it—not so much related to himself—not as to the way in which it might have affected the composition of the Government—but unfortunate, because he was well aware, that the event was one which could not be discussed either here, or by the public at large, without incurring the risk of feelings being raised, which might lead to most dangerous results, and which it had been his object, in every possible mode, as far as related to his Acts as a member of the Government, to restrain. His noble friend who had just sat down had stated to them the principles on which he had endeavoured to conduct the Government of which he was the head; and he had called on those who had been recently connected with him in office to bear testimony to the spirit with which he had endeavoured to meet, and with which he had in many instances surmounted, the increasing difficulties with which the Government had been surrounded. His noble friend called on them to bear witness with respect to measures involving changes in our institutions, that his object had been to preserve and improve, and not to overturn and destroy. He bore his willing testimony to the exertions of his noble friend. If, indeed, he had observed indications of a contrary policy, he hoped he was not so unmanly and base, as to have remained a member of the Government with his noble friend, while he disapproved of the course he pursued. He was sure, however, that his noble friend would do him the justice to believe, that he and his noble and right hon. colleagues whom he had acted with on this occasion, had been prompted by nothing but a sense of duty—by a conscientious conviction by which they felt themselves bound—to withdraw from the Administration. His noble friend and their Lordships would
262
believe, that they had been actuated by no feelings of a mere personal nature, by no desire, God knew, to shrink from any part of the responsibility that devolved on them as members of the Government, but by the impossibility they found of being able to reconcile it to their sense of duty and to their consciences, to be a party to that measure which now had been adopted by the Government, and which had this evening been made the subject of discussion. He was well aware that, in these times, it was impossible for an administration to attempt to carry on public affairs, unless in unison with the spirit of the age. However strange it might appear to some of his former friends, he was a zealous and honest advocate for the great measure of Parliamentary Reform. He thought it calculated to put an end to a system under which the law was constantly violated, and this he held to be an evil of such a nature that, unless it was mitigated, it would destroy the respect that the people ought to bear towards those who were their Representatives in Parliament. On this principle, then, he supported Parliamentary Reform; but he was not disposed to adopt any measure to stop public clamour, or to avoid the pressure from without. He yielded solely, because he thought that the claims were just. But though he entertained those views of the spirit with which the Government must administer the affairs of England or Ireland, it was impossible for him not to feel, that there might arise questions relating to the great institutions of the country on which it would unquestionably not be safe to yield. His noble friend said, that it was not safe to rest. He knew that it was, in difficult times, often very difficult to rest. But if they were to act on that principle, they would rest on nothing; they would still go on to rest nowhere. If this, then, were the consequence, was he not justified in saying, that he would take on himself to try if they could not rest here? If they did not here, he knew not where the resting place would be. As his noble friend had correctly stated, the proposition to appoint a Commission arose out of peculiar circumstances, and was not taken up suddenly. The question was deeply considered, and certainly great objections were felt by himself as well as by his colleagues to the adoption of that measure. He had no particular desire to avail him-

263
self of the compliment that had been paid to himself and his colleagues in adverting to their having been described as the "drags" of the Government of which they were members; but he might remark, that possibly they had been useful "drags." At all events, he certainly did feel with regard to the Commission, that if he assented to it, the question as to the appropriation of the revenues of the Church to secular purposes was settled; and when he asked himself if he could assent to such a proposition his answer was, no. He thought that the principle of inquiry into the state of the population of parishes, to ascertain the number of resident Protestants therein, as compared with the number of Catholics, if it meant anything, must mean something that had a direct tendency to effect an alteration of the principle on which the Church Establishment was based. His noble friend stated, that he did not contemplate the possibility of any great change as the result of appointing the Commission; but it was because he (the Earl of Ripon) believed, that the effect of the Commission must be to alter the footing on which the Established Church stood, that he could not concur in that preliminary step. The Universality of the Established Church was its very essence. Its great principle was its diffusion throughout the country; and if they set up the principle that any portion of the funds which were necessary to its maintenance was to be withdrawn from it, or that the revenue of the Church in a particular parish was to be regulated by the number of the Protestant population in that parish, then they destroyed the principle on which alone the Established Church existed. His noble friend had quoted a passage from the speech of a distinguished Member of the other House (Sir R. Peel), who had said, that he admitted a necessity might arise for appropriating the revenues of the Church, but he would apply them especially to the purposes of the Church. If his noble friend had examined the speech further than the passage he had quoted, he begged to ask him whether his right hon. friend had admitted that right to appropriate the property of the Church for the purposes of the State? No; that speech contended most powerfully, and he thought unanswerably, that the distribution must be limited to those objects for which the Church of England was in-
264
tended. From that proposition he apprehended there was no man to be found who would differ. He for one was ready to give it his fullest assent. But the moment that limit was passed, when they went beyond that and said, that where the Protestant population bore only a given proportion to that of the sects, the funds of the Church should be applied for the benefit of those sects, or for any other secular purposes, then, so far from going to tranquillize and pacify the country, it would, in his opinion, be directly holding out to the different parties an invitation to aggression and mutual hostility. Supposing the Protestant owners of a parish in which this inquiry was to be instituted, and where the population was Roman Catholic, chose to take the following course—he did not mean to say it would be proper, or that they would do so—but suppose that, desiring to maintain the blessings of their religion upon their estates, they chose to substitute for the present population one of their own creed, what was to prevent them from doing so? The proceeding now taken by his noble friends was a direct invitation to the Protestants to do all they could to keep their numbers up, while in the same moment it invited the Catholics to do all in their power to diminish them. They knew what agitation was in Ireland. And was it possible to conceive that under such a system as this, agitation would be suffered to sleep? Should they not soon hear of the increased activity of the pike, the pistol, the torch, and all the devilish machinery which the demons of agitation in Ireland knew so well how to call into action? Why, then, he would say, that if they were to adopt a policy calculated to lead to such results, what hope could there be of tranquillity for Ireland, or how were they to expect that peace should be maintained? It appeared to him that the result inevitably to be expected was diametrically the reverse. His noble friend, indeed, had said, that he did not contemplate—that nobody contemplated—that it was a preposterous idea to contemplate—the applying of this surplus, if any should ever arise, which he greatly doubted, to Roman Catholic purposes. Why then, he would ask, who was it to satisfy? By whom were Church grievances felt and complained of? Why, by nobody but the Catholics. And if they were to gain nothing by the measure, how, then, were they to be expected to be

265
satisfied with it, or to desist from their complaints? Would there not be still mischievous men found to use all these pretended concessions, if they were to have no results, as a means of inflaming and distracting the country ten thousand times more than ever—until the necessary and lamentable result would be, a continuation of the Coercion Act, and the Establishment of the strongest means of Government that could be devised? Why, then, he would ask their Lordships, was there any necessity for this measure? In the first instance he had a right to have the necessity shown, independent of all other considerations, and he had been unable to gather from any one what was the necessity which demanded it. It was said, indeed, that education was required. If that were all, the means might be found of advancing the education of the Catholics, or even of supporting the Catholic clergy themselves, without touching for such purposes the means of the Established Church. Grants for education had been already made; and why conclude that Parliament would not be ready to increase those grants, if what had been advanced proved to be insufficient? At least it would be better to try before going to the Protestant Church and saying "You have too much money, and we must have some of it." He now came to another view of the subject. He had a very strong objection to the principle of doing anything that would have so direct an effect against an essential principle of the Established Church. The objection to which he was now alluding was founded on the compact of the Union. That compact was of a particular kind, and was made under peculiar circumstances. The Protestants of Ireland were a party to it; and he should like to know whether if that Protestant party of Ireland had been told, that at the expiration of a given number of years, at no great distance of time, the Parliament would sanction principles that would place the Church of Ireland in a position of less security, they would have passed that Union? Would they not have been mad to do so, knowing as they would have known, that they would thereby doom themselves to inevitable destruction? In all the discussions on the subject of the Roman Catholic question—in all the discussions on all the Bills introduced by Mr. Grattan, Mr. Plunkett, Sir Francis Burdett, and others, down
266
even to that introduced by the noble Duke on the other side of the House, the maintenance of the Established Church inviolate, was laid down as a principal basis on which was to be granted the great act of justice and concession. He would, then, ask their Lordships would they, after having granted that measure, which he believed to have been founded in justice, say to those who opposed it. "After having let in upon you the danger you feared, we will now take from you the protection which we promised?" He for one would never consent to be a party to such a course. It was a measure the justification of which he could never conceive to be possible; but, at all events, until he was shown some strong and insurmountable necessity for its adoption, he should humbly, but firmly and resolutely, withhold from it his consent. He was aware, that it was of little consequence whether he consented to it or not, and his opposition might be a matter of indifference to his noble friend with whom he had ceased to act. God forbid, that he should use any arts in that House or elsewhere to exasperate public feeling upon the question, but he believed, that such a feeling had sprung up and was hourly increasing as could not be resisted. Having continued to act under his noble friend since his accession to office, though not joined with him in his earlier political life, he thought it unnecessary for him to say, that he should never forget the many acts of kindness and the countenance he had often received at his hands, and that he should never speak of him without reverence for his personal character. With these feelings, nothing but the deepest sense of what his duty, his honour, and his conscience required, could have induced him to take the course he had done. But he must now say that, having taken it, and having had time to reflect upon it, he did not repent of it.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose solely to correct an erroneous impression which might be left on the minds of their Lordships, and go forth to the country, from the reference which had been made by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) to a speech of a right hon. friend of his in the other House. It appeared that, although the noble Earl had so warmly censured the irregularity of allusions to what passed in other places, he had himself come down to the House prepared to do the very same

267
thing. When next the noble Earl intended so far to depart from his own rules as to refer to the speeches made in the other House, he begged to recommend the noble Earl to make himself acquainted with the context, and not to quote isolated passages, which formed only a part of the speaker's proposition, and which, taken alone, were susceptible of a contrary meaning to that which they really bore and conveyed in the speech. He would undertake to show their Lordships not only, that the noble Earl had represented the meaning of the speech incorrectly, but that the construction he had put upon it was directly the reverse of what it really meant. The observations of the right hon. Baronet arose in this manner: the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been contending for the right of Parliament to appropriate this surplus to the purposes of moral and religious instruction. In reference to this Sir Robert Peel said:—'The noble Lord said, that he thought that, if it should be found that there was a surplus, Parliament should then direct that it be devoted to the moral and religious instruction of the people of Ireland. Let the noble Lord explain what he meant by that observation. The time had come when it was necessary to have an explanation on the subject. Did the noble Lord mean by religious instruction— and he (Sir Robert Peel) asked the question distinctly and unequivocally—to claim to himself the right out of the possessions of the Protestant Church in Ireland to make grants for the dissemination of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church? If by moral and religious instruction he (Lord Althorp) meant moral and religious instruction based on the doctrines of the Church of England, he (Sir Robert Peel) did not know that he should object to such a proposition, as in point of fact it would be merely the extension of religious instruction in connection with the Establishment. He repeated that he did not know that he should object to a proposition having this object in view. His anxious wish was, to extend the blessings of religious instruction in conformity with the doctrines of the Church; but if the noble Lord intended to claim the right of establishing the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, and to provide for its maintenance out of the funds of the Protest-
268
ant Established Church, he (Sir Robert Peel) would at once state, that he never could be induced to assent to such a 'proposition.'?* Now, if the noble Earl had looked to the whole of the speech, he could not have failed to see, that the whole argument of Sir Robert Peel was founded upon the principle that, whatever it might be deemed expedient to do with the revenues of the Church of Ireland, the application to the purposes of the Church ran through its whole tenour and formed its main conclusion. Having heard the misrepresentation which the noble Earl had put upon the language of his right hon. friend, he was sure the noble Earl would himself thank him for the correction; but, most of all, he had felt it due to the House and to the country to make this statement clearly and explicitly, in order that no misapprehension should go abroad.
Earl Greycontended, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet admitted the principle of the right of appropriation in the Legislature, if limited to the purposes of the Church. And from that he had a right to infer, that the appropriation to the purposes of education would not be objected to so long as the education was regulated by the principles of the Protestant Church.
The Earl of Eldonwished to say, that, if there were any of their Lordships, or any portion of his countrymen, who regarded his opinion as an old lawyer, he did there, in his place, solemnly deny that the State had any right to appropriate the property of the Church at all. If there were any who would value his opinion when he was gone from amongst them, he now left it behind him as his solemn and deliberate declaration, that no lawyer on earth could prove, that according to any known principle of law the surplus in question could be appropriated to any other than Church purposes.
The Duke of Richmondfelt it his duty to address a few observations to their Lordships, though he had little to add to what had fallen from his late colleagues, who had felt it their duty to take the same course with himself, and especially to what had fallen from his right hon. friend the late Secretary for the Colonies, with whom he entirely agreed in every sentiment and reason which he had advanced. He thought, that as a public man he was not
* Quoted from a newspaper.

269
at liberty to relieve himself from the responsibility of office without explaining his reasons fully to the public why he had separated, though with feelings of the deepest regret, from colleagues with whom he had cordially agreed in all those great and liberal measures which fortunately, as he believed, for the country, they had carried into effect. But although he had acted with them upon all other points with the most cordial concurrence, he appealed to them whether he had ever disguised his repugnance to any abandonment of those principles which he thought were involved in the appointment of this Commission. The present was not the first time he had expressed his opinion on the subject. On the different debates upon the Catholic question he had fully and freely expressed his opinion. He had expressed apprehensions of the ultimate views and probable effects of agitation in Ireland. He expressed his apprehension that the establishment of a Catholic in the room of a Protestant Church was contemplated by those who were urging changes which he thought dangerous to the well-being of the State. He confessed these apprehensions were not yet wholly removed—even notwithstanding the confidence which he reposed in the noble Earl at the head of the Government; and he believed, that no mail could be more anxious than was that noble Lord for the protection of the Protestant Church Establishment. But he differed, differed completely, from that noble Earl in supposing, that the surplus revenue of the Church could be devoted to secular purposes. It was wrong in principle to suppose so; and as it was wrong in principle, so he believed, if carried into practice, it would be found most detrimental in its effects. When he considered the state of agitation in Ireland, what it had already effected, and the objects at which it aimed, he feared much, that if the principle of appropriation were recognised, it would be found to lead to no other result than a Catholic Church establishment. In considering the state of the Catholic religion in Ireland, many difficulties presented themselves, and lie confessed, that he was one of those who believed, that in the payment of the Catholic Church was to be found part of the remedy for those evils. He was well aware, that in so saying he was opposed to the opinions of noble
270
Lords opposite, but he might at least claim credit for the utmost sincerity and purity of motive in entertaining the opinion to which he had just given expression. He feared if the House sanctioned the principle which appeared to be recognised in the issuing of the Commission, they would establish a precedent pregnant with the most fatal consequences. If at any time of popular excitement or national distress it was urged upon the Government, that the public taxes ought to be reduced, what was it likely would take place in the House of Commons? Would it not be urged that the principle established by the precedent proposed by the Commission ought to be acted upon, and that the Government ought to draw upon the revenues of the Church to meet the real or pretended exigences of the State? The recognition of the principle of a different appropriation would be, in his mind, but setting a premium upon agitation. He did not mean to deny, that there were abuses in the Church, and that these abuses ought to be corrected; but in making that admission he should at the same time protest against alienating the property of the Church. He had no objection to inquiry, if the object of the inquiry were to correct—not to destroy; if it were to extend the influence and the usefulness of the Protestant Church in England and Ireland. Having said thus much upon the general question, their Lordships would permit him to observe, that he only came to the determination of quitting office from a sense of duty. By no feeling of a personal nature had he been induced to quit the immediate service of a sovereign from whom he had received every mark of kindness, or to cease acting in immediate concert with colleagues, in co-operating with whom he had always felt the greatest satisfaction. Nor yet could it be thought, that in resigning, his object was the attainment of a popularity, much more likely to be compassed by remaining in, than by retiring from office. He trusted that his noble friend would not sacrifice those large claims which he at present possessed upon his good opinion; awl however obliged to differ upon a question of great public importance, that difference would not, he trusted, interrupt the progress of private friendship.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that in proportion to the satisfaction and

271
confidence with which he had often heard the noble Earl at the head of the Government express his attachment to the Church upon other occasions, was the regret and surprise he had felt at what he had heard fall from him that evening. He had always felt a confidence in the noble Earl, which led him to conclude that, whatever he might say, he would never forfeit his word. The feelings under which he now laboured he could only attribute to some mistake or misunderstanding, which they knew might always take place in explanations of this nature. He had still no doubt that it was the intention and wish of the noble Earl to save as much as he could of the Protestant Church in Ireland; but he totally disagreed with the noble Earl as to the measures by which he now proposed to accomplish that object. In respect to the assertion of the principle of appropriation of Church property to the purposes of the State, which the noble Earl had thought proper to combine with the appointment of this Commission, he could see in it nothing less than the utter subversion of the Irish Protestant Church. What other hope the noble Earl could build upon it he was at a loss to conceive. To be sure on every occasion when former concessions had been made they had heard that the way to strengthen the Church was to give up so much as would make the people satisfied; that was, that they should satisfy the enemies of the Church, who wished for nothing short of her destruction. But surely the time was come when the House and the country should begin to reflect, that every one of these prophecies of the good that was to arise from conciliation had been entirely falsified by the result. These measures had gone on until that of last year was introduced, under an understanding, which he had certainly taken in the clearest sense, that it should be a final one. But now it appeared that, after the clergy had been exposed to every danger—after they had lost their revenues—after they had suffered the extreme privations of indigence,—they were now again to submit to the examination of this Commission; and if any surplus remained, their revenues were to be appropriated to other purposes. The noble Earl had made a distinction between the two Churches in favour of the Church in England, and had said, that such a measure could not be applied to the latter.
272
He admitted, that the situation and the circumstances of the two Churches were different; he admitted there could be no question that the circumstances of the two countries were so different as to admit of a different regulation of the two Churches. That he admitted, and he thought it a proposition which none would be found to deny. But it did not follow, that one was to be destroyed, and the other preserved, or that any material difference could be made in the principles upon which they were to be upheld. What, he would ask, was the object of uniting the Churches at the Union, but that of making each an integral part of one whole? When all the Bills relating to the Church in Ireland which had ever passed were brought in, the maintenance of this indissoluble Union was always an avowed object. He therefore, could not see violence done to the Church in Ireland, without feeling that the Church in England was affected by it. He should, therefore, deem it to be his duty, as far as his endeavours could go, to oppose such a measure, and to make his strongest protestations against it, whether the measure was likely hereafter to be applied to the English Church or not. He believed, that the clergy of the Church in Ireland had done their duty, and he felt it to be a solemn duty he owed to that portion of the Church to resist its oppression; and whatever might happen to him, he never would be a silent spectator of its ruin. But he could not suppose, that the career of subversion, when once entered upon, was to stop there. It must go on. He thought, that the principles upon which the noble Earl meant to act with respect to the Church, had been avowed in this measure and in his speech of that night; and it was clear to him that when the Church in Ireland had fallen a victim to those principles, the Church in England must inevitably be sacrificed.
The Earl of Winchilseaobserved, that here could be no doubt, that the readiness of his Majesty's Ministers to give way to what was called "the spirit of the age," without reference to principle, showed them to be men who did not know what principle meant; and it was plainly on that account that the two noble Lords opposite had quitted them. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had admitted the necessity that they should

273
now give way to clamour from without, and, having once made that admission, he must go forward in the course he had begun. It was in vain to say, that the Commission was not founded upon the principles declared by the individual who brought forward the recent motion in another place. In the debate upon that Motion it was stated by certain members of his Majesty's Government, that if the mover really wanted to forward his object, there could be nothing better calculated for it than the Commission they had issued. What, then, was that object? It was to take into consideration what proportion of its property would be sufficient to maintain a clergy equal to the numbers of the Protestants in Ireland, and that the rest should be at the disposal of the country for secular purposes. Grant that principle, and where could they stand until the whole fabric of the Church was surrendered to the Roman Catholics? He had accused the noble Earl before, and he was now convinced, that he had done so justly, with intending to make Ireland a Roman Catholic country. He had said, when the Act of last year was proposed, that it would lead to the persecution of the Protestant clergy. It had produced a persecution which had already been scaled with the blood of Protestant clergymen, and which had driven thousands and tens of thousands of Protestants from their native soil. Were these the measures which the Church had a right to expect at the hands of Ministers? As a Christian Legislature, they were bound to take a far different course; and if they had long ago, acting as became a Christian Legislature, done justice to Ireland, and given her that foundation without which no religion could exist (he meant a religious education in the principles of Protestantism,) that country would before this have been a Protestant country. He hoped the time was come when a temporising policy would be pursued no longer. He appealed to their Lordships, and called upon them never again to sacrifice the principles which they held dear, to meet any views of expediency, or to bow to any intimidation, but, proudly and justly relying on their consciousness of doing what was right, prove themselves worthy of their situation, and of that respect which their countrymen would not fail, sooner or later, to bestow upon their con-
274
duct. No man could now shut his eyes to the danger which surrounded them, for the noble Earl had appealed to the worst passions, and encouraged the worst desires of their enemies. Were they, then, to stand unmoved, and see that Church destroyed which had been the foundation of all the blessings which flowed from the hand of Almighty God, and which had made us a nation of the happiest and the greatest people that ever existed on the earth? They were all now called upon to answer that appeal; and he declared solemnly, before that power, in whose presence he now stood, that he would not be a passive observer of the destruction of that religion, and that he was prepared to surrender in its defence all the ties that held him to earth. Such he prayed and trusted would be the feeling of his countrymen; and he believed that the noble Earl would now find a spirit rising up in the country, which would carry all before it, and render his designs utterly impracticable. The noble Earl had asked why his opponents did not bring forward a motion, or take some distinct measures for turning him and his colleagues out of their offices. The noble Earl would perhaps have that desire gratified before long. The feeling of the country could not long be resisted, now it was known that the Sovereign was pressed to the violation of his sacred oath and of his conscientious sense of what was right. That oath bound the Sovereign to maintain the Church in all its rights; and there could be no doubt that, now Ministers had spoken out as to what their intentions were, the feelings of the Sovereign would find universal sympathy in the breasts of a people who equally felt the blessings and the obligations which their religion conferred. He felt confident, that a flame was now breaking out in the country, and he at least would do all he could to fan and feed it. By agitation they had lost much—by agitation he would now endeavour to save what remained. He would again do all in his power to call forth, as he did upon a former occasion, that spirit of Protestantism in the county to which he belonged, which he knew would never be extinguished, and he would do the same throughout England as far as lay in his power. He would call, too, upon the Protestants of Ireland, and ask them to consider what they had

275
at stake. He would ask them to reflect why it was, that the two parts of Ireland were so different—why it was, that in one portion of the country they had peace and content, and in another raging crime and misery. Why, but that in the one they had the blessing of the true religion, and in the other the dominion of a priesthood? He called upon the wealthy Protestants of Ireland to face the danger, and not to leave their poorer brethren unprotected who were unable to quit the country. He called upon them, by all they owed to their country and their God, to stand upon the defence of their dearest rights, and resist to the uttermost the measures which the Government had announced. He most cordially supported the noble Earl in the Motion he had now made, and he would support every measure tending to awaken the feelings of the country upon this all-important topic. The noble Earl concluded by saying, that the noble Duke and his noble and right hon. colleagues who had retired from office had not only acted with great moral courage, but deserved well of their country for the bold and manly course they had taken. Instead of having rendered themselves unpopular by their honest and independent conduct, they had placed themselves on a proud eminence; and they might depend upon it, that they would not only receive the cordial support of the great body of Protestants, but that every man of worth and influence in the country would rally round them.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, their Lordships would recollect a measure was proposed in the last Session affecting deeply the interests of the Irish Church. To that measure he had strong objections, yet he consented to its being carried, notwithstanding those objections, because, after inquiry, it appeared to him to be the only chance the Church of Ireland had of being preserved. At that time it was represented, that the Irish Church was in the utmost danger. The alarm respecting it was very great; but still he would not have consented to the measure of last Session, even if the very existence of the Irish Church was in actual jeopardy, had he not been assured by noble Lords connected with his Majesty's Government—had he not had reason to believe, from what they had stated to him—that that was intended to be a final measure. He
276
felt bound to avail himself of that opportunity to protest against the doctrine which had been broached, that Church property might be alienated to objects foreign to ecclesiastical purposes; and he also felt bound to state, that it was repeatedly declared that the measure to which he alluded was required to settle all further agitation of that question. This declaration was made in both Houses of Parliament in the most emphatic and forcible manner, by members of the Government; and had no such assurance been given, nothing could have induced him to give the measure his support. The machinery of that Bill had scarcely as yet been called into operation; and was it not monstrous that before the experiment had been tried—before the Church could feel its advantage—before the people of Ireland had an opportunity of seeing whether it worked well or ill, the whole measure was to be virtually upset by the appointment of a Commission that could not be supposed to entertain feelings very favourable to the subject respecting which inquiry was to be made. Before any fresh step was taken, surely a reasonable time ought to be allowed for trying the experiment of the measure of last Session. If this Commission were sent forth, it was impossible that any such experiment could be made, and, for the reason that the inquiry to be prosecuted by the Commissioners would disturb and agitate every parish in Ireland. With respect to the object for which this Commission was to be appointed, he was prepared to assert, that abundant information respecting the Church and its revenues would be found in the Reports of the various Commissioners that had sat upon the subject. No new information could be gained by the proposed inquiry, and he could not see any object for appointing another Commission, unless, indeed, it was for the express purpose of paving the way for a proposition against which he must protest in the outset, namely, a proposition for alienating Church property to secular purposes. He would not say, that the Church of Ireland did not possess a larger revenue than its wants required; but he did think, that the course now pursued was eminently calculated to hold out an inducement to influential persons of another persuasion in Ireland to use every endeavour in their power to diminish

277
the revenues of the Established Church, in the hope that the surplus would be transferred to the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion. Such a principle of alienation, however, was not justified by the principles of the Constitution; and, if ever an attempt was made to carry that principle into effect, he, for one, should feel it his duty to give it every species of resistance in his power. He could not have been satisfied in his conscience if he had omitted to make this declaration; and he must say, that he had experienced the utmost disappointment at the course which the Government had taken; and the more so, because he had consented to the passing of the measure of last Session, in consequence of the confidence which the assurances he had received, that it was to be a final measure, inspired.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, that, as far as he could collect from what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, the only declaration he understood him to make was, that no part of the surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland should go to the Roman Catholics. He so understood the noble Earl. Well, then, their Lordships were to understand, at least he understood it so, that no part of the funds belonging to the Established Church were to go to the Roman Catholics; but, beyond this, they were furnished with no intimation whatever how those funds were intended to be applied. Excepting that the Roman Catholics were to have no part of it, that House and the country were left in the dark as to the destination of the surplus fund. It should not be forgotten, however, that if the principle upon which this Commission were established could be applied successfully to Ireland, the doors for its introduction into England would be opened. It was true, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland bore no comparison in point of numbers to the Protestants of this country; but still, if the door was once opened for the admission of this principle into England, there would be no means of resisting it. Now, he had been told, this Commission was a mighty good thing—that it was an act which had been long contemplated and maturely considered; but the noble Lords on the other side of the House would excuse him for declaring, that he did not believe one word of the statement made by the noble
278
Earl. He would give his reason for making this assertion. The noble Earl said, that the appointment of such a Commission had been recommended by the noble Marquess at the head of the Irish Government, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, so far back as January last; but when did the proposition come forward? Why, not until the night of Mr. Ward's Motion. That being the case, were there not strong grounds for suspecting that so crude and immatured a plan was the result of the emergency, and that it was put forward to answer a temporary purpose which could not otherwise be met? It was painful to him, as an individual, to sit in that House daily, and see the petitions of the people disregarded. Innumerable petitions were daily placed upon their Lordships' Table, praying, that protection might be extended to the Church; and such a circumstance clearly proved to his mind, that the Protestants of England more than suspected the honesty of the intentions of those by whom the country was governed towards that Church. He had himself heard noble Lords in that House make speeches in defence of the Church. He had heard them declare, that they would stand by the Church—that they would resist any attempt that might be made to separate Church and State; but he would ask their Lordships, whether any confidence could be placed in such declarations, or if those who gave them utterance could have done so in the sincerity of truth? They must all recollect, that, at the opening of the present Session, the King, in the Speech he made from the Throne, expressly declared, that the union between Church and State should be preserved inviolate, and that the Protestant religion should be upheld. These were the sentiments that proceeded from the lips of his Majesty on opening the Parliament; and, with such a declaration before them, would any man have the boldness to assert that, at that moment, a period subsequent to January, the Government had the issuing of a Commission like this in contemplation? At that time, it was evident, that no intention existed to take from the Church its surplus revenues, and apply them to other than Church purposes. [Earl Grey: The King's Speech had nothing to do with time present discussion.] What! did the noble Earl really think, that the King's Speech had nothing to do with a

279
subject so deeply affecting the stability of the Established Church as the issuing of such a Commission? He (the Earl of Harewood) asserted, that this was the first instance in which the threatening aspect of external circumstances had pressed the Government of this country to bring forward a crude and ill-digested plan, and he hoped it would be the last. He had only a word or two more to say. He was far from wishing, that their Lordships' House should be brought into collision with the other branch of the Legislature; on the contrary, he was desirous to avoid any thing that was likely to produce such an effect. It so happened, however, that the collision of their Lordships with the other House of Parliament was frequently found to be useful, and this was exemplified in the notice which the noble Earl had given relative to a Bill which had been passed by the House of Commons, and the further progress of which he desired to stop, notwithstanding it had received the sanction of the other branch of the Legislature. Here, then, was an instance in which they were absolutely called upon to come into collision with the House of Commons; and if a necessity for such a course existed in a matter of minor interest, why should it not also exist in a matter of the last importance? There was, he firmly believed, a strong feeling throughout the country in favour of preserving the Union between Church and State; but, whether that were so or not, there could be no denying, that there was a strong suspicion, that the Government were not to be confided in when the people felt themselves called upon to petition that House, that their Lordships would not consent to any measure that could tend to the destruction of the Church Establishment. If there really were need of passing measures relative to the Church, why were not those measures brought forward in the ordinary way? Instead of issuing a Commission of Inquiry, why had not a Bill been introduced? He could assure his Majesty's Government, that the course which they had pursued, instead of satisfying the public, would only be productive of irritation, jealousy, and ill-blood throughout the country.
The Earl of Limerickwas understood to say, that it was not more necessary to preserve the connection existing between this country and Ireland, than it was to maintain the Union between Church and
280
State. He was convinced, that any interference with the Irish Church; would ultimately lead to not only a dissolution of the Union, but to a separation of the two countries; and, therefore, it was, that he deprecated the line of conduct which his Majesty's Government had adopted. But the noble Earl had told them, that there must be a move, that things could not rest as they were, and, in proof of this, he adduced the epoch of Napoleon Bonaparte as an authority. No doubt such an authority had weight in the mind of the noble Earl, but the lot of that unhappy great man would prevent his authority from finding favour in the sight of any other Member of their Lordships' House. He entirely agreed in the sentiments which had been expressed against the Commission, by his right reverend and noble friends.
The Marquess of Westmeathdeprecated the interference on the part of the Government, with the Irish Church, and said, that it could only lead to consequences that must be fatal to the tranquillity of that country. He would yield to no one in a knowledge of Ireland, or the secret springs that were at work in that country. He was perfectly aware, that many of the Irish Roman Catholics were not only well-disposed towards, but anxious to uphold the Church Establishment. When, however, they consulted their priests, what was said to them? They were told,—"Don't you see a Commission of Inquiry is about to be appointed on the subject of the revenues of the Church, and, that being the case, you had better leave the rest to us." They were then told, that they need not pay the demands which the clergy had upon them, and such he affirmed was the practical effect in Ireland of the measures now, or lately, proposed. It was said, that the noble Marquess, at the head of the Irish Government, had recommended the issuing of this Commission; but although he entertained the highest opinion of the honour and integrity of the noble Marquess, and firmly believed, that his only desire was to do good for Ireland, yet, to the opinion of that noble Marquess, nor to that of any one else, in the present instance, could he sacrifice his own judgment. It was his unalterable conviction, that, instead of producing good, this step could only create evil. He made this assertion from no feeling of an acrimonious nature towards the Ministers, who, he was

281
satisfied, would be egregiously disappointed in the effects of their measure.
The Marquess of Clanricardeapproved of the course which it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to pursue. Noble Lords opposite assumed, because a Commission of Inquiry was to be appointed, that it must follow as a matter of course, that the advice which the Commissioners might give would necessarily be adopted. Now, he for one, must say, that he would pledge himself to nothing of the kind. The Commission was appointed to collect information; and when the result of the labours of that Commission was before them, they would, of course, deal with it as they should think fit. He denied, that they had not a right to appropriate Church property to other than ecclesiastical purposes; and, in this opinion, he was justified by the admission of Sir Robert Peel, that a portion of the surplus revenues of the Church might be applied in the maintenance of schools. It was, however, a matter of doubt, whether, in point of fact, there was any surplus; but, if there were, he should like to know how it was to be disposed of, if not to secular purposes. The enormous wealth of the Established Church, as compared with other churches, hindered, rather than promoted, the propagation of religion; and, although he said this, he would assert, that he and those who thought as he did, were as good Protestants as the noble Lords who sat at the other side of the House, and just as anxious to see that religion properly maintained. But they were now addressing themselves to the temporalities of the Church, and not to its spiritual affairs. It was alone with the temporalities of the Church that they had to deal. The Protestant population of Ireland did not exceed 800,000; and yet no less a sum than 900,000 l. was annually paid to keep up the Established Church of that country, while the small sum of 14,000 l. was all that the State was called on to pay for the spiritual instruction of 600,000 Presbyterians. But this was not all. Since the Union, upwards of 500,000 l. had been expended in building churches; and, although the clergy were bound, out of their incomes, to provide schools, only fourteen diocesan schools, he believed, now existed. These were grounds, he contended, which called for inquiry; and, when every person who had given evidence on the subject, con-
282
curred in stating, that the Church was mixed up in all the grievances complained of in Ireland, the necessity for such an investigation must be the more manifest. In any measure that was adopted, the interest of the present clergy would, no doubt, be preserved—at all events for their lives; and, if this were done, he thought all that justice required would be obtained, even though the surplus of the revenues of the Church might be devoted to other than ecclesiastical purposes. It was stated, that those revenues were not so large as was generally supposed, and surely, if such were the case, the fact ought to be ascertained, in order to do away with the impression that existed in the public mind.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that the noble Marquess had stated, that it was necessary to inquire into the facts before acting, and that, therefore, the Commission proposed to be instituted was necessary. Now, he would remind the noble Marquess, that there was already a Commission of Ecclesiastical Inquiry in operation in Ireland, and they heard, from the statement of a noble and learned Lord, not now present (Lord Plunkett), and who was on that Commission, that, as regarded one province of Ireland at least, the results of that Commission were likely to be exceedingly important. The noble Marquess had also asserted, that he, too, never heard any one speak of the wealth of the Church in Ireland except as enormous. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: As compared with that of other churches.] Even thus corrected, he could not help feeling astonished at the assertion, for he had, last year, through the courtesy of the other House of Parliament, heard the leading Minister of the Crown, in that House, declare, that on no subject whatever did such gross exaggerations prevail as relative to the wealth of the Church of Ireland. The noble Lord added, that he had himself shared in the prevailing error till an examination of the facts convinced him of its groundlessness; for that the property belonging to that Church was by no means exorbitant. The noble Marquess had also remarked upon, what he was pleased to call, the violation of the duty imposed upon the parochial clergy of Ireland, by an ancient Act of Parliament, with respect to providing education for the people. He must confess, that he was no less astonished at this than at the

283
former assertion of the noble Marquess; for, he could hardly have supposed, that a noble Lord, distinguished for his acuteness, for accuracy of observation, and for the extent of his memory, like the noble Marquess, could have forgotten that this complaint had been embodied, for some years, into the standard grievances urged against the Church of Ireland, and it was only laid aside because it was exploded and discovered to want foundation. The noble Marquess had stated, and no doubt accurately, that it was by a Statute of King Henry 8th, that the parochial clergy of Ireland were assessed to the tenths, and were bound to see that a school was maintained in every parish, not out of their own funds, as the noble Marquess supposed. [The Marquess of Clanricarde: I spoke of the diocesan schools.] The object of the Statute to which he alluded was, that the parochial clergy assessed to the tenths in Ireland should be bound to see, that a school was provided for the education of the children of their parishioners; but there was this further provision in the Act, that they should not charge more for the instruction given to these schools than the ordinary price. This was a very different thing from the parochial clergy of Ireland being bound to maintain a system of education at their own cost. Having said thus much with respect to what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he would take the liberty of saying a few words upon the important subject now under discussion; he meant the principle embodied in the Commission which his Majesty's Ministers had advised the King to issue. That Commission was avowedly issued by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, on the principle, that the property of the Church was held by a different tenure from other property; not only so, but that it might be dealt with by Parliament on very different grounds from other property; that it might be assailed in cases and under circumstances which would not justify assailing private property. To be sure the noble Lord did not deliver this as his deduction of right, but as the deduction of the spirit of the times. Now, whatever that might be, they knew, not only from the professions of the noble Earl, but from his conduct, that he understood the spirit of the times to be very different one year from what it was the next. The noble Earl now told their Lordships, that
284
whatever the spirit of the times deemed too much for the Church of Ireland was to be cut off. [Earl Grey: I said no such thing.] He did not pretend to quote the precise words of the noble Earl, but that was the sense of his argument; but, if he were wrong, the noble Earl could correct him in due season. He contended, that the argument of the noble Earl was, that all legislators, but particularly that House, should be prepared to act up to the spirit of the times; and that it was in consequence of the spirit of the times that he had advised the issuing of the Commission which was to be laid upon their Lordships' Table. This Commission was to ascertain, among other things, the amount of the wealth of the Church of Ireland; and, according to the principle of the noble Earl, whatever the spirit of the times should deem sufficient, was to be the measure of its supply. He would not occupy their Lordships' attention further, at that late hour of the night, by any discussion of that point in language of his own; but would borrow that of a noble and learned Lord whose absence he had already regretted, and who, he should have thought, it would have been particularly desirable to consult on a question relating to the Church of Ireland—he meant the Chancellor of Ireland. He held in his hand a record of what had been uttered by the noble and learned Lord, on an occasion exactly similar to that under the consideration of the other House of Parliament a few nights ago; for they must recollect that, as there was nothing new under the sun, so even the vagaries of liberalism were not permitted to be distinguished by much novelty; the novelty was only in the way in which these vagaries were received. Ten years ago an exactly similar Motion was made in the House of Commons as was made the other night; and, on that occasion, the noble and learned Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, then Attorney-General for Ireland, said, "That the property of the Church might not be interfered with as well as other property in the State, in a case of public necessity, he would not assert." Perhaps the noble Earl thought, that a case of public necessity had arrived; but let him and the House listen to what the noble and learned Chancellor of Ireland proceeded to say, "But it ought to be observed that, on the same principle, the property of every man in the kingdom

285
was equally liable." That noble Lord then maintained, "That the property of the Church was as sacred as any other." "If they began with the Church (he said) let the landholder look to himself.*" He really thought that these words, as might have been expected from words coming from such high authority, deserved the serious attention of all the noble persons around him, and not least, certainly, the attention of the noble persons who were members of his Majesty's Government, and, as such, had advised the issuing of this Commission. Perhaps he should be forgiven if he took the liberty of saying, that it was particularly worthy of the attention of the noble Marquess at the head of his Majesty's Counsels in Ireland, from his very great possessions—and greater they could not be than he would know well how to use for the purposes of benefiting his country, and conferring honour on himself, though they must weigh down in amount the whole clerical income of some of the diocesses in the country from which his wealth arose.—He would do well to take the warning given him by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in the speech he had just quoted. He need not remind the noble Marquess or their Lordships, that the great estates which the noble Marquess held, he held under the Act of Settlement of Property in Ireland. That Act of Settlement was founded upon the declaration of Charles 2nd—a declaration which did, unlike most of that Monarch's conduct, honour to him who made it, and which deserved to be borne in mind by every man who, by the will of God, sat upon the throne which that Monarch so unworthily filled—"that he owed it as a testimony of humble gratitude to Almighty God for restoring him and his people to the happiness of the established and ancient monarchy of this country, at a time when to all human observation, such a restoration was hopeless." Therefore it was, that he endowed not only the noble Marquess, but the Church. Further, being determined to carry into effect the pious directions of his murdered father, which were, to increase the income of the Church in Ireland, these last endowments that Monarch placed upon the altars of the King of Kings, they were devout acts of gratitude to God. "Touch them if you
* Hansard (new series) xi. P. 571-572.
286
will," said the right rev. Prelate; "touch them if you dare; but, if you dare, may God not visit upon you his curse for the sacrilege, and upon the unhappy people consigned to your misrule!" The noble Earl at the head of the Government had made one appeal to their Lordships, which he had hoped would have been answered by some noble Lord on the other side of the House; but, as it had not been answered, he trusted he should be forgiven, if he presumed to attempt it. The noble Earl said, that if this Commission had not been issued, the Resolution moved in the House of Commons would have been carried. And then he said, that his Majesty's present Ministers must have resigned; a new Administration must have been formed; an Address to the Crown, framed upon Mr. Ward's resolution, would have been presented; and what, asked the noble Earl, would have been the answer such an Administration would have undertaken to advise the Crown to give? Let their Lordships see what that Address would have been? It must have been founded on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, as it was given in the votes of the House of Commons on the Table. It ran thus:—"That the Protestant Episcopal Establishment in Ireland exceeds the spiritual wants of the Protestant population; and that, it being the right of the State to regulate the distribution of Church property in such manner as Parliament may determine, it is the opinion of this House, that the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland, as now established by law, ought to be reduced." "It is obvious (continued the right reverend Prelate) that any answer must not only have confirmed this Address, but have called upon his Majesty to carry it into effect. Then conies the question, what answer would any noble Lord opposite have advised his Majesty to make? I cannot presume, my Lords, myself in the position of those who may be expected, under any circumstances, to be called to his Majesty's Counsels; but this I will say, that any high-minded, any truly conscientious man, would have found no difficulty whatever in giving his answer, when his Majesty called upon him to advise him on the subject. An honest Privy Councillor, one who remembered the oath he had himself taken, would have told his Sovereign that he had imposed a most painful duty, a duly, however, from which he could not

287
shrink, for the very position in which he stood before his Majesty, as his sworn Councillor, compelled him to discharge it. He would then have addressed him: "Sire, painful, most painful, must it be to a prince who, through his whole reign, has shown but one sentiment of affection for his people, and of regard to the wishes and happiness of that people, as expressed to him through the House of Commons; painful as it must be to such a prince to reject my prayer, coming from that House of Commons, I, as a faithful Councillor of your Majesty, mindful of my own oath, cannot help recollecting the oath that your Majesty has taken. I must tell your Majesty, what I am sure you would yourself tell me if I did not remember it, that as you have sworn that you will preserve all the rights of the clergy and of the Church of England and of Ireland, to the best of your power, you must refuse to assent to the prayer of the House of Commons." Any one of all his Majesty's Councillors, in such a case as is supposed, might perhaps have added," Some of your Majesty's Councillors have thought that your Majesty stands in a different relation to the oath as a Legislator, and as a member of the executive government; but we are bound not to conceal from your Majesty, that all the nicety and subtlety, be it well founded or not, does not apply in the present instance; for your Majesty is not now called upon to assent to an Act passed by the two Houses of Parliament, and which will become the law of the land on your giving it your assent, in your legislative capacity; but you are applied to in your executive capacity, about which the most liberal construers of oaths have never yet raised the shadow of a shade of a doubt, to do that which is in direct violation of your oath. To the plain meaning of that oath your Majesty is bound to your God to adhere, and, at whatever hazard, even to your throne, you must remember what you owe to your God." That, my Lords, I venture to say, would be the answer of any one of the noble Lords who sit on the other side of the House, if called upon by his Majesty to give an answer to such an Address, founded on such a resolution. But the House of Commons who could approach the Throne with such an Address, would not be, in the language of the law, "the Commons of England," that is, the Representatives of the people of England, for
288
the people of England are not prepared to laugh to scorn the obligations of their Sovereign's oath—they are not prepared to trample on that religion which they have always considered as their comfort and happiness in this world, their hope in the world to come. As to the spirit of the age, is the noble Earl so slow in marking the changes of that spirit, as not to have observed some indications, even within the last week, that the spirit of the age will, ere long, be far different from what it was when he advised his Sovereign to sign this Commission? My Lords, there has been raised a feeling of determined resolution, on the part of the people, to meet as they ought the noble declaration of our Sovereign, which is yet sounding in their ears, as it will be for ever impressed upon their hearts, that it is his firm determination to "maintain the religion and the rights of the Church of England and of Ireland."
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he had not intended to address one word to their Lordships, but he could not avoid doing so after the speech of the right reverend Prelate who had just sat down, the more especially as in that speech the right reverend Prelate had frequently used the name of God, and in the same instance almost, had called for imprecations upon those who differed from his views. The Government of the country, he apprehended, was for the good of the country, and that end it could not answer unless it gave satisfaction to the country. Now he contended, that to give satisfaction, the Government must attend to and follow the spirit of the times. Such, indeed, had ever been the principle upon which beneficial and satisfactory Governments had acted. He would ask, had not there been many alterations already with respect to the Church, which were conceded in consequence of the spirit of the times? How came it that the Scriptures were now read without note or comment? Why, in obedience to the spirit of the times. How came it that pluralities were denounced as one of the worst corruptions or blemishes in the condition of the Church? Why, through the spirit of the times. But a few years ago, if any one had declared that pluralities were a corruption or an evil, a cry of horror would have been raised, and yet, within these few months, he had heard the right reverend Prelate himself make a declaration to that effect.

289
It was impossible to disregard the spirit of the times. Why, he had read in a book written by the right reverend Prelate, a letter to the late Mr. Canning, in which the right reverend Prelate said, he would not suggest even the possibility of Mr. Canning being so base as to recommend his Sovereign to break his Coronation Oath by sanctioning further concessions to the Roman Catholics; and yet their Lordships had lived to see the day when the right reverend Prelate accepted of his present dignity at the recommendation of the very Minister who had done that which he had said he could not even suggest that Mr. Canning would be base enough to do. Even in private affairs, men were not able to disregard the spirit of the times, and to do so in public affairs was utterly impossible. The right reverend Prelate had given a specimen to their Lordships of the sort of advice which he, if he were a Privy Councillor, would offer to his Majesty upon the subject of this Commission, and he had said much about the breach of his Coronation Oath, which his Majesty had committed, or would commit, in case he were to assent to this Commission. Did the right reverend Prelate mean to say, that by granting that Commission his Majesty had committed a breach of his Oath?
The Bishop of Exeterexplained, that his meaning was, if the King were to assent to such an address as the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had described would have been the result of the affirmation by the Lower House of the resolutions put before them, his Majesty would thereby be guilty of a breach of his Oath.
The Earl of Radnorsaw no difference in what he had attributed to the right reverend Prelate, and what the right reverend Prelate admitted he had said, but he could not allow that in any way the Coronation Oath would be violated by a concurrence in the proceeding supposed. This Commission was not to take away any of the property of the Church, but simply and solely to inquire into the state of the Church. Was it improper, that the Sovereign, as the head of the Church, should be informed of the state of the Church? Was it improper, that the country should be accurately informed as to the state of the Church? Surely not; and yet that was the sole object of the Commission which had been so violently attacked. He admitted, that the Commission might
290
be the forerunner of other events. But, supposing it was found upon inquiry, that some alterations in the present arrangement were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Church, would it be said that the possibility of such a result ought to prevent the Commission? But then the right reverend Prelate had touched upon the subject in this way: he had reminded their Lordships that if they touched the property of the Church, their own property might not continue untouched, so that the argument addressed to the House was, to induce it to preserve the property of the Church only as a security for its own property. But he denied, that Church property and private property stood upon the same footing. Church property was held under a trust for the public good, and was to be devoted to the public good; while private property was liable to be used as its possessor pleased, so that he did not violate the law. To say, therefore, that the Legislature was not competent to deal with Church property, was to say that the Legislature was not a judge of the public good; and that was a position he could never concur in. He should not be more desirous than any noble Lord to sacrifice his own property for the good of the public, but to say, that he would not do so, would be to say, that, he would not submit to taxation, or to any restriction. He would only further say that, in his opinion, the speech of the right reverend Prelate was far more calculated to bring the Church into contempt, and to do it injury, than was the Commission of which that speech so much complained.
The Bishop of Exeterexplained. The noble Earl had completely misrepresented both what he had stated, and what he had written. He had uttered no imprecation against any person. On the contrary, he had expressed an earnest belief, that no one would render himself liable to the imprecations denounced against sacrilege. Then the noble Earl had stated, that in a book he had written, he had declared that a Minister who advised the Crown to grant Roman Catholic emancipation advised the Crown to a breach of the Coronation Oath. He positively denied that assertion. He had never written, he had never said, he had never thought, any such thing, and he defied the noble Earl to quote the words he attributed to him.
The Marquess of Lansdowncordially

291
concurred in every sentiment that had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, and, therefore, he should not have felt it necessary to address one word to their Lordships, had he not been particularly alluded to—certainly with the utmost courtesy—both by a right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) and the noble Earl who had introduced the subject. Having been so alluded to, however, he would briefly state the question and the grounds upon which he had felt it to be his duty to concur in recommending to his Sovereign to issue the Commission which had led to this discussion. In so doing, he doubted not that he should be able to show, that his leading object had been the maintenance of the Church, and that he had acted in the only way calculated to effect that end. As had been already stated, the Commission was one of inquiry into facts, and not into opinions. But they had been told that such an inquiry was unnecessary. He was at a loss to conceive how that assertion could be justified. Every person who had addressed himself to the subject of the Church in Ireland, whether in either House of Parliament or elsewhere, even the most reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), had admitted that there were circumstances peculiar to Ireland, with reference to the Church Establishment in that country, which required peculiar regulation; that was, a regulation different from that which was necessary with respect to the Church in England. If such, then, were the case, could it be denied that it was desirable, indeed requisite, for the safety of the Church, to deal with those peculiarities? And how could that be done, unless they were fully and accurately ascertained? To ascertain them he could conceive no more fitting course than that adopted. Respecting the object and the purposes of the Commission, the most extravagant notions had been elsewhere expressed. It was not a Commission of Inquiry as to the revenues of the Church, but as to the duties required from the Church, and the manner in which those duties were discharged. He knew that, with respect to the latter points as well as to the former, the revenues of the Church in Ireland, there had been much exaggeration; but he had yet to learn any one subject, such was the unhappy state of Ireland, in which there was not exaggeration in
292
respect to that country. Even Within the last forty-eight hours, the most contradictory statements upon this very subject had been put forth, and that by parties from whom correct information might have been expected; and therefore it was, that he held it only to be consistent with sound principles of legislation to inquire as accurately as might be into the real state of the subject before any measure of legislation was entertained. The noble Earl, who had introduced the discussion, had thought proper to assume, that the object of this Commission was to lay the basis of an arrangement, with respect to the Church in Ireland, to be regulated solely by its numbers. Against any such principle taken alone he protested. The noble Earl himself, or his noble friend on the cross benches, could not feel a stronger repugnance against acting upon that principle than he did; for he agreed with them in thinking, that it was a bad and a dangerous principle if taken by itself. But, rejecting that principle as a solitary one, would any noble Lord contend, that the amount of duty to be performed by the Church ought not to be an ingredient in any plan for the regulation of that Church? It was, therefore, that he concurred in recommending the appointment of the Commission. The inquiry was necessary, for the most erroneous opinions were entertained as to what were the facts of the case; and he knew of no better way of arriving at the truth. Then, in the wording of the Commission, or in the persons who were to execute it, was there anything objectionable? He had not heard, nor could he conceive, any objection to the wording of the Commission; nor could he anticipate that any fault would be found with those selected to act upon it. Surely, then, a Commission was a proper mode of proceeding. If their Lordships should find, upon further examination, no reason to concur in any plan for altering the arrangement with respect to the Church in Ireland, their position would not at the least be worse, with all the information before them, than it would have been, if called upon, without information, to discuss the question of Church-property, and come to some decision on the subject. Much had been said as to the alienation of the property of the Church. It appeared to have been taken for granted by some, that there would be a surplus revenue over and above

293
what could properly be required for the immediate maintenance of the ministers of the Church of Ireland. Now, he must say, that that was prematurely jumping to a conclusion. There might be found no surplus to appropriate; but, even supposing for an instant, that there should be a surplus, this he would say, and positively, that he would never be a party to the appropriation of that surplus to any purposes not analogous to those for which Church-property was now appropriated. He had thus stated shortly the views which induced him to concur, as he did most cordially, in recommending the issuing of the Commission; and as soon as its inquiries should have been made, he should be prepared to enter fully into the whole question. At the present he was not prepared to do so, for he stood in need of accurate information upon the details of the subject.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that certainly if inquiry was the object of the persons who had first proposed the Commission, and it was simply to afford inquiry that the noble Marquess who had just sat down had concurred in recommending its appointment, he must say, he knew of no man more difficult to satisfy with inquiry than the noble Marquess. He said that, for he believed that there never was a subject that had been more minutely or more frequently inquired into than the Church in Ireland,—and, even at the present moment, there were Commissions in existence, independent of the one newly issued, which had for their object an inquiry into every parish, and the value of every church living in Ireland. He alluded to the Commissioners under the Tithe Acts. Indeed he might go further and say that, respecting Ireland in general, the inquiries had been most full. Why, they were in truth, as far as inquiry could assist them, better acquainted with the population and the state of society in general in Ireland than they were upon the same points with respect to England, or with respect even to the metropolis in which they were then assembled. But inquiry was not the object of the parties proposing this Commission; and that, he thought, he should be able to show by referring to some of the various documents known to their Lordships. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had thought proper to censure his noble friend (the Earl of Wicklow), be-
294
cause he had felt it to be his duty to bring the subject under discussion, and to use in respect of it the language he had. That censure appeared to him most unreasonable. Why, his noble friend was a Representative of the Irish Peerage; and was he not to protect, as well as he was able, the interests of that body?—and what could be dearer to them than the maintenance and the welfare of the Established Church? And then, respecting the language of his noble friend, the noble Earl had thought proper to taunt his noble friend, and to tell him that, if he were sincere in his expressions, he ought to make some substantive motion censuring the conduct of the Ministry—that he ought, in fact, to move an Address to the Crown for their removal. But, having so spoken, the noble Earl, in a very few sentences afterwards, adverted to public opinion and the spirit of the times, and the necessity of bending to that spirit and that opinion. Now, they had heard a great deal about the spirit of the times, both from the noble Earl at the head of the Government and another noble Earl (Radnor); but he (the Duke of Wellington) agreed with the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) in thinking, that the noble Earl had misconstrued the spirit prevailing in the country. But what he wished to know was, if the noble Earl had so much consulted the spirit of the times, why was not his noble friend to have some degree of credit for prudence in avoiding even the chance of collision with public opinion? He (the Duke of Wellington) would do anything consistent with honour and his conscience to avoid collision with the spirit of the times. He avowed that to be the case; and why, if such conduct were meritorious also in the eyes of the noble Earl (Grey), was his noble friend to be taunted because he pursued it? But his noble friend had naturally, and very properly, wished for some account as to the objects of this Commission, and the grounds upon which it had been issued. The noble Earl had answered the inquiry; and certainly there was a considerable difference between his version of the Commission and that given by a noble Lord in another place. He was bound, however, to add, that that difference was by no means so great as to amount to a material variance, or, indeed, to be more than might naturally occur under such circumstances; but he must

295
examine this Commission a little further. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had described it in another place, had spoken of it as a commencement for carrying into execution the Resolution which had been proposed and met with the previous question. Now, it was important that the purport, nay, the very words, of that Resolution should be fully and clearly understood, and, therefore, he would read the Resolution:—"That the Protestant Episcopal Establishment in Ireland exceeds the spiritual wants of the Protestant population; and that, it being the right of the State to regulate the distribution of Church property in such manner as Parliament may determine, it is the opinion of this House that the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland, as now established by law, ought to be reduced." The duties to be performed by the Commission had been stated by the noble Lord he had already alluded to in great detail; and, begging the noble Marquess's pardon, he must say, that he could not reconcile that detail with the character given of the objects of the Commission by the noble Marquess. According to the statement of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Commission was not merely to inquire as to the duties to be performed and the manner in which those duties were performed by the Established Church, but also to learn the precise number of the followers of the Established Church, and also the number of every religious sect in Ireland; and to compare the one with the other, for the purpose of ascertaining what proportion, in numerical strength, the one bore to the other. Could it be said, that such an inquiry was necessary to enable the just regulation of the distribution of the revenues of the Established Church? No such thing. It necessarily suggested, and must be intended as a preliminary to a distribution of the property of that Church amongst all the sects. And then it was said, that this was not a subterfuge—that this measure had long been thought of, and had not been adopted morely to escape a difficulty that would have pressed more immediately. Really he thought that, on a little investigation, it would be found, that their Lordships ought to know more about the project than would at first appear. For two years the scheme had been in agitation. The first their Lordships had
296
learned anything about it was in consequence of an allusion to a letter written by a late Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to the present Government. When the noble Earl at the head of the Government had been interrogated respecting the existence of such a letter, his reply was, that the Government had received from that noble Marquess no proposition of the kind. [Earl Grey had said, that the Government had received no proposition from his noble friend for the destruction of the Established Church.] Their Lordships would judge whether or not the proposition he alluded to was the proposition for the destruction of the Established Church.—But to proceed. After that letter (with which their Lordships had lately become acquainted) had been under the consideration of the Government, the Church of Ireland Temporalities Bill was brought in, and passed, upon the declaration of the Government, that it was to be a final measure. Now, he wanted to know whether or not that measure was to be a final one? By it the clergy had been reduced to the lowest condition as to revenue. Every bishopric had been taxed, and they had been told, that the Church would be found, after that Bill was passed, in greater security than ever, and relieved from all dread of further molestation. But their Lordships had just been informed that, since the Temporalities Bill had been passed, the proposition which he had before alluded to as coming from a noble Marquess, had again been urged by another noble Marquess, the present Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Now, he should like very much to see the letter urging this proposition; and, further, he should like to know, whether it had been accompanied by any such Resolution as that which he had read to their Lordships as having been proposed in another place. But it appeared, that the noble Marquess at present at the head of the Government in Ireland did make some such recommendation. But he would ask their Lordships to call to mind a particular passage in the Speech delivered by his Majesty to his Parliament on the 4th of February last. That passage was in the following words:—'I recommend to you the early consideration of such a final adjustment of the tithes in that part of the United Kingdom as may extinguish all just causes of complaint, without injury to the rights and pro-

297
perty of any class of my subjects, or to any institution in Church and State.' Let any noble Lord couple that passage with the Church of Ireland Temporalities Bill, and the alterations which had been effected in that Bill in its progress through Parliament, and then it would be seen, whether this proposition for further change in that part of the Established Church could be entertained with consistency or with decency by the noble Earl's Administration. Their Lordships would remember, that the 147th clause of the original Bill had been struck out, solely because it was construed to render doubtful whether or not the measure was to be a final measure, or whether or not it was to ensure irrevocably to the purposes of the Established Church its acknowledged revenues. He thought it was impossible, that his Majesty's Ministers could have had a step of this kind in contemplation when they brought in their Irish Tithe Bill, with an appropriation clause in it that was afterwards abandoned. There were some other circumstances to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. It appeared, that a noble Lord in another place had stated, that the Commission was signed and sealed on Monday last. Now, he happened to know, that the Privy Seal was requisite to put the Great Seal in motion. That being so, how was it possible, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ripon), with the sentiments he entertained upon this subject, could have lent his aid for such a purpose? He should have thought he would rather have his right hand burnt off than lend it to affix the Seal to the Commission which had just issued. The fact was, that the Privy Seal was dispensed with, and the Great Seal had been put to the document by virtue of what was called a writ of emergency, emanating directly from the King. Thus was his Majesty called upon to give a direct order to have sealed this Commission, for purposes such as were described in the Resolution he had read. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more improper or more unjust towards his Majesty than thus to bring him, in his direct executive capacity, into collision with this Commission. There was, in fact, no emergency calling for it. There was nothing to prevent his Majesty's Ministers from waiting until they could have the business performed in the ordinary mode. No point
298
was gained by it, excepting, indeed, that which throughout the transaction had been always in view—namely, to get a few votes in Parliament. He did not pretend to form any judgment upon the interpretation of his Majesty's Coronation Oath. Upon that subject his Majesty was the best judge. But he must say, that those who contended that his oath did not apply to him in his legislative capacity, did not act quite fairly in advising his Majesty to commit himself to this measure in his executive capacity. He would say no more, but express his thanks to the noble Earl for having made this Motion.
The Lord Chancellorassured their Lordships, that most willingly would he have released them and himself also, having sat there since ten in the morning, from the painful necessity of making a few observations upon the subject under discussion. An hour ago, he thought the speedy termination of the debate inevitable. But, just at that time, with what felicity he would not inquire, with what judgment he would not pronounce, how acceptably to those whose cause he was advocating, he would not pretend to determine,—a right reverend Prelate spurred up the lagging debate, and forced his noble friend to complain of the frequent irreverent and offensive introduction of the name of the Supreme Being, of which no Peer of Parliament would presume to be so lavish as he was, and coupling ever and anon these allusions to the Deity with what was not less irreverent and offensive: he meant loud and solemn denunciations of parties opposed to the right reverend Prelate. In the midst of so much error, of so much gross misrepresentation, he did not say wilful, it was no longer a matter of option with him whether he should indulge the wish he had cherished, and the design he had formed, of departing from that House without addressing their Lordships. He could not help observing, at the outset of his remarks that for a grave, deliberative assembly, possessing a reputation for wisdom, they had been brought to a somewhat novel and extraordinary position by the Motion of the noble Earl. The noble Earl moved for the production of a certain document. He knew that Motions of more form, for the production of papers, for the purpose of introducing a discussion involving the merits of the papers themselves, were sometimes made;

299
but, in such cases, the contents of the papers were known. Here, however, had been a discussion upon the merits of a document of the contents of which the speakers to the merits were profoundly ignorant. This was a Motion of substance, and not of form. To none but his Majesty's Ministers were the contents of this paper known. Least of all was its scope and extent known to those who had been the most free and most loud in its condemnation. He would give an instance or so of the truth of this allegation, in the hope that it might hereafter deter noble Lords, for the sake of their own dignity, from falling into the like absurdity. One noble Lord had told them, that a noble Lord in another place had declared, that the Government meant to act upon the Report of the Commissioners; and then the noble Lord proceeded with all expedition to inveigh against the conduct of the Government in handing over the hierarchy and the fortunes of the Irish Church to be dealt with as a set of unknown Commissioners might think fit to recommend, his Majesty's Government being, as he stated, pledged to abide by the suggestions, and act upon the views of the Commissioners. Now, the noble Lord who uttered, and the other noble Lords who cheered, this sentiment were in a state of gross ignorance upon the subject. They might be wise as to the present, knowing as to the past,—with some large exceptions, however; but as to the future, the wisest, the most sagacious, minds were liable to be misled. They could know nothing of the nature of the Commission respecting which they talked so learnedly and so confidently until to-morrow. Now, what would noble Lords say to-morrow, if it should turn out that, in the Commission, there was not one word of the kind so mach dwelt upon; so that it was impossible for the Government to be pledged in the manner represented? Suppose it should turn out, that there was not one word about inquiry, opinion, doctrine, remark, or suggestion, and that the labours of the Commissioners were to be of a nature purely statistical, without liberty to make a single observation, to offer a single opinion or remark upon any matter or thing whatsoever, where, then, would be the foundation of this fierce attack upon his Majesty's Government for sins committed against the
300
Irish Church which they had never even meditated? If his noble friend in the other House, therefore, had said, that the Government meant to fellow and adopt the Report of the Commissioners, he only meant to say, that they meant to adopt the sums, and figures, and distances, as ascertained and recorded by them. So much for the ignorance of the noble Lord who had indulged in these reflections and animadversions upon the intentions of his Majesty's Government with which he was perfectly unacquainted. The right reverend Prelate next displayed his ignorance on the subject, although he talked very confidently, and about the profane inquiry into the benefices and wealth of the Irish Church, dealing out imprecations upon the authors of the inquiry. Now, the right reverend Prelate had lavished all his curses upon a creature of his own imagination—a more fiction of his own alarmed understanding. In the like spirit had he kindly composed a speech for the noble Duke to deliver in the King's Closet—a speech too long and tiresome by far for so concise an orator as the noble Duke, especially when addressing himself to Kings. Now, he begged to acquaint the right reverend Prelate, that there was not a single word from beginning to end about the wealth or profits of the Irish Church. That had already been inquired into by another Commission issued some years ago, and which met the hearty approval of the right reverend Prelates at the time. The object of the Commission was, to ascertain whether the Irish Church was sufficiently endowed for the wants of its members—whether the pastures were sufficiently rich and plentiful for the flocks. At present there was much contradictory statement upon the subject; one party contending that there was a surplus after due provision had been made for the wants of the Protestant population, another party asserting, that there was an insufficiency. After this should have been inquired into by impartial and skilful men on the spot, it would be time enough to determine whether anything and what should be done with the surplus, if surplus it should turn out there were. That the disproportion between the revenues of the Church, and the members who derived spiritual consolation from it, was very great had not been denied. A noble friend of his had that night presented a petition from a parish in Ireland, in which

301
there were 5,000 inhabitants, not one of whom was a Protestant; and yet a considerable sum—some 200 l. a-year—was paid for supporting that which the petitioners described as a nonentity. He knew there were other parishes wanting the means of religious instruction; and he agreed with his noble friend in thinking, that not one shilling of any surplus fund should be appropriated until after the spiritual wants of the Protestant community had been fully provided for. That having been done upon a liberal, even an extravagant, scale, what man was there who would have the audacity to state to that assembly that, after ample and sufficient provision had been made, the residue of the fund should be held sacred—should remain unapplied, or that, in determining what was ample provision for religious worship, the number of the people was to be wholly put out of view? No person could pretend to state as an abstract question, that this was a matter purely of principle—that It had nothing to do with matter of fact. If it was a mere question of abstract principle, what would be done in case of there being no members of the Established Church? It was by an extreme case that principles were tried? Surely it would not be contended, by any person possessing common sense, that King, Lords, and Commons could not deal with a surplus fund under such circumstances with as much title and authority as they were in the habit almost daily of dealing with other property, as in the case of private bills. If, instead of 700,000 Protestants in Ireland, there were but 7,000, or only seventy, would an argument in favour of the sacred character of the fund be attempted or tolerated for a moment? Suppose that there were no Protestants at all in Ireland, would they still be bound to keep up the Establishment? If the arguments of noble Lords were good for anything, they went to that. He, however, maintained, that it was idle, that it was absurd, to say, that the Legislature had not the right, and Parliament the power, to deal with Church-property as they did not unfrequently with private property on matters of public policy. He contended, that noble Lords laboured under a strange delusion respecting what was called Church-property. They would seem to look upon the Church as though it were a Corporation, and enjoying the rights of a Corporation—the
302
privilege of holding separate rights in property, as was the case with a Corporation corporate or with a Corporation sole—such rights being cognizable at law. The Church, however, was no such thing. The Church was merely the congregation of the faithful; it meant not a body of clergymen. To talk of revenues arising, whether from tithes or oblations, or any other such source of emolument, as Church-property, meaning the property of a Corporation, was a mode of expression most fruitful of mischievous error. If, indeed, persons were to talk of the clergy, here they had bodies of men, and men enjoying the rights and privileges of Corporations—Deans and Chapters were Corporations corporate, and Bishops and parsons were Corporations sole. This he could understand as a lawyer, and this was the fact. But only see how great was the inconsistency, how gross was the illusion, of those persons who declared it to be sacrilege to meddle with what they were pleased to call Church property, for the purposes of one mode of appropriation, and yet express their ready assent to another. It was with them sacrilege to apply any surplus that might exist to charitable and pious uses; but it was no sacrilege to alter the amount distributed to the several persons, members of the Church Establishment. In other words, to distribute it equally among all the members of the Church would be no sacrilege; while to grant the smallest part of the revenues for any other purpose, albeit a purpose recognized by the Church, would be sacrilege of the deepest dye. Why, one was as complete an invasion of all the rights of property as the other was. There was the noble Earl (Earl Grey), the noble Duke (Wellington), and himself. According to these doctrines, if any one were to deprive them of all their respective properties, it would be admitted to be robbery; "but," said these ingenious persons, "if we take all this property and divide it equally among you, it is no robbery at all," although the income of the noble Duke might be much greater than that of the noble Earl, and that of the noble Earl very much greater than his. He, however, considered, that it would be also robbery differing from the other only in degree; and he had no doubt, that the noble Duke and the noble Earl would concur with him in that opinion. What was the body in question—he meant the clergy? There were many Corpora-

303
tions amongst the clergy. Every parson was a Corporation sole. A Bishop was a Corporation sole. Deans and Chapters were Corporations in the aggregate. All these were trustees of different properties. Now, he would just call upon their Lordships to look at the scheme of those who said, that if one farthing of the surplus fund were taken, it would be a violation of the Church property, which was sacred, and that it would be the same as taking their Lordships' property. They, however, had a plan of their own. Their plan was, to take from each of these different parties their separate properties, form them into one aggregate fund, and equalize all clerical incomes. Was ever a more absurd and contradictory argument heard? To illustrate it he would suppose a proposal to take the noble Duke's (the Duke of Wellington's) property, the property of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), and his (the Lord Chancellor's) no-property, and, uniting them into one fund, to give it all to his noble friend near him (Lord Holland). That was one plan. The other was to take the same three properties for the purpose of equalizing them. This latter was the no-spoliation doctrine, in which it was quite clear the principle of interference was fully recognised. "Ay," said some noble Lords, "but this inquiry can have only one result. The very small proportion of Protestants throughout Ireland, and the large amount of the revenues received for their spiritual instruction, must be known, and it will follow that all men will see that there is a surplus." Well, then, at the worst, let it be applied to the purposes of education and charities belonging to the Established Church. If it were so, as they apprehended, he had no knowledge of the fact. Let them have an inquiry, and let them await its result. The inquiry was intended to be fair and impartial, in order to afford an opportunity to the Irish Church to tell its own story, as well as to those who doubted the use of that Establishment as at present constituted to tell their tale. There were so many opposite accounts—one man maintaining there would be a great surplus, another a moderate surplus, while a third declared there would be no surplus at all, that some inquiry was absolutely necessary. But supposing there was a surplus—he was only arguing the matter hypothetically—if there was a surplus, as had been most justly and fitly
304
said, it should first of all, if not exclusively, be applied to the purposes of religious and moral education on the principles of the Established Church. The source from which the fund came naturally indicated the objects to which it should be applied. He was as great an advocate as any one for equal instruction to all, without respect of condition or creed; but when a fund originally belonging to the Established Church was to be directed to the purposes of education, it was but fair that it should first of all, if not exclusively, be appropriated to that object within the bounds of the Protestant Church itself. As to the Catholic Church having one single fraction of a farthing of the fund, no noble Lord who sat on that side of the House, no not even the noble Earl himself who had spoken so warmly on the subject, would more strenuously oppose such a proposition than he would, if such a proposition could for a moment be conceived. A reference had been made to certain great authorities—among others to Dr. Paley—on the question of Church establishments. That celebrated divine and ethical philosopher had maintained the doctrine, and argued it with his usual force and vigour of understanding, in which, if ever equalled, he certainly had never been surpassed, that an Established Church was necessary as contradistinguished from the voluntary system; but Dr. Paley added his qualification—the Established Church ought to be the religion of the great majority of the people. Indeed, he went so far as to say, speculatively, no doubt, and following this principle to rather an excess, that when the religion changed, the Established Church ought to change too, forgetting ten thousand circumstances which should modify the proposition, and to which he had not adverted. Archdeacon Paley was not the only authority upon that point; Bishop Warburton held the same opinion. But he disclaimed the doctrine; at all events that was not the moment to moot it; but this he would say, that no greater curse could befall the people of Ireland—no greater danger could arise to the liberties of Ireland and England, than anything which would tend to install the Catholic as the established religion of that country. Liberty would not be safe, and, in his opinion, as a Protestant, religion, in such a case, would be no better off than liberty,

305
He hoped he had now said enough to relieve himself and his noble and right hon. colleagues, all of whom agreed in the proposition, among whom there existed not the slightest shadow of a difference of opinion on the point—relieve them, he said, from any suspicion, if suspicion could still lurk after the declarations made by his noble friends on the opposite benches, that any notion of an attempt towards establishing the Catholic Church had even for a single moment entered their imaginations. He would go further: he did not think the enlightened and liberal Catholics themselves were at all favourable to their religion being established as a political Church. They would object to it as strongly on religious principles as any could be found to object to it on political grounds. He had been sorry to hear during the debate something like an attempt to sound a religious alarm—a religious outcry in the country, as if that were the time to make such an unholy, impolitic, pernicious, and, only on the lips of fanatics themselves, honest, appeal to the religious prejudices and party zeal of the people. He referred to a noble Earl (Winchilsea, as we understood), who declared that by agitation they had lost much, and therefore they might hope by agitation to get something back. The right reverend Prelate, too (the Bishop of Exeter), seemed disposed to join in the new firm of politico-ecclesiastical agitation. But he (the Lord Chancellor) had no great apprehension as to the result. In the first place, to agitate well had required in other instances a very different capital from that which this new pious firm had established. Honesty might have a great deal to do, he had no doubt it had, in the signal success which had attended agitation in Ireland; but if honesty, however great, had been the only capital applied, sure he was, its "rents" would have been much less considerable. He was therefore comforted by the hope, that if they persisted in carrying their threat into active execution, their failure, owing to the good sense of the people of England and Ireland, would be as signal and complete as it deserved; and a defeat more signal and more complete than it deserved he was not possessed of any language strong enough to describe. The Ministers were about to lay the Commission on the Table, and then it would be carried into effect honestly,
306
fairly, impartially, without flinching as without violence, neither leaving undone nor overdoing what ought to be done, men of moderate though firm, of holiest yet conciliatory temper, and habits, having been selected for the task; and when that task should be performed, when their report was produced, it would remain for Government to propound, and for Parliament to determine, the course which should be pursued. The noble and learned Lord then adverted to the manner of putting the Great Seal upon the Commission to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had called attention. His noble friend (the Earl of Ripon), whose departure from office, as a most honest, honourable, able, and useful colleague, he most deeply regretted, and no man would hail with more pleasure the passing away of that temporary cloud which obscured his noble friend at present. His noble friend, it was well known, held the Privy Seal till last night. This circumstance rendered a writ of emergency necessary. It did not, however, at all commit his Majesty more than the ordinary course, for the sign manual was always requisite to put the Great Seal in motion in these cases. He would observe, in conclusion, that a right reverend Prelate had recommended the Sovereign in such case to refuse signing the Commission, and, rejecting the all but unanimous opinion of the House of Commons, to turn them back on their constituents. He (the Lord Chancellor) was surprised, that any friend of the Irish Church could wish its revenues exposed to the peril of a religious outcry raised by a minister against the representatives of the people, and by advising his Sovereign to refuse acceding to the all but unanimous prayer of Parliament. If he had been a friend to all the abuses of the Irish Church as he was a friend to its usefulness and perpetuity, and therefore an enemy to those abuses and a determined friend to their extirpation—if he was as friendly to all such as he was hostile, he would say, God forbid he should ever live to behold, or the Establishment should ever see the day, when so reckless, so desperate a course as a right reverend Prelate recommended, should be adopted by a Minister of the Crown.
The Duke of Cumberland, spoke as follows: I do not rise, my Lords, at

307
this late hour to prolong this debate, but I cannot permit one assertion of the noble and learned Lord to pass unanswered. The noble and learned Lord accuses this side of the House of debating this evening upon what he terms a phantom: he says, that not one of us know or has read the Commission which has been moved for, and that that Commission is not yet upon your Lordships' table. This is true, so far as our ignorance of the exact wording of the Commission goes; but, my Lords, I deny that we know not its contents, for the noble Lord who is the leader of the Ministerial party in the other House, said explicitly, that the purport of this commission was to ascertain the revenues of the Irish Church, the number of parishes, and their comparative population as to Protestants and Papists, adding that his Majesty's Ministers meant to act on this report to its full extent, and that, if any surplus revenue should be found, they would commit an act of spoliation by employing it for other purposes. The noble Earl at the head of the Government, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, have to-night, denied this so far as to declare, that not one iota of that surplus shall be given to the Catholics. If I am not correct in this, I require immediately to be set right—[Lords Grey and Brougham here nodded assent.]—I take the assent of the noble Lords as an acknowledgment that I am right in saying, that they have this night disclaimed any intention of appropriating any portion of the revenues of the Church to the Catholics. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to the noble Earl who brought forward this Motion, as certainly my alarm for the Church was increased after the noble Lord's declaration in the House of Commons, followed by similar declarations of his colleagues in that House. How his Majesty's Ministers in this House, after their declarations here to-night, will come to an understanding with their colleagues in the other House, I am at a loss to make out; of course, there existed a greater difference in the Cabinet previous to the resignation of its late members, than there does at this moment. How far his Majesty's Government are united at this moment, I leave to them to settle amongst themselves. Before I sit down, my Lords, I beg to declare, that I never can,
308
and never will, consent to any alienation of Church property.
The Duke of Richmond, was only anxious to explain, after what had fallen from some noble Lords during this debate, that a letter from the Lord lieutenant of Ireland was submitted to the Cabinet previous to the meeting of Parliament, in which there was a recommendation for the appointment of a Commission; the Cabinet did not then discuss this recommendation, neither was the question again brought before the Cabinet; and their Lordships would be aware, that the Ministers who had receded resigned their offices at five o'clock on Tuesday, the 27th of May.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, in reply, there was one sentiment which he heard from the noble Lord opposite which gave him satisfaction, when he spoke of the necessity of maintaining the dignity of that House. But the dignity of their Lordships' House was not maintained by the highest officer of that House getting up in his place and charging a right reverend Prelate with ignorance. The noble Lord had also charged him and others with ignorance, yet failed to prove it. He said, that the document was not before the House, and therefore noble Lords evinced ignorance in speaking of its contents. But he (the Earl of Wicklow) heard the declarations of the noble Lord's colleagues in the other House, and from these he was able to judge of the nature and object of the measure, and, on the strength of them, declared that he had no confidence in the Government. The noble Lord, and other noble Lords in that House, stated different grounds in support of the Commission from their colleagues in the other House. His Majesty's Ministers in the other House declared, that the object of the Commission was to carry the Resolution of the member for St. Alban's into effect; and his Majesty's Ministers in their Lordships' House declared that the Commission was merely one of inquiry, and had no reference to those Resolutions. Amidst such conflicting statements how could their Lordships arrive at the fact? The noble Lord quoted a petition as the ground of the Commission; but he could not forget the nature of the measure of last Session; and what he now alleged for the Commission was absolutely provided for by the Bill of last Session.

309
He would say, that the views of the noble Lord who lately held the Privy Seal was a drag-chain on the headlong career of the Government. He (the Earl of Wicklow) knew his own duty, and need not be told by the noble Lord what it was. At all events he would not be disposed to pay deference to the opinion of any one who would maintain, that Parliament should yield to clamour.
The Motion was agreed to.