Sitting of 25 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Postage on News papers; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Land Tax Commissioners Names.—Read a second time:—Cape of Good Hope Offences; Sunk Island Road.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LAW HODGES, from the Protestant Dissenters of Chatham and Godalming, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. ARTHUR CHICHESTER, from the Natives of Wales in or near London, against Established Church Bill.—By Lord FRANCIS EGERTON and Sir R. INGLIS, from the Dignitaries of Christ Church, Oxford, against the Church Bill.

TRINITY HARBOUR BILL.
Sir Andrew Leith Haypresented a petition, signed by the merchants and inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh, in favour of the Trinity Harbour Bill. The hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill, into the merits of which he had no occasion to enter, as the subject had been before amply discussed.
The Lord Advocatepresented two petitions from the Dock Commissioners of Leith, and individuals in Edinburgh,

517
against the Bill, He (the Lord Advocate) would take that opportunity of stating his reasons for opposing the second reading of the Bill. During the former session of Parliament, when the Bill was before the House, it was opposed on the ground that the parties had no right to make a harbour on the ground of the town of Edinburgh. The objection then was, that no judgment had been passed in the Court of Session of Scotland. During the present session, and while the Bill was before the Lords, the decision of the Court of Session was given, from which it appeared "that Mr. Alexander Scott had been prohibited from unloading goods, or making a dock for their reception within the bounds prescribed; and further, that he was restricted from building or erecting a harbour or dock, or performing any other work that could be construed into an encroachment on vested rights of the corporation of the City of Edinburgh." The question they had to consider was, would the House, under the circumstances, consent to the passing of a Bill for making a harbour within a harbour? He was of opinion that they would not; for it was clearly an encroachment on the rights of property, and no case had been made by the promoters of the Bill, in the present instance, to entitle the House to interfere with the property of the city of Edinburgh and in almost direct opposition to a decision of a court of law. He (the Lord Advocate) should be very sorry to be instrumental in the making of this harbour, after a report made to the House for improving the harbour of Leith, and he therefore thought it would be the grossest injustice to allow the Bill to pass. The promoters of the Bill had no right to make a harbour where it was proposed to do so, and that with the prospect of a better harbour being made. He believed there was no instance on record of any Bill being carried through the House in the manner this had been. It was opposed by the town of Edinburgh, the town of Leith, the Dock Commissioners, and the decision of a court of law, and under those circumstances he would move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Wilkswould take the liberty of stating, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience he never witnessed a more extraordinary opposition than this Bill had received, and he hoped that House would not sanction such an inconvenience and injustice as the rejection of this Bill would inflict on the promoters of it. He
518
maintained, that the decision of the Court of Session did not at all bear out the claim of the Corporation of the city of Edinburgh, it merely went the length of saying that they were entitled to harbour dues, which were never refused by Mr. Scott. He was therefore fully satisfied that the House would allow the second reading.
Mr. Pringlewould defy the annals of Parliament to furnish a case similar to that with which it was sought to carry this Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying, that in Edinburgh it would be hailed with satisfaction to learn that this Bill had been thrown out. Various means had been resorted to, to prejudice the minds of hon. Members in reference to this Bill, and he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated, and to a few passages of which he requested to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, in order to ascertain what he meant.
Sir Andrew LeithHay was not to be held answerable for any Bill or paper that might be circulated.
Mr. Pringlecomplained of the unjustifiable opposition that was offered to this Bill, and contained statements that were evidently intended to prejudice people's minds out of doors. Among the many objections to this measure was one, that the forms of the House had not been complied with, and he considered that well-founded. He would not, therefore, trouble the House further than by stating, that the Bill was not in a fit state to be carried, and that the decision of the court of law was a strong barrier against it. There was no fear but that the other harbour would be improved so as to afford every accommodation to the commercial and shipping interests, and with this prospect before them he hoped the House would not proceed further with this bungling Bill.
House divided on the original motion, Ayes 64; Noes 19—Majority 45.
Sir Andrew LeithHay protested against the opposition given to this Bill, which was intended to promote delay, and to prevent it from being sent to the House of Lords, with any reasonable expectation of its passing this session. He should therefore move the suspension of the standing orders, and that the Bill be sent before the Committee this day.
Sir George Clerksaid, that the motion before the House was required to complete the irregularities attendant on this Bill. It would be the greatest possible in-

519
justice if the motion were to be complied with; for he had a petition, from certain individuals whose interests were so affected by it, to present against the Bill, praying to be heard by counsel, and how could that be done if it were to be committed to-day? He challenged the hon. Member to produce any one instance where a contested Bill was allowed to go through the House with the rapidity of this Bill. He therefore thought, before such an infringement was made on the property of individuals, that they should, at least, have the opportunity of defending their rights; and to enable them to do so, the House should postpone the Bill going into Committee until the usual time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean to ask for the suspension of the Standing Orders; and further, that a Committee on this (a private Bill) shall sit this day, during the sitting of the House? I apprehend there can be no doubt that that must be the effect of his motion; and if it be the pleasure of the House to accede to it, we shall adopt a practice which is certainly very unusual, to say the least of it.
Sir A. Leith Haysaw the force of the right hon. the Speaker's remark, and would beg leave to withdraw his motion. He moved that the Bill be committed the next day.
The Lord Advocateopposed the motion, and deprecated agreement to it without a precedent being produced.
Mr. Wilkssaid, as the House had agreed to the second reading, and as the object of the opposing parties evidently was delay, he thought the House would not vitiate their own proceedings by rejecting the motion before them. He hoped the House would make an order for the Committee.
Mr. Pringlesaid, this was the first case where the Standing Orders were moved to be suspended in the case of an opposed private Bill. He thought it rather strange, that the promoters of it should be allowed to proceed in so irregular a manner.
The House divided: Ayes 76; Noes 26: Majority 50.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL.
Mr. Benettrequested the patience of hon. Members on a matter relating to his personal character; which, though not of any importance to the House, was of some consequence to the ends of justice. He had
520
been informed by letters from his friends, as well as by reports in the newspapers, that while he was absent attending the assizes, and upon other business, Mr. Nicholas Wilcox Cundy had been brought to the Bar. There he underwent a long examination, and made certain answers to questions put by the Speaker and by other Members. He held those answers in his hand, and he begged the House to allow him briefly to go over them, that he might show how incorrect and void of truth some of them were. If he did not take this course, he knew not how he could do more than repeat what he had strongly stated in his letter to Sir Charles Burrell. Mr. Cundy had been asked, whether he had solicited the attendance of any Member on the third reading of the Brighton Railway Bill, and had replied in the negative; when the fact was, that he had called upon him (Mr. Benett) and solicited his attendance. No such conversation took place, as had been mentioned by Mr. Cundy, on the Southwestern Railroad; but he had canvassed him (Mr. Benett) to be in his place, and informed him of reports of which he (Mr. Benett) was until then ignorant; and the conversation was commenced by Mr. Cundy. He declared most solemnly, that he had never heard any reports respecting the compensation to be given to landowners on the Brighton Railroad; and that he never asked Mr. Cundy any questions regarding them. Mr. Cundy had never spoken of compensation for "navigation;" but had said, that for about six acres of land, Sir Charles Burrell was to receive 15,000 l. This sum, he asserted, was to be given as a bribe to induce him to support Stephenson's line; which he had done accordingly with the utmost zeal. In his examination at the Bar, Mr. Cundy had introduced the name of the Duke of Norfolk; but he had not heard Mr. Cundy speak of that nobleman, and did not know that he had the slightest interest in the question: not one word on the subject had passed between him and Mr. Cundy. On the point of tampering with the Committee, Mr. Cundy distinctly stated, that the majority had been obtained by tampering; and added, that the chairman of the Committee was a most partial person, because he was connected with the Duke of Richmond, whose interest it was, that Stephenson's line should be adopted. In consequence of what Mr. Cundy had

521
asserted, he (Mr. Benett) had asked Sir Charles Burrell whether he was to receive any and what compensation; and Sir Charles had informed him, that he was to be paid for a few acres of land, but that he did not know the sum; and that his remuneration would not altogether amount to 3,000 l. On the morning after he had seen Sir Charles Burrell in the lobby of the House of Lords, Mr. Cundy called again upon him (Mr. Benett), when he said that, as what he (Mr. Cundy) had told him respecting Sir Charles Burrell was not true, he would have no farther conversation with him. Mr. Cundy entreated him to hear what he had to say. He had answered, that he had heard that he (Mr. Cundy) had denied to Sir C. Burrell in the lobby of the House of Lords, what he had stated to him (Mr. Benett). Mr. Cundy's reply was, "I did not deny it—I avowed my belief in the truth of it;" and from thence he went over the circumstances, the principal of which was, that Sir Charles Burrell was to receive 15,000 l., another landowner 20,000 l., and two others 8,000 l. each. "The whole of this," he said, "is true; but the case will come before the Committee of the House of Peers, where it will be investigated, and there justice will be done." He (Mr. Benett) most positively and solemnly asserted that these were the words used by Mr. Cundy. Other things in the evidence of Mr. Cundy were contrary to the fact, but it was not necessary to advert to them; and he could assure the House, that instead of overstating the case in his letter to Sir Charles Burrell, he had understated it, and nothing on earth should ever induce him to overstate. He did not at any time wish to bring an individual to the Bar of the House, for words spoken of himself; it was a tribunal of which, however powerful, he did not approve; and he wanted nothing upon the present occasion but to show the House and the country that he had not misrepresented Mr. Cundy. He had been exceedingly cautious to understate the case to Sir Charles Burrell, and did not mention any persons but himself. If the report had gone no farther than this House, he should not have thought it necessary to detain hon. Members upon a merely personal matter, for he was sure that not one of those who surrounded him would think him capable of misrepresenting. Neither did he think that where Mr. Cundy was
522
known, his assertions would have much weight. He had considered it his duty to make this statement as early as possible, since it had gone out to the country that he had overstated the case against Mr. Cundy; and where his character was not known, it might possibly suffer, even from the evidence of a man who had imprisonment before his eyes, if he did not contradict that with which he was charged. He might regret, that as Mr. Cundy's evidence was on the Journals, his (Mr. Benett's) refutation would not also be recorded there; but he did not wish again to have Mr. Cundy at the Bar, or subjected to punishment for what he had said of him.
Sir Charles Burrelladverted to a petition in the hands of a Member affecting his reputation, and expressed his readiness at the present moment to meet any charge it contained. He was sorry that the subject could not now be regularly brought before the House.
Lord George Lennox Lord George Lennox, having been alluded to by the hon. Member for Wilts, was anxious to say only a few words. He understood that hon. Gentleman to say, that Mr. Cundy had charged him with partiality as Chairman of the Committee, having been influenced by his brother. His purpose in rising was, not to vindicate himself, but the Duke of Richmond, who was absent. He assured the House, upon his honour and word, that he had never directly or indirectly had any communication with his brother until long after the Bill was in Committee, excepting on one occasion. Mr. Clerk, an attorney at Brighton, had called at Good wood, thinking to find him (Lord George Lennox) while he was abroad. His brother had written to him, stating that Mr. Clark wished him to bring in the Bill, and desiring him to be cautious how he pledged himself to support the measure. After the Bill had been before the Committee a fortnight, the agents wished him (Lord George Lennox) to ask the Duke of Richmond to undertake the care of it in the House of Lords. He had, therefore, written to the Duke of Richmond, and his answer was, that he would not pledge himself, as he was not at that time convinced which line would be best for the interests of the county of Sussex. It was not until the evidence had been printed and published that he had given his assent. He (Lord George Lennox) firmly-believed that Stephenson's line did not go

523
within twenty miles of any of the Duke of Richmond's property. As to himself, he left his conduct to the Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey, who had opposed the line adopted, had moved a vote of thanks for his impartiality in the chair, and he was proud to say, that during a very full attendance, it had been carried unanimously.
Subject dropped.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Established Church Bill. The noble Lord said, although I shall not attempt to take this opportunity of speaking to the subject of this Bill, unless, perhaps, in case certain facts are stated which require explanation, and when I hope I may be allowed the indulgence of the House in giving an explanation of them, I do think that it will be for the convenience of the House, as well as it is the duty of the Government, to give some intimation of the course which is intended to be pursued with respect to the Bill on which I have moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate; and with respect to the other Bills relating to Church matters before the House. It is my intention with respect to the Bill relating to the Established Church and the division of sees, to move the third reading to-night. As I have said, I will not now enter into a debate on this question, but merely take occasion to repeat what I have often said before, and what, I regret to say, has not made such an impression as so notorious a fact was calculated to do, namely that this Bill does not increase the number of Bishops, but retains the same number exactly as there was before its introduction. With respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, which relates to the deans and chapters, and the distribution of a great part of their revenues to the cure of souls in populous parishes and districts, there has been, I am sorry to say, so much opposition raised to this Bill, that, at the present advanced period of the Session, I do not feel confident that I should successfully carry it through the House; and when I say, that I do not mean to imply that if I pressed it I should not have a majority of this House to support me; I certainly do mean to say, that there is, from various quarters, so much opposition made to the Bill, that undoubtedly, at this advanced period of the Session, we should be compelled to sacrifice a large
524
portion of time in order to succeed in getting it through Parliament. That opposition has arisen from different quarters; one of the quarters whence it has arisen is those from some of whom the noble Lord opposite (Lord F. Egerton) has presented a petition this evening. This petition follows up a former petition, in which complaint was made of the provisions of that Bill in no very measured terms. And the present petition prayed, without going into any discussion of the present provisions of the Bill, to postpone its consideration for another Session. In treating of that Bill, I must say, that I cannot consent to postpone it without stating, that I do not attach weight to the statements made in the former petition, nor the principles on which it was founded. The statement there made is this—that there are certain rights of patronage which they consider the same as a vested interest in other property, and that Parliament ought not to interfere with them. This is in many respects a new claim. I do not remember when one similar to it was made; I am sure it has been very often the practice of Parliament to deal with patronage, to make a different distribution of offices, and to deprive persons and bodies of patronage which they otherwise would have enjoyed, without making any compensation, or having their right to deal with such matters questioned. But besides the unsoundness of the principle thus laid down, I do not think it was altogether gracious on the part of these dignitaries to lay before the House such a ground of opposition to a measure of this nature. It has been the consequence—it will be the consequence—of the measures taken for the Reform of the Church, that a very considerable degree of patronage must be sacrificed by the Crown, not only with respect to prebendaries and sinecure preferments, but also with respect to the patronage which resulted from the inequality of the bishoprics, and which made the patronage of the Crown more valuable than it will be for the future. There has not been on the part of the Crown any, the least, reluctance to make whatever sacrifices were considered advantageous to the Church, or likely to render it more efficient and more grateful and acceptable to the people at large. With respect to the patronage enjoyed by the Bishops, I must remind the House of what has been a good deal overlooked, namely, that they have given up some most valuable patronage which was in their gift, and relinquished their right

525
to nominate to certain prebendaries and preferments for the purpose of placing at the disposal of Government funds which might be better applied for contributing to the efficiency of the Church. I may mention one instance on authority which cannot be doubted. The Bishop of London alone has preferments in the cathedral of St. Paul's, and sinecure preferments, to the amount of 10,000 l., the whole of which he has expressed his willingness to relinquish. I say, then, that such being the disposition on the part of the Crown—such being the disposition on the part of the Bishops—I do think that those prefer the accomplishment of their object to the advancement of the general good of the Church who interpose the objection of a vested right in patronage in the way of a measure of Church Reform. Sir, there is another opposition to this Bill, which comes from a very different quarter, and which is in the spirit of the petition which has just been presented by the hon. Member for Manchester. It is an opposition grounded on the opinion that these reforms are not of the kind or extent of reform which ought to take place, and more especially on a decidedly strong feeling evinced by a great portion of the Dissenters, that some step should be taken for making the funds which may accrue from the abolition of sinecure preferments supply the place of Church-rates. Sir, as I stated that I do not agree to the opinions expressed by the deans and chapters, or of those who signed the petition on their part, so likewise I must say that I do not agree in the views stated by the latter class to whom I have alluded. It is not, in my opinion, possible for Parliament in the next or any other Session of Parliament to find in those perferments funds sufficient to replace Church-rates. It is my opinion that the wants of the Church are such, that supposing the House to say it is better that these wants should be attended to in the first place, and the service of the cathedrals altogether neglected—even in that case the wants of the Church with regard to the populous districts are such, as to disable Parliament from making any portion of its revenues a substitution for Church-rates. Sir, that being my opinion, the only ground on which I can consent to the postponement of this Bill, and that with respect to the discipline of the Church, is, that, instead of now meeting with general concurrence and approbation with which, I must say, this plan of reform was received when proposed by me on a former occasion,
526
and when it met with such general support—in which the hon. Member for Middlesex and my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets joined—that an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House got up and declared he wished to say nothing which would disturb the unanimity which prevailed in the House—I say, therefore, that instead of the general approbation and concurrence which were then expressed, it has appeared, on farther inquiry, that those who agreed in that opinion have considered these Bills to be liable to great objection, and to require much farther investigation. I certainly am of opinion, much as I regret that I should have occasion to express it, that it is not desirable, at this very late period of the Session, to enter into a discussion which would give rise to considerable delay and opposition, and that we shall be enabled to come to a more unanimous decision on these questions, by the postponement of them, than we should do by forcing them on the consideration of Parliament. Sir, allow me to say, likewise, that although I do not consider the payment of Church-rates any sufficient ground for the postponement of this measure on the plea which has been urged—that cathedral property may enable us to find a substitute for them—yet I must say, that the object which we have looked forward to from the beginning of the session—the settlement, at the present time, of the whole of these questions, will not be perfectly attained until that question of Church-rates is disposed of. Sir, it was my opinion, and I belive I may say it was the opinion of my colleagues, at the commencement of this session, that we might, if we had sufficient time, put an end to most of those questions which have been the cause of difference, and vexation, and hostility, which ought not to prevail between the Established Church and the Dissenters, as well as the lay members of the Church itself in this country. One question, for instance, with respect to which the Dissenters felt themselves aggrieved, is the imperfection of registry, and being obliged to conform to the rites of the Church of England with regard to marriage. We have brought in a measure to meet this evil, the result of which will be, to leave the Dissenters free and unfettered in the enjoyment of the same rights as those possessed by the members of the Church. As to another and a very great question (tithes), with respect to which the Bill which we brought forward has been returned from

527
the House of Lords, there is no doubt that there did and does exist on that subject ground for frequent occasions of disgust and quarrel between the clergyman and his parishioners—But, Sir, that Bill will, I hope, put an end to all occasion for quarrel. With regard to Church-rates, they have been the occasion of the most vexatious and harassing disputes in different parishes between the members of the Church and the Dissenters. With respect to these Bills now under the notice of the House, I am of opinion that they are calculated to remove many of those defects and abuses in the Establishment, which gave rise to much imputation against the members of the Church. I did certainly believe, that by submitting measures for the reform of the Church, in which the leading members of the Church itself were willing to abide by the decision of Parliament and the public opinion of the country, we should place the Church in a state of security which it has not hitherto enjoyed. In saying this, I do not mean to deny, that there may not hereafter be ground for introducing other changes and reforms—though for myself I do not see any reason for thinking such a proposition may be necessary; but I do say that the members of the Church now giving an earnest of their wish and intention to purify it from all defects, there will not hereafter occur any of those questions which are the most dangerous, and with respect to which a peremptory demand is made on the one side and a peremptory refusal given on the other. As soon as you get rid of that state of things, as soon as you bring the question to one of degree, from that moment you free the institution itself from danger, and you show it to be such an institution as that it rests on the good and sound opinion of the community. So likewise with respect to the Dissenters, I do not think that they will be ever contented unless placed in such a situation that they do not feel themselves harassed or aggrieved, or interfered with in their spiritual concerns by the Established Church. Now, our great object has been the reform and security of the Church, and the complete freedom and civil equality of the Dissenters. There is one other Bill which I shall mention. It has been brought from the House of Lords, and relates to residence and pluralities. I do not think there can be any objections to the details of the Bill. I hope it will be formed into a law during the present session. I have now concluded; and I shall only express a hope, that if there be
528
any misunderstanding with respect to a measure of such importance, and on which so much excitement prevails, I shall be allowed an opportunity of correcting it.
Mr. Humesaid, that having been personally alluded to by the noble Lord who had just sat down, he hoped to be allowed to offer a few words to the House. He had prepared a series of resolutions to move as an amendment upon the motion of the noble Lord, but as the noble Lord had intimated that it was not his intention this Session to press certain Bills he had mentioned, he (Mr. Hume) thought he should best consult the convenience of the House, as well as act most in accordance with the feelings of those around him, if he did not move those resolutions. The noble Lord, however, ought not to have been surprised at the opposition entertained by him (Mr. Hume) and others who thought with him to this Bill. The noble Lord had spoken of the necessity of providing for the wants of the Church, instead of applying certain revenues as a substitute for Church-rates. By the term "wants of the Church," did the noble Lord mean the providing for the inferior Clergy? If so, how could he reconcile to himself the justice of a measure which gave to twenty-six individuals 148,000 l. per annum, while to 2,026 working Clergy only 141,000 l. a year was allotted? Again, it appeared that five Bishop's sons, and sons-in-law, being ministers of the Church, would receive as much money annually as, under this Bill, was appropriated to 300 curates doing active duty. With provisions like these, the Bill, he contended, had no regard to the wants of the Church to which the noble Lord was so desirous to afford a supply. He wished to see every clergyman resident in his parish and maintained in it, at all events, with decency; and for this he did not believe any man, in or out of that House would refuse his sanction and support. But the noble Lord was most unreasonable in asking the House to concur in this most unequal, appropriation of the ecclesiastical revenues. He denied, that he had ever assented to the Bill; for, on the contrary, he never opened his mouth upon it until it was in Committee, when he asked the noble Lord to consent to postpone it. The noble Lord had no right to bind him for his silence when the subject was first mentioned, for at that time the reports which the House had a right to expect, and upon which only they ought to act, were not then nor now on the table. He had no wish to oppose his Majesty's Ministers, but

529
this Bill was most inconsistent with the principles he had always advocated. The Bill was not consonant with those principles, inasmuch as it did not provide for the inferior clergy, and was silent on the subject of Church-rates. He did not wish to manifest any vexatious opposition, but still he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House on the motion for the third reading of the Bill, in order to record his opposition to the measure. Even if the noble Lord introduced any modification in respect to the constitution of the Commissioners, or to lessen the amount to be paid the Bishops, still the Bill was one which ought not to receive legislative sanction. He repeated, that though he was determined to take the sense of the House on the third reading, he did not think it prudent or proper in him to move any amendment, for he had to consider the general policy of the Government, particularly with regard to Ireland, and whether that policy might not be endangered by his further opposition to this Bill, throwing that country into other and less friendly protection.
Mr. Lennard, rose principally for the purpose of expressing the satisfaction he felt at the announcement which had been made of the intention of his Majesty's Government to bring forward some measure of relief in regard to Church-rates. At the same time, the noble Lord having stated his apprehension that Church-property would not be applicable nor sufficient to the reducing, much less to the removal of those rates, he felt bound to say, that if upon inquiry it should turn out that there was not more than sufficient Church property in this country to satisfy the real wants of the Church, he perfectly concurred with the noble Lord, that we must look to some other source from which the Church-rates should be reduced, and thus relief be afforded to the Dissenters. But before arriving at that conviction, there must be a careful inquiry entered into as to the true amount of the property of the Church. At present, the only account we had was rendered by the members of that Church, and we had no means of judging of its correctness. He (Mr. Lennard) would therefore suggest to the House, whether it would not be advisable to follow, in this instance, the plan recommended by Lord Brougham in respect of charities, viz., the issuing of a commission, which should carefully investigate the value of Church property. That being done, the House would be enabled to judge correctly as to
530
the sufficiency or insufficiency of that property to answer all the real wants of the Church. And if, as the noble Lord had stated, the latter should be found to be the case, the House would then look elsewhere for funds out of which to relieve the Dissenters, by reducing or removing the Church-rates. To show that the returns were erroneous, he need only mention, that the late holder of a Welsh see had left his family upwards of 100,000 l., though the revenues of the see were remarkably small. It was but justice to add, that those revenues depended on mines which at times were productive, but at other periods the reverse; but still it was essential that a correct average of the value of the see should be ascertained, in order to enable Parliament justly to legislate.
Mr. A. Trevor: Will the hon. Member for Maldon state to which of the Welsh bishops he referred as having left his family 400,000 l.?
Mr. Lennard: I said 100,000 l. I decline naming [loud cries of " Name" from the Opposition, answered by cries of "No, no" from the Ministerial benches].
Mr. Chas. Buller: I cannot help saying a few words, Sir, upon some remarks which were thrown out the other night, and upon the present occasion also, by the noble Lord, as to the stage at which the opposition to this Bill commenced. I agree with him, that that opposition should have commenced at an earlier period than it did. I think the attention of the public should have been called to the subject as soon as that Report was laid upon our table. But still, as great advantage has been attempted to be taken of the comparatively late stage at which (as the noble Lord says) our opposition to this Bill commenced, let the House know what opposition has been given to this Bill since it was brought in. On the second reading, an opposition to it had been announced by the motion of the hon. Member for Ashburton. In Committee a division actually took place on the question of the translation of bishops, and on the Report two divisions took place, one of very considerable importance; and I must say, that when the opposition to a Bill has been announced on the second reading, continued in Committee, and carried on to the Report, the noble Lord has no ground for charging us with unfairness in not announcing our opposition. Sir, I have

531
taken a strong part against this Bill ["Hear, hear" from the Chancellor of the Exchequer], which I do not regret, though I should be very sorry if, in doing so, I expressed myself in language too plain and severe. I have heard with great satisfaction the announcement of the noble Lord's intention to withdraw two of the Bills forming part of the proposed Church reform, and I only regret the noble Lord has not included in his withdrawal the remaining two Bills. It does appear to me, that the noble Lord puts himself in a worse position by withdrawing two, than he would be in if he persisted in carrying through all. There might be some reason in going on with this Bill when it was part of a general measure of Church reform; but now, when the two other Bills are withdrawn, by insisting upon the Bill before us, and the Pluralities Bill, the Government will lay themselves open to the imputation of proposing a really inefficient measure of reform, especially when it is seen that all that this Bill does is to chop and change in some degree the incomes of the bishops, but by no means to equalise the stipends of the dignitaries of the Church. Sir, the grounds on which I oppose this Bill are, first, because I believe it to be most inefficient as a measure of Church reform. Nor am I satisfied with the reason which the noble Lord suggests for going on with it, viz., that it involves the concession of a most important principle, that Parliament has a right to deal with, and legislate for, Church property; for I consider it a most monstrous and atrocious presumption, on the part of the Church, to imagine for a moment that Parliament has not that right. But still farther, I believe that this Bill, if carried into a law, will not only be utterly inefficient as a measure of Church reform, but that it will work positive mischief. This Bill establishes a permanent Commission for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect. I before expressed my opinion, that it is a very bad precedent to establish—the delegating the power of legislation to a Commission. But that is not my only objection. I object to the entrusting such great powers as are conferred by this Bill to a permanent Commission not responsible to Parliament like his Majesty's Ministers; but more especially do I object to that Commission, as being composed of persons who have been the most consistent opponents of
532
all liberal government. If a Commission was necessary and advisable at all, surely Ministers might have placed among its members men who had the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country, as well as of the Church, or at least men whose names and popularity would have been a safeguard against the pursuit of a course of conduct opposed to liberal principles. Sir, I am glad my hon. Friend has announced his intention of dividing against this Bill on the third reading, and that he will not press his opposition further. What I wish to show to the country is, that we have carried our opposition as far as we properly could (though, I admit, that it should have been commenced earlier). I am sorry that his Majesty's Ministers have taken ill the expression of sentiment on this side of the House. I myself certainly have declared those sentiments very plainly, and without, Lacknow ledge, mincing the matter—as perhaps is decorous in such cases; but it seems to me that it does good sometimes, more particularly for that party to which I belong, to express their opinions loudly and explicitly. Having no opportunity of expressing those opinions except in this House, I think it is necessary that when they do come forward they should speak out in terms which cannot be misunderstood. I should be extremely sorry if any opposition which I and those who think with me, may feel called upon to give to this Bill, should prove detrimental to the stability of the Ministry or conduce to the success of their adversaries. I can only assure them, that no act on my part is dictated by hostility to them; and that if they were to bring forward a real and substantial measure of Church reform, based upon the principles upon which they took office, there would not be one of those who on the present occasion view their measure with distrust and dissatisfaction, who would not unite in giving them their most strenuous support.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell, in allusion to a change in the constitution of the Commission, said, that it was intended to assimilate it to the Ecclesiastical Commission of Ireland, and render certain members removable by the King in Council.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that some intended modifications of the present Bill had been spoken of; and it was desirable, before they gave their consent to the third reading, that they should know what they

533
were? Perhaps, as the noble Lord must have made up his mind on the subject, he would state them.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the only alteration which he should propose was this—that whereas the Commission being composed of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and certain others, he should propose that the two last-mentioned Bishops, and the three last-mentioned lay Commissioners, should be at all times removable by his Majesty in Council, by warrant under the sign manual. There was no other alteration intended.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that before proceeding to the order of the day, he wished to take notice of some observations which had fallen from the noble Lord in reference to some parties who had petitioned the House that evening, through the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton), and other Members.—The noble Lord had been pleased to animadvert with some severity upon the conduct of those petitioners, as having been actuated by selfish and interested motives. Now the House not being in possession of the subject matter of those petitions: he (Mr. Estcourt) for one, not having seen them, and knowing nothing whatever of the parties,—it was too much for the noble Lord to assume that they had been influenced by unworthy motives in the course they had pursued: and he (Mr. Estcourt) had just as much right, in the absence of all information upon the subject, nay, more right, to assume that these individuals had been actuated by motives as honourable and patriotic as any which could influence the human mind.
The Order of the Day read.
The question was put, that the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. A. Trevorregretted being obliged to support any motion emanating from the hon. Member for Middlesex; but as he considered the Bill would have a very prejudicial effect upon the interests of his constituents, he felt he should not discharge his duty if he availed himself of the only alternative. He opposed the measure on the grounds that it was introduced without sufficient inquiry, and that, as well in principle as in details, it was likely to become a most dangerous and fatal precedent. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex;
534
but it was not to be supposed that, because he did so, he concurred in any of the propositions that hon. Member or his party were likely to bring forward in respect to the Church.
Mr. Ewartobserved, that if the hon. Member for Durham proposed in future to take up that course of politics which a sense of duty to his constituents was likely to dictate, it was more than possible he would often be found voting with his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member, who was very indistinctly heard in the gallery, then proceeded to say, that it would be with something like regret he should record his vote in favour of the hon. Member for Middlesex's amendment. He had been hitherto a constant supporter of the Government, and he had hoped that nothing would occur to make him alter his opinion. He regarded the measure as a most clumsy piece of legislation in the first place, and in the second as a very unnecessary abandonment of principle on the part of Ministers. It professed to be a measure of equalization, but it was no such thing. All the gradations of episcopal income from 15,000 l. to 5,000 l. a year, were preserved, and the only alterations consisted in the arrangement and subdivision of the sees. To the proposed Commission he objected, on the ground that the controlling power over its proceedings was not vested in the people, through the responsible organs of the Government. He wished to see the Ministers take the question of Church reform into their own hands, instead of adopting the reforms suggested by their opponents. It was manifest that in the division about to take place there would be a great split in the hitherto compactly kept Ministerial ranks, but he trusted that it would merely extend to the present question, and that no permanent division of sentiment would from thence follow.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that he hoped the House would bear with him while he endeavoured shortly to express his opinions on the measure before it. But he was bound to state that his opinions were not likely to obtain the support and concurrence of those who thought that rich and gorgeous establishments were likely to advance the great interests of truth and Christianity. From his cradle he had been taught to believe that it was

535
not worldly pomp and power—not the possession of inordinate opulence—but the quiet, unostentatious exercise of clerical duty that was most acceptable to the religious principle. From the costly and opulent establishment he turned to the Dissenting principle. The Dissenters asked for nothing from the State—nothing from the public purse. Were their children less carefully educated? Was there less of religious zeal or religious conduct among their professors? Indeed, his objection to the Bill went far beyond most of the objections that had been urged against it. He thought the Church of England did not answer the objects for which it was professed to be established. It was over-encumbered with wealth; its opulence was its bane; its enormous revenues were all barriers to its usefulness. It was in sad contrast to primitive Christianity. Of what was the Com-mission composed who were charged with the great duty of Church reform? Was it not of those most interested in Church abuses? Were not the changes in the episcopal system delivered over to the hierarchy of the archbishops and the bishops? The public eye had not been inattentive to the fact that the primary object of the bishops had been to provide for themselves—to set aside enormous and unnecessary revenues for their own good service. They had acted wisely in their generation. But there was another principle in the Bill which he could not sanction. The Church of England called itself the National Church; but in the nation immense numbers came not within its pale. Was that a reason they should be excluded? He thought not. Yet the Bill had a declaration that shut out every individual not a member of the Establishment from being a commissioner. This was not fair nor just. The Church was paid by all, and all had a right to inquire into its concerns. Opinion would never sanction the enormous appropriations which were made by this Bill. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, called them the necessary support of decent and decorous dignity. He saw in them nothing but the graspings of worldliness and antichristian rapacity. And why, again, were the elements of discord to be introduced into Manchester and Ripon? Did Manchester and Ripon desire to be favoured with bishops? Did the inhabitants believe that their presence
536
would lead to religious peace and harmony? Far from it. On these and other grounds he was compelled, but with grief and pain, to vote against the third reading of the Bill. It was not in hostility to the Government, but in harmony with the principles he cherished and felt bound to maintain, that he was compelled to join in the opposition to its progress.
Mr. Grotewished to say a very few words respecting this Bill, before it reached its final stage; and as he entertained the far from gratifying conviction that those words, however few, would prove unacceptable to a set of Gentlemen for whom he entertained the very highest respect, it was almost unnecessary for him to observe that they would be expressed with much pain. Upon one point, however, which had been raised, he was fortunate in not being obliged to apologise. If any blame was attributable to any quarter for having deferred opposition until the Bill had reached its final stage, in that blame he did not participate. It so occurred that he had not been present at any of the previous stages upon which a discussion had arisen; and from all he heard of what had then taken place, he had laboured until very lately under the not unnatural conviction that any opposition he should attempt to give the measure, would only go forth as the record of his individual opinion. He had so little to approve of and so much to object to in the measure, that it was impossible for him to vote for the third reading. His principal objection to it was the one which had been already expressed—he meant the truly exorbitant and improper scale on which the episcopal income were to be measured. He looked upon the proposition of giving an income of 15,000 l. a year to the Archbishop of Canterbury as one entirely indefensible on every ground. If he were prepared to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have an income of 15,000 l. a year as remuneration for his services, he could not refuse a proposition for giving to the Premier, or Lord Chief Justice, an income of 30,000 l. a year. Why, was it possible to conceive any set of duties which could be more easily or tranquilly performed, or which were more exempt from all those difficulties that required labour, assiduity, and talent to surmount them, than those allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury? Hon, Gentle-

537
men opposite might think differently; but he had expressed his firm belief, and he repeated the assertion, merely adding, that in making it he had no intention to speak disrespectfully, either of the individual who now filled the see of Canterbury, or of the duties attached to his position. In his humble opinion, the lowest of the scales proposed would suffice for the highest see named in the Bill; and that without incurring the smallest risk of throwing the episcopal department of the Church into the hands of unsuitable persons, the Government might convert the now proposed minimum into a maximum of remuneration, and thereupon preserving the proportions, form an excellent scale of income. Had it been found that, because of the diminished incomes, the poorer sees were occupied by an inferior class of men? He had never heard that such was the fact, and he, therefore, with the more confidence, recommended to the Government to reconsider this portion of the measure. Another ground of objection to the manner in which the episcopal incomes were fixed by the Bill originated in the comparison it was impossible not to draw between those incomes and the miserable stipends allotted to the working clergy. It was said 100 l. or 150 l. a year was a sufficient income for a curate. On what principle, then, could it be contended that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, whether in regard to education, position in society, ability, or general usefulness, was not the superior of the humbler individual so remunerated, required to have an income of 15,000 l.? The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had evinced great anxiety to prove that there was no surplus revenue in the case of the Established Church in England. Could it be expected that any Dissenter would believe that there was no surplus, when he found such a rate of income allotted to the bishops? Certainly he never would. He contended, that it strongly behoved the State to regulate the incomes of the ministers attached to the Established Church upon the principles of the utmost sobriety and moderation. Unless this point were attended to, those who derived no benefit from that Establishment never would, and, he would add, never ought, to be satisfied. But, in considering the income of the bishops, was the amount received in money to be alone considered? Was there not attached to each see a valuable mass of patronage, by which large additions were made to the incomes of the bishops? Com-
538
ing from a Ministry, liberalin other respects, he must say, that it appeared to him to be a most defective measure, possessing no good quality that counterbalanced those which were objectionable. On the whole he should feel it his duty to vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex against the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Bainesmaintained, that the provisions of the Bill were in many respects wholly inconsistent with its principles. The Commission which it proposed to establish would be worse than a revival of the Houses of Convocation: for its powers would be greater. For his own part he perfectly coincided with the monarch who said, that he thought the bishops and the clergy could in no way so effectually serve a state as by praying for it; and he was by no means desirous that they should be invested with temporal authority, and become legislators. He deprecated the ascendancy of the clergy in secular matters. Under the superintendence of the noble Lord at the head of the present Government the exercise of such power might be pure; but it might not be so under future Ministers. To clause 11 he especially objected; for he was desirous that the measure proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commission, before they assumed the character of laws, should be submitted to the consideration of the King in Council, and should afterwards receive the ratification of Parliament. At present there were three estates of the realm, King, Lords, and Commons. The Bill proposed the establishment of a fourth estate, a measure highly objectionable at present, and which might become very injurious in future. By the Bill the average income of a bishop would be rendered seventy-six times as great as the average income of a beneficed clergyman; and the income of the Archbishop of York would be two hundred and seventeen times as much as that of the greater number of his clergy. The complaints of the Dissenters of England and the Catholics of Ireland had at length been, to a certain degree, listened to in that House. With reference to the former, the Registration Bill had been passed. But how had it been treated in another place? Every one of its details had been objected to by the highest authorities in the Establishment. Ireland had asked 50,000 l. from the surplus of Church revenue, to dedicate to the purposes of education and religious instruction. That, however, was grudged; while twenty-eight bishops

539
shared among them no less than 150,000 l. It did not appear to him to be at all necessary to press the Bill during the present Session. The beneficed clergy were sufficiently provided for, and could not be hurt by delay. A great error had gone abroad to the effect that the division on this Bill was intended to be injurious to the existing Administration. Nothing could be more groundless. Was it possible to suppose that there could be any wish on his side of the House to change an Administration under which the country was going on so prosperously, under which trade flourished, under which agriculture was in so satisfactory a state that the Committee had not been able to discover a sufficient quantity of evils to give them a decent pretence for making a Report? He should vote against the third reading of the Bill. Having done that, he should leave it in the hands of those by whom it had been introduced, and he hoped it would always be in such good hands.
Viscount Howicksaid, that with respect to the constitution of the Board of Commissioners, and the expectations mentioned by the hon. Member as to the possibility of a Laud arising to wield despotic power as head of the Church, and a Stafford as the head of the Government, he thought if the hon. Member looked at the power actually given to these Commissioners by the Bill, he would find that they had really no power independent of Parliament, no power beyond what might be necessary for arranging the practical details of the measures committed to their care, the limits of which were strictly defined by the Bill before them; so that no possible abuse could result from an opportunity of an arbitrary application of the principles it embodied. With respect to these powers, it might be asked, what was the necessity of leaving any thing to the discretion of the Commissioners? This was easily explained. The existing bishoprics were all held under the old distribution of sees, and it would be impossible to interfere with them in any new distribution of duties, revenues, and boundaries, with a due regard to all the interests concerned, without separate references and legislative proceedings—all which would lead to considerable delay and embarrassment, unless such a discretionary power was lodged in the hands of the Commissioners as the Bill specified. For instance, it was proposed to readjust the dioceses of Lincoln, Ely, and Peterborough. Without this power great
540
delay, and indeed injustice, would accrue from separately dealing with each; but by the provisions of the 11th clause the Commissioners would be enabled to consider the wants and claims of each and all immediately, and provide for their rearrangement simultaneously and efficiently. The hon. Member for Leeds had besides what he termed his positive objections to the measure, some negative ones, which required a few words in reply. He had asserted that in this Bill certain measures which the country expected had not been introduced, and certain steps not taken for the better distribution of the church revenues, in which the interest of the bishops appeared to be primarily considered to the exclusion of the working clergy. The objection might have some force in it if the Government were about to add to the income of the Bishops. The Bill however did not add a farthing to their incomes; on the contrary, it went a great way to remedy the existing inequalities, and would nearly, if not entirely, put an end to the practice of translations, as well as the holding of sees in commendam, by way of additional incomes. In future it would be impossible for the bench of Bishops to share among them anything but their actual incomes. He concurred with the hon. Member for Weymouth that a greater amount of Church reform would be both desirable and useful; but it was also still more desirable to proceed with these reforms in agreement with the heads of the Church, who were at present not disposed to go further, but who, he hoped, when they saw how well the proposed reform worked, would be prepared to go further with them, and accede to any useful step in their labours for the provision of the religion they had all so much at heart. Another objection was taken to the apparent inequality which the Bill allowed to continue in the incomes of various bishoprics. This, however, was more nominal than real. Some sees required greater provision than others. If the bishopric of Durham, for instance, were placed on an equality with the bishopric of Chichester there would be a decided injustice done to the former, which was much larger, required greater exertion and, being at a greater distance from London, was a more extensive bishopric; whereas the Bishop of Chichester resided in a diocese so near the metropolis that he was able to come up and attend his Parliamentary duty and go back again to Chichester. Looking to the provisions of

541
the Bill, and the circumstances under which it was proposed and presented to the House, he was at a loss to account for the acrimony that had been displayed by certain hon. Members, but which he hoped had now gone by. The House had full notice and experience of its provisions, and could not complain of being taken by surprise. They had no less than four divisions on its principles and details—1st, when the hon. Member for Ashburton moved, on its introduction, an address to the Crown to put an end to translation, which proposition was negatived by a majority of 124 to 44. Next, in Committee a division took place which showed a majority of 79 for the Bill over 21. On a third division there appeared in its favour 86 to 8; and on the last, which took place on the motion for the amendment of a clause by the hon. Member for Liskeard, there appeared a similar majority of 80 to 44. He therefore felt that Ministers would only be acting consistently in persevering in the support of a Bill already so fully discussed and so thoroughly understood on previous occasions.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that the chief point left unsettled by the Bill, although of greatest importance, was that of Church-rates. The Ministers seemed themselves fully to feel, that this was the case; and one of their arguments for the passing of the Bill was, that so much of Church affairs might be settled, and a way prepared, that Church-rates might be taken off, as a continuation of the measures of Reform, if possible. His objection, however, to the passing of this Bill at present was, that there might, thereby, be time allowed for the preparation of a complete measure, and in order that Church-rates might be abolished at the same time that the incomes of the clergy were regulated. Indeed, if Church-rates were abolished in the first instance, he should confess, that afterwards he should not feel any great anxiety respecting the secondary objects provided for in the present Bill; and, if the noble Lord would give his word to abolish Church-rates next Session, his opposition to the present measure would be very considerably diminished. The noble Lord had spoken of the necessity of paying the Church-rates out of the Consolidated Fund, if their present source were relinquished, but the Dissenter of Yorkshire would never consent to that. It would be entailing the burthen in a new,
542
and, perhaps, a more severe shape. He could not believe, that a people who said, that their religion and their Church was the best in the world, would allow that Church to want if left to itself. It was not so in the olden time in England, when an appeal to the charitable feelings of the people was always sure to bring an abundant supply to the wants of the Church and its ministers. He felt convinced, that so long as true religion existed in the land, the Church would never be suffered to want for proper support. There ought not to be any compulsory assessment in the Church of England. It was a disgrace to a Christian Church. Even the Jews of old did not resort to such a system of oppression towards the Gentile populations they ruled over. At the same time, he did not wish to be understood as advocating a separation between Church and State. That was another question; but he thought the Church of England well able to support itself, and the people need not be taxed for that object. Where one thing connected with the Church was obtained by compulsory assessments, a hundred would be obtained by voluntary contributions. In proof of this statement he would instance the case of the erection of a church in the borough for which he was a Member (Salford), where there was only one church, supported by compulsory enactment, and 100 places of public worship supported by voluntary contributions. In Salford, too, a few years ago, a church which cost 10,000 l. was erected by voluntary contributions, and it had now a large congregation and a handsome endowment. That proved abundantly that if people were sincere in their belief of any religious doctrine, they would spontaneously come forward and furnish the means of diffusing it.
Mr. Harveyfound it difficult to reconcile the course which had been pursued by certain hon. Gentlemen that evening, with his recollection of what had occurred the last day the Bill was before the House. Either they were in error then, and acted upon over-heated feelings, or they were now pursuing a suspicious course. The Report made to his Majesty by the Church Commissioners was said to offer as large and comprehensive a system of reform as was practicable; and from the grave and protracted consideration which was given to that Report before the present measure

543
was introduced, such might be supposed to have been the case. But certainly the fact was, that the Bill before the House was, as a measure of Church reform, utterly contemptible; and was so considered throughout the country. It would give great peace to his mind, and no doubt would afford much comfort and satisfaction to the country, to hear from any Member of the Cabinet that this was but an infant measure, or that it was the first and feeblest of a series of measures to be introduced for effecting a reform in the Church; but, unfortunately, it was presented to Parliament, and now urged upon the House, as a complete and perfect measure of Church reform. There were three classes of persons in this country who took widely different views of almost all questions relating to the Established Church; and to one of these classes, probably, the present Bill might be perfectly satisfactory, but the other two would regard it with the contempt it deserved. Little attempt, indeed, appeared to be made to defend the Bill upon its own merits; but they were told, "Oh! if you do not take this measure, trifling and insignificant though it be, contemptible and worthless as you may well think it, the present excellent Government will fall to pieces, and then what will happen to us?" This appeared to be almost the sole argument on which the House was asked to give its consent to the measure. But if on any occasion there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Government and some of its usual supporters, they were to be threatened with the retirement of the former; it was impossible to see where such a mode of argument would cease, or on what trifling and insignificant occasions it might be resorted to. It was not his intention to enter into an examination of the details of the Bill, but why, he would ask, as the principle of appropriation had been so stoutly and strongly contended for in the case of the Church in Ireland, why should not the same principle be insisted upon as respected the Church in England? To call this a measure of Church reform is an insult to the understanding of reasonable men, and, if it be carried it, will prove a grievous disappointment to the expectations of the people.
Dr. Lushingtonbegged, when inconsistency was attributed to the hon. Gentle-men who expressed a strong dissent on
544
Thursday last, but now intimated an intention of not opposing the Government, to appeal to the House and the public, whether, when a large body of men were united in opinion, that a Government should be supported with energy and effect, it was not often necessary, without abandoning any principle of their own, that they should agree not to press their particular opinions upon a particular subject in opposition to the Government with a feeling of bitter and unyielding opposition. But, of all quarters in the world, a charge of inconsistency came with least grace from the hon. Member for Southwark, since it must be in the recollection of every one whom he was addressing, that at a time when all parties in that House seemed disposed to unite to effect the pacification of Ireland, the hon. Member for Southwark was found to be a deserter from his ranks. He trusted that those who now supported the Government were more faithful to their principles, and that when they saw it necessary to surrender a portion of their sentiments for the sake of preserving the stability of the great principles they advocated, they would have the good sense to make the smaller sacrifice, rather than run the risk of one which must necessarily be much greater. He admitted that this Bill did not go to the full extent that he thought a measure of Church reform ought to go to; but, at the same time, he fully appreciated the difficulties by which any Government must be surrounded who sought to improve the ecclesiastical establishments of the country; and he trusted he should at all times be prepared to sacrifice his own individual opinions when he saw that they stood in the way of any advantage that might be conferred on the country. As regarded the question of Church-rates, he might observe that he had always been an advocate for the remission of them as regarded Dissenters; but because he found no clause for the remission of them in that Bill, it did not, therefore, follow that he should reject it altogether; at the same time, he sincerely trusted that early in the next Session of Parliament his Majesty's Government would see the propriety of introducing a measure to relieve the Dissenters from the payment of this most obnoxious burthen.
Mr. Huttthought, that the Dissenters had good reason to complain that in the present Session, no steps were taken to

545
relieve them from the burthens imposed on them by the Established Church, and he could not help taking this Bill as a declaration on the part of the Government that they had no intention to relieve the Dissenters from the payment of Church-rates. As an honest and conscientious man, he must refrain from giving his support to this Bill, unless there was a declaration on the part of the Government, that they were prepared to introduce next Session a measure to relieve Dissenters from Church-rates. If such a declaration were made, he would not oppose the third reading of this Bill.
Lord John Russellstated, that it was the intention of Government to bring forward a measure next Session for the abolition of Church-rates.
Mr. Villiersfully agreed in what had fallen from hon. Members, as to the extent of the evil occasioned by the question of Church-rates remaining unsettled, but he could not deny, that the present measure was an improvement upon the present arrangements of the Church Establishment. At the same time, he protested in the name of himself and many of his constituents, against its being considered a measure at all adequate to the evils which existed; and if he was not more anxious upon that account than he really felt, it was simply from reflecting upon the circumstances under which reform of the Church at all had been obtained. The Prelates, he knew, could always have proposed a reform similar to the one they were now considering: Governments could always have instituted similar inquiries into the abuses of the Church; but, interested as both were in the maintenance of those abuses, they never did, nor never would voluntarily have promoted inquiry or reform. His satisfaction, then, was derived from reflecting that public opinion had rendered reform of the Church irresistible, and he could not believe that, if there was public spirit and good feeling sufficient in the country to call for the correction of these abuses, and under the more equal distribution of political power which now existed, the means to compel inquiry, the people would stop short of demanding complete and effective reform. The evils and abuses connected with the Church were well understood, and the people had now to examine the remedies which were proposed for their cure; and, certainly, if the people did trace all the evil to the Bishops having too little—some too little
546
revenue and some too little patronage—why, the measure before the House was the most complete and searching measure that could be proposed to it; but, on the other hand, if people thought that much of the evil sprang from the capricious and irregular distribution of the property of the Church—from the uncertain allotment of reward to merit, or of punishment for neglect—from the great temptations offered to political subserviency—why then he was afraid that this would not be regarded as a measure of that suitable or satisfactory character, which he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would have proposed if they had thought they could have carried it. He knew, that it was impossible to do every thing at once, and certainly nobody would charge this Bill with not giving that theory a fair trial. But the quarrel with this Bill, he thought, was as much in kind as in extent: he believed that the wishes of his constituents and of the public, were entirely misapprehended in considering that the Bishops had too little—that idea, he believed, never crossed their minds—they believed that the real source of the Bishops' influence ought to spring from the excellence of their lives—from a vigilant attention to their duties—from an active superintendence over their clergy—and a constant residence in their sees; and that their power in the country would be far greater, derived from such causes, than from great wealth, great station, and great political influence, which they now heard of, and were told, were so necessary for the maintenance of their credit in the country. If he understood the wishes of those who would reform the Church, it was to see an efficient parochial clergy distributed throughout the country, and adequately rewarded for the performance of duties properly defined; and if this could be obtained by no other means, why they would be glad to see devoted to such a purpose, some of the emoluments of those deaneries, canonries, and prebendaries, and other dignitaries, of which we read so much in the reports; whose duties he could not well understand, and whose importance appeared to him rather to refer to the adornment of cathedrals, than the promotion of religion. People would judge of institutions in these days by their utility, and if experience offers little in defence of those that were examined, while the circumstances of the country exhibited lamentable deficiencies in the accomplishment of their object, extensive reforms would be called for; and in this case, it would be found

547
that the demands of the country were not unreasonable. People justly ask, if the cathedral towns were more moral or more religious than other places, and if it could not be discovered that they were, and if it were observed that the miserable pittance awarded to many of the working clergy would not enable then to perform their duties efficiently, why it was natural in reason that people should require that the revenues of the Church should be distributed and allotted, in a manner more likely to attain the end for which every Establishment existed. He objected to the Report, that no principle was laid down or asserted, on which (after regarding all existing interests) the revenues of the Church were to be applied. Now, when the Church had once recognised the right of the Legislature to deal with Church property, and they once began to distribute it, some rule ought to have been laid down. He wished that more stress had been laid upon placing the clergy than they had now, under circumstances where they could become more efficient. This it was, then, that made him declare, as he expected further reforms, that public opinion would not be satisfied until the Establishment was rendered suitable to the wants of an intelligent and religious community, such as we might boast in this country. In the full expectation, then, that this Bill would not be final, he should be glad to avoid adopting any course which would be likely to disturb that harmony among the liberal party, which had hitherto existed so much to the advantage of the country.
Mr. Robert Palmerwished to know if the whole episcopal property were to be thrown into one fund and parcelled out amongst the different Bishops?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the mode in which it was proposed to diminish or increase the emolument of any diocese was this:—Taking the Bishopric of Durham as an instance, under the provisions of this Bill, the income of that see was to be fixed at 8,000 l.. a year. Supposing it to be ascertained by the Commissioners, that the present income of the see of Durham was 19,000 l., the Commissioners would then be required to pay over 11,000 l. from the income of that see, towards the increase of other bishoprics which had not the requisite sum.
Mr. Robert Palmerwas satisfied with the answer; he only hoped, that whatever amount was to be transferred from one see to another, would be conveyed in real pro-
548
perty, as he felt that the security to the Church would be very small, if the incomes of its chief dignitaries were made in any degree dependent upon a vote of that House.
Mr. Hindleysaid, that his only feeling with respect to the Bill was one of dissatisfaction.
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 44—Majority 131.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Egerton, Lord Fran.

Alford, Lord

Estcourt, Thos. G. B.

Alsager, Captain

Etwall, R.

Angerstein, John

Fielden, W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Fergusson, rt. hn. C.

Ashley, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Astley, Sir J. bt.

Folkes, Sir W.

Bagshaw, John

Forster, C. S.

Baldwin, Dr.

French, F.

Ball, N.

Freshfield, J.

Bannerman, Alex.

Gladstone, W. E.

Barclay, David

Gordon, Robert

Barclay, C.

Gordon, hon. W.

Baring, F. T.

Goring, Harry Dent

Barnard, E. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Beckett, Sir J.

Graham, Sir J.

Bellew, Rich. M.

Greisley, Sir R.

Benett, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

Grimston, Viscount

Bernal, Ralph

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Blackburn, I.

Gully, J.

Blamire, W.

Hale, Robert B.

Bonham, R. F.

Halford, H.

Borthwick, Peter

Harcourt, G.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Bramston, T. W.

Hardy, J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Hastie, A.

Bruen, Col.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Bulwer, H. L.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Bulwer, E. G. E. L.

Hodges, T. L.

Burton, Henry

Hogg, James Weir

Campbell, Sir H.

Horsman, E.

Canning, Sir S.

Hotham, Lord

Cave, R. O.

Howard, R.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Howard, P. H.

Chetwynd, W. F.

Howick, Lord

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hoy, James Barlow

Churchill, Lord C. S.

Jones, Theobald

Clerk, Sir G. bart.

Knightley, Sir C.

Codrington, Sir E.

Labouchere, Henry

Corbett, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lawson, Andrew

Crawford, W.

Lees, J. F.

Curteis, Edward B.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lemon, Sir C.

Denison, W. J.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Loch, James

Donkin, Sir R.

Long, Walter

Duffield, Thomas

Lowther, Lord

Dundas, J. D.

Lushington, Dr. S.

East, James Buller

Lygon, hn. Col. H. B.

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

549

Macnamara, Major

Sanderson, R.

M'Taggart, J.

Sandon, Lord

Marjoribanks, S.

Sanford, E. A.

Maule, hon. Fox

Scott, Sir E. D.

Maxwell, John

Scrope, G. P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Seale, Colonel

Murray, John Arch.

Seymour, Lord

Nagle, Sir R.

Sheppard, T.

Nicholl, Dr.

Smith, Robert V.

North, Frederick

Steuart, R.

O'Connell, D.

Stewart, John

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stewart, P. Maxwell

O'Loghlen, M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Oswald, J.

Stuart, V.

Paget, Frederick

Tancred, H. W.

Palmer, Robert

Thomson, C. P.

Palmer, Geo.

Thompson, Ald.

Palmerston, Lord

Thompson, Colonel

Parker, M.

Townley, R. G.

Parker, John

Tracey, Charles H.

Peel, Sir R. bart.

Trench, Sir Fred.

Penruddock, J. H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Perceval, Colonel

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Pinney, William

Twiss, Horace

Poulter, John Sayer

Tynte, C. J. K.

Praed, W. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Price, Sir Robert, bt.

Verney, Sir H.

Price, Richard

Walter, John

Pusey, Philip

Welby, G. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wood, Alderman

Richards, J.

Wrightson, W.

Roche, W.

Young. G. F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ross, Charles

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord John

Stanley, E. J.

Russell, Lord

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Inglis Sir R. H. bart.

Attwood, Thomas

Langton, Wm. Gore

Bainbridge, E. T.

Leader, J. T.

Baines, Edward

Lennard, T. B.

Beauclerk, Major

Lushington, Charles

Bish, T.

Palmer, Gen. C.

Bowes, John

Parrot, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Phillips, Mark

Bridgeman, H.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Buckingham, J. S.

Ruthven, Edward

Buller, Charles

Stuart, Lord J.

Clay, W.

Thornley, T.

Duncombe, T. S.

Tooke, William

Elphinstone, H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Evans, G.

Tulk, Charles A.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Fielden, J.

Warburton, H.

Grote, G.

Ward, Henry George

Harland, W. Charles

Williams, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Hawes, Benjamin

TELLERS.

Humphery, John

Hume, J.

Hutt, W.

Hindley, C.

Bill read a third time.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that by the Bill it was proposed, that the Commissioners should make arrangements for carrying
550
into execution the intention of the late Bishop of Durham, to augment the small livings of that diocese. The words of the Bill were, that out of the property of the see of Durham, provision should be made for the completion of the augmentation of the poorer benefices which the late Bishop of Durham had agreed to grant. Now, what he wished was, that the name of the Bishop should be introduced into the clause, in order that posterity might know who was the individual to whom the Act referred. He would, therefore, move, that the name of the right rev. William Van Mildert, be inserted in the clause.
Lord John Russellassented to the proposition, and suggested, that after the words "Bishop of Durham," the words, "meaning thereby the right rev. Bishop William Van Mildert" be inserted.
Words inserted.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Sir Robert Ingliswished to state before the Bill was passed, that although he had voted differently from those with whom he was in the habit of acting, yet the reasons for which he had given that vote, were by no means those which had induced hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to vote in the same manner.
Mr. Tookehad given a very reluctant vote this evening. He had come down to the House with the intention of voting in favour of the Bill; but after hearing the declaration made by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that it was his intention to postpone any measure of relief during the present session with regard to Church-rates; and further, that when any measure on that subject should be brought forward, he (Lord John Russell) did not expect it would be satisfactory, he (Mr. Tooke) was at once determined upon the expediency of doing what he could towards postponing any measure of Church relief, in order that, at all events, the two measures of relief might go on, pari passu, and that all prospect of redress with respect to the Church-rates might not be cut off, by hermetically sealing up the revenues of the Church.
Mr. Arthur Trevorhad voted against the Bill, but he wished to say, it was not from the same motives as the hon. Member for Middlesex and his supporters.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord whether it was intended that the incomes of the Bishops should be limited to the sums now set down for them? Doubt had been expressed upon this point,

551
and he wished that a proviso should be introduced, to the end that the incomes of the Bishops should not in any case exceed the sums stated in the Bill. If, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury derived 17,000 l. a year, he would by this Bill have to pay back 2,000 l. But if, in the course of years, the 15,000 l. should be increased to 20,000 l. or 25,000 l. a year, it did not appear that he would not be entitled to retain the whole of it.
Lord John Russellsaid, that perhaps the best answer he could give to his hon. Friend was, by stating the contents of a letter which he had received from the Bishop of London upon the subject. The letter states, that in truth the Bishop of London, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, received only one-third of the ground-rents of the estate to which allusion had been made on a former night; and that the leases now existing would not fall in, in less than fifty or sixty years. But that whatever the addition might be, it would not go to the Bishop, because the Bill provided, that the Commissioners should make new returns, and should from time to time make fresh arrangements, so that the amount fixed by the Bill should not be exceeded. This was the impression on the mind of the Bishop of London, and was also the impression on his own mind.
Mr. Hume: It might be the noble Lord's impression, but the Bill did not fix the amount permanently.
Bill passed.

POOLE CORPORATION.
Mr. Poulter Mr. Poulter moved, that the House go into Committee on the Poole Corporation Bill.
Mr. Mackworth Praedopposed the Bill, as unprecedented and unprincipled; one of the law-advisers of the Crown (the Solicitor-General) had declared his opposition to the Bill, and he contended that it was most unjust, when affidavits containing important allegations in the matter had not yet been printed, for the House to go on with such a Bill, when information was thus withheld. He should move an amendment, That further proceedings in this Bill be postponed, in order to give time for the printing of affidavits referred to by the Committee as justifying their Report.
Mr. Poulterdenied, that he ever promised to furnish the affidavits. There was no occasion for them. They were taken by the Committee only as prima facie evidence, and to show the manner in which the parties voted. To save the expense of bringing up eighty-eight witnesses the Committee took the affidavits at last, as
552
they did at first, merely as prima facie evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have forgotten what happened since this subject was last before the House, namely—that the question was decided before a court of law, the judge having told the jury, after a short charge, that the case of the defendants had not a leg to stand upon. A verdict was given for the Crown in both cases. The whole question in fact to be determined was, whether eighty-eight was more or less than seventy-two. He was surprised the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put a notice upon the books, or stood upon his legs to defend such a case.
Mr. Twisssaid, a printed paper had been put into his hands which represented what took place in Court in a manner very different to what was stated by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 129; Noes 57;—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Ewart, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Attwood, T.

Ferguson, R.

Bagshaw, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Baines, E.

Fielden, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Ball, N.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bannerman, A.

Gordon, R.

Baring, F. T.

Goring, H. D.

Bellew, R. M.

Grey, Sir G.

Benett, J.

Grote, G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Gulley, J.

Bernal, R.

Hall, B.

Bewes, T.

Harland, W. C.

Bish, T.

Hastie, A.

Blamire, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bowes, J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Brady, D. C.

Hindley, C.

Bridgeman, H.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Buckingham, J. S.

Horsman, E.

Bulwer, H. L.

Howard, P. H.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Burton, H.

Hutt, W.

Chalmers, P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Chetwynd, Captain

Leader, J. T.

Chichester, J. P.

Lefevre, C. S.

Churchill, Lord C.

Lennard, T. B.

Clay, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Codrington, Admiral

Lennox, Lord A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Loch, J.

Dennison, W. J.

Lynch, A. H.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Mackenzie, S.

Divett, E.

M'Namara, Major

Donkin, Sir R.

M'Taggart, J.

Duncombe, T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Dundas, J. D.

Maule, hon. F.

Elphinston, H.

Maxwell, J.

Etwall, R.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Evans, G.

O'Connell, J.

553

O'Connell, M.

Steuart, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stewart, P. M.

O'Loghlen, M.

Strickland, Sir G.

Oswald, J.

Strutt, E.

Paget, F.

Stuart, Lord D.

Palmerston, Viscount

Talbot, C. R.

Parker, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Parrott, J.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Pattison, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Phillips, M.

Thornley, T.

Pinney, W.

Tooke, W.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Townley, R. G.

Potter, R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Price, Sir R.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Pusey, P.

Villiers, C. P.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wakley, T.

Rippon, C.

Wallace R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Warburton, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Ward. H. G.

Ruthven, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Sanford, E. A.

Williams, W.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Wrightson, W. B.

Scrope, G. P.

Young, G. F.

Seale, Colonel

TELLERS.

Smith, J. A.

Poulter, J. S.

Stanley, E. J.

Tulk, C. A.

List of the NOES.

Alford, Viscount

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Alsager, Captain

Hill, Lord A.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Archdall, M.

Hotham, Lord

Becket, right hon. Sir J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackburne, I.

Jones, T.

Bonham, R. F.

Knightley, Sir C.

Bramston, T. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Brownrigg, S.

Lefroy, A.

Bruen, Colonel

Nicholl, Dr.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Palmer, R.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Palmer, G.

Chandos, Marquess of

Parker, M.

Clerk, Sir C.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Codrington, C. W.

Price, S. G.

Corbett, T. G.

Pringle, A.

Dowdswell, W.

Richards, R.

Duffield, T.

Ross, C.

East, J. B.

Sandon, Lord

Estcourt, T.

Sheppard, T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stewart, J.

Gordon, hon. W.

Trench, Sir F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hale, R. B.

Walter, J.

Halford, H.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Praed, W. M.

Hardy, J.

Twiss, H.

Mr. Praedsaid, the hon. Member for Shaftesbury, had called the attention of the House to the trials which had taken place at the Dorchester Assizes: and though, in reference to his (Mr. Praed's) former amendment, perhaps the hon. Member was not quite in order in so doing, with respect to the motion which he (Mr.
554
Praed) was now about to make, he conceived he was fully justified in adverting to those trials, and in founding his argument upon what there took place. He would shortly draw the attention of the House to the facts of the case. Informations were laid to try the right of two persons to sit and vote in the town-council of Poole; let it be remembered, that of the two wards into which the town of Poole was divided, each of them electing nine councillors, in the north ward, not one of these elections had as yet been disputed, either before the Committee or in Court at Dorchester; and of the nine elections for the south ward only two had been disputed at the late trial. It was true that in those two cases verdicts had been found for the prosecution, but several points of law had been taken by the defendant. Even admitting, however, that these points were finally resolved in favour of the prosecution, what then? The case stood thus:—In the north ward, the whole of the nine elections were admitted to be good—unimpeached before the Committee—undisputed at the trial—not disputed even by the hon. Member for Shaftesbury himself. In the south ward, out of nine elections, seven were admitted to be good—allowed to be so by all parties. And what did this Bill do? It was a Bill to set aside the elections for the sixteen councillors of the Borough of Poole! He (Mr. Praed) could see neither reason nor justice in such a measure, and he should feel it his duty to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to leave undisturbed the elections of any persons which had not been impugned by legal proceedings. He only asked the House not to commit the gross injustice of ejecting persons from their offices, against whom there had not been made even an allegation of undue election.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the instruction moved by the hon. Member was not consonant with Parliamentary proceeding, or with the orders of that House. He objected to the course which the hon. and learned Member had adopted in his opposition to this Bill, for he conceived, by his own admission, that opposition was not upon a question of principle, but a question of time. The hon. Member wished, for the sake of obtaining time, to obstruct the House going into Committee upon the Bill, and as they had now got so far into the

555
Session as July, the hon. and learned Member speculated upon worrying the House into compliance. Let him go into the Committee, and he would prove to that hon. and learned member, that every provision of the Bill was consistent and just with its object and preamble. He insisted that this course was an unfair mode of opposing a Bill. If generally adopted it would give to every Member an opportunity of moving motions, by way of instruction, upon almost all the points which must necessarily be discussed in the Committee, and thus unnecessarily absorb the time of the House.
Mr. Twisscould not refrain from making the remark, that the heat and warmth which had been displayed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, justified the old adage, that "always the warmest in argument was most in the wrong." His hon. and learned Friend had been justified in the course he had taken, for a stage had been gained by the promoters of this Bill during the absence of his hon. and learned Friend. This case was one which overset all precedent, and he hoped would never be followed hereafter by any other hon. Member, as a precedent for a similar act of injustice. His hon. and learned Friend need no other apology for his stern opposition to this Bill than the avowal of the Solicitor-General in his place, that the enactment was fraught with gross injustice.
The Speaker: It is my opinion that instructions are not necessary, nor indeed consistent with the practice of the House, unless when they are required to enable the Committee to do something, which without an instruction they would not have the power of doing. And the question here is, whether or not supposing the House to go into Committee, the object of the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth could be attained by an alteration in the Bill in Committee, without this instruction.
Mr. Praedsaid, he had often heard of instructions being moved when the subject matter of those instructions was considered of such importance as to deserve the separate consideration of the House before going into Committee, even though the Committee might be fully competent to make the proposed alteration without the instruction, If it were the opinion of the Chair, that his object could be attained in Committee he would not press the instruction.
The Speaker: Upon that I give no opinion; I only gave a definition of what I considered to be the object of an instruction.
Mr. Praed: Then, Sir, I must divide the House.
The House divided on the motion for an instruction:—Ayes 43; Noes 117:—Majority 74.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Jones, T.

Archdall, M.

Knightley, Sir C.

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Blackburne, I.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bonham, R. F.

Lowther, Viscount

Bramston, T. W.

Palmer, G.

Brownrigg, S.

Parker, M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Perceval, Colonel

Codrington, C. W.

Price, S. G.

Corbett, T. G.

Pringle A.

Darlington, Earl of

Richards, R.

Duffield, T.

Sandon, Lord

East, J. B.

Sheppard, T.

Ferguson, G.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Freshfield, J. W.

Trench, Sir R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Trevor, hon. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Twiss, H.

Hale, R. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Halford, H.

Walter, J.

Hardy, J.

TELLERS.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Praed, M.

Hogg, J. W.

Trevor, R.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Etwall, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Evans, G.

Attwood, T.

Ewart, W.

Bagshaw J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Baines, E.

Ferguson, R.

Baldwin, Dr.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Benett, J.

Fitzroy, Lord, C.

Berkeley, Hon. C.

Gordon, R.

Bernal, R.

Goring, H. D.

Bewes, T.

Grey, Sir, G.

Blamire, W.

Grote, G.

Bowes, J.

Gully, J.

Brady, D. C.

Hall, B.

Bridgeman, H.

Harland, W. C.

Brotherton, J.

Hastie, A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hawes, B.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Burton, H.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Callaghan, D.

Hindley, C.

Chalmers, P.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Chetwynd, Captain

Hodges, T. L.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Horsman, E.

Churchill, Lord C.

Howard, P. H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hume, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Hutt, W.

Divett, E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Donkin, Sir R.

Leader, J. T.

Dundas, J. D.

Lefevre, C. S.

Elphinstone, H.

Lennard, T. B.

557

Lennox, Lord G.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Lennox, Lord A.

Scrope, G. P.

Loch, J.

Seale, Colonel

Lushington, C.

Smith, J. A.

Lynch, A. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Mackenzie, S.

Stewart, R.

M'Namara, Major

Stewart, P. M.

M'Taggart, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Marjoribanks, S.

Strutt, E.

Maule, hon. F.

Stuart, Lord D.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Murray, right hon. J.A.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Thomson, rt. hon. C.P.

O'Connell, M.

Thompson, Alderman

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Thornley, T.

O'Loghlen, M.

Tooke, W.

Oswald, J.

Townley, R. G.

Palmer, General

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Palmerston, Lord

Tulk, C. A.

Parker, J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Pattison, J.

V'illiers, C. P.

Philips, M.

Wakley, T.

Pinney, W.

Wallace, R.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Warburton, H.

Potter, R.

Wilbraham, G.

Pusey, P.

Williams, W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Young, G. F.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Baring,—

Sanford, E. A.

Poulter, J. S.

The House went into Committee; Clause I, agreed to. On Clause 2,
Mr. Praedsaid, that he had been charged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with consuming the time of the House for the purpose of delay. He should, however, not be deterred by sneer, or taunt, or imputation, or by clamour, from pursuing the course which he thought it right to take. He now wished to move, as a proviso to be added to this clause, words to the effect, that supposing no final proceedings be had in any court of law setting aside the election by the end of twelve calendar months, all bonds and agreements entered into by the Corporation during the time they should have exercised bona fide the powers of a Corporation should be good and valid to all intents and purposes. He would not argue the question—it spoke for itself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould, in a few words, detail to the House the course which the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth had taken upon this Bill; and he would leave the public to form their own judgment upon it. The hon. and learned Member said he only wished for fair play. That was all that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) desired. But what was the hon. and learned Member's
558
definition of "fair play." First of all, he interposed an obstacle to the progress of the Bill upon the ground that certain affidavits were wanting. Why, if those affidavits were really necessary, had not the hon. and learned Member moved for their production within the last few months. Next, when defeated in his first attempt, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved his instruction obviously for the purpose of delay, and only with that object; for the instruction was quite unnecessary to the attainment of his end. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he was justified in the observations he had before made upon the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he repeated that the two divisions which had been already taken, and that which was about to be called for, were only for the purposes of delay. He was willing to leave the public to decide between the hon. and learned Gentleman and himself; and he would only put it to the House, and even to the hon. Gentleman himself, whether the kind of opposition which he had offered to the Bill, the getting up of unnecessary debates, the moving unnecessary amendments, the calling for repeated divisions, with continually decreasing minorities, and deserted by all those who would have given character to his proceedings [loud cries of "Hear."] He would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the House, and the public, whether that was a fair and open course of dealing with any legislative measure whatever.
Sir Robert Inglisrose only to remark, that it was not fair, nor indeed, in his opinion, orderly, for the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advert to the absence of certain hon. Members on his (Sir Robert Inglis's) side of the House, and draw from that circumstance inferences unfavourable to the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth. Neither was it fair of the right hon. Gentleman, after the disclaimer of his hon. Friend, the Member for Yarmouth, to impute to him unworthy motives in the course which he had thought proper to pursue on this Bill.
Mr. Poultersaid, the second clause depended upon the first, and after having agreed to the first, it was unfair for his hon. and learned Friend to oppose the second. He only wished to observe, that though he did not intend to offer any offence to his hon. and learned Friend, he must say, he did consider the opposition

559
which had been given to this Bill as most unfair.
Mr. Praed: In answer to what had been objected by his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, begged to say, that the only reason why he had not opposed the first clause was, that having already, before going into Committee, stated his objections to the principle of the Bill, and the first clause involving that principle, he did not wish to trouble the House by again stating objections which had been virtually decided. As to what the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he begged to ask, whether it was not for the promoters of the Bill to produce the affidavits on which their Bill professed to be founded. They were, in this instance, acting the part of prosecutors, and surely it was for them to prove their own case, not for the defendants. Besides, though the evidence had been printed by order of the House, these affidavits were wanting. As to the imputation of delay, whose fault was it that the House was counted out on Friday? He (Mr. Praed) would also say, that if every amendment which was moved by a minority was to be stigmatised as intended to create delay, there was an end to freedom of discussion, and a rule would be laid down which the right hon. Gentleman, when he was a member of a minority, would have been slow to submit to. He should certainly press his motion, for he considered the Bill as most unconstitutional in its nature, and was so termed by the first law adviser of the Crown.
Lord John Russell:—Without entering into the question before the House (which has already been sufficiently argued), I only wish to say, in reply to one remark which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth, that it was not the fault of the Government that the House was recently counted out; that it was my expectation and my wish that a House should have been made, and that I was as much disappointed as any body could have been, that the House was counted out. And I beg to ask the hon. and learned Member who has this night so loudly complained of unfounded imputations, upon what ground it is that he has presumed to make this charge against the Government.
The Solicitor-Generaldenied that he had ever thought that the question was one which ought to be decided only by a court of law. He had only concurred in the ap-
560
pointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the facts. But when his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Shaftesbury, moved the second reading of this Bill, two persons being then about to be tried before a court of law, he gave it as his opinion, that the House ought to wait till the result of that trial was known. But since that time, the very circumstance which he regarded as an insuperable obstacle to the progress of the Bill had been removed. The trial had taken place, and the facts disclosed on the trial, were the same in effect as those which were brought out before the Committee. He cared nothing about the motion for a new trial. It was not pretended that the facts were not proved. The only question was, had frauds been committed at the Poole election, and when he found that the trial by the country brought out some facts which were proved before the Committee, he adopted those facts. It was very true that only two persons were prosecuted, but the evidence showed that the greatest frauds had been practised during the election, even in the ward which the hon. and learned Member for Yarmouth contended was quite pure.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place; and the clause, as it originally stood, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to. House resumed, and Bill reported.

STAMP DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Stamp Duties on Newspapers Bill was read a third time.
On the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the clause relative to distinctive dies was read a first and second time.
On the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Wakleydid not rise to oppose this clause, but he objected to any further progress being made with the Bill to-night. The definitions in the Schedules made this Act, which pretended to liberalise the press, worse than any existing law on the subject. If this Bill passed into a law, no remarks or observations on political events in any publication could be made, without subjecting the parties concerned in such publication to heavy penalties. He entreated, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman to let this Bill stand over till to-morrow; or he should oppose the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not understand how the hon. Member for Finsbury could support the statement which he had just made, that this Bill would, if it passed, render the newspaper law worse than it was at present. Under the existing Jaw, any remarks or observations made on any matters relating to the Church or State, brought the publication in which they appeared within the definition of a newspaper. Now, he had left out those words, and he could not see that this omission made this Act worse than the existing law. It was for the hon. Member to prove that it did, if he meant to justify the opposition he was offering to the Bill, the passing of which, he would observe, it was very important should take place as soon as possible.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that undoubtedly the Bill before the House was a considerable improvement in the existing law; but what he complained of was, that the word "newspaper" was defined to extend to any publication containing any public news, intelligence or occurrences, or any remark or observation thereon. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had excluded the words "relating to Church or State," but he had, in common with other hon. Members, certainly misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when this question was discussed. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman intended to fix such limits.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought, that if they allowed remarks on passing events, it would be hard to say how they could put remarks into a shape that would not be an account of what had taken place, and therefore, unless these words were retained, it would be impossible to have any definition at all.
Mr. Walterhad thought it his duty, having some practical knowledge on the subject, to offer his opinion on this measure on its first introduction to the House; but he forbore afterwards to press his opinions, as so many Gentlemen seemed to consider themselves more competent, and better informed on the subject than himself. In this last stage, however, he could not help giving a final glance at the Bill. He thought that the chief motive which had been assigned for so large a reduction of the duty, namely, that there was a class of people who would not pay any duty, a weak and un states man like one. He thought, also, the proposed restriction on
562
the size of so singular a nature, that there must have been some other motive than that which was professed; for the only argument adduced in favour of imposing a double duty on the enlarged sheet was, that there was a kind of double postage; whereas but few, comparatively, of the morning newspapers were sent by the post; and how, consistently with common sense, could a postage be imposed upon those papers which never saw the post? However, considerable concessions had since been made on this head, which did but more clearly prove that there was no necessity for any enactment on that part, of the question. But other gentlemen besides the Government had considered themselves qualified to improve our laws affecting the liberty of the press. One point he supposed might be taken as settled, which was, that every newspaper was to have its separate die. That, of course, would be advantageous to the higher newspapers; it would serve to blazon their superiority: but why did they do this? Let the newspapers do it themselves if they chose; but why should the Government attempt to damp and paralyse the efforts of humbler candidates for public patronage? They might depend upon it, that this disingenuous invention—for it was only such—would disappoint the expectations of those who had planned it. What greater right had they to ascertain and make public the number of customers that a newspaper possessed, than the number of customers that a banker or trader possessed? Another Gentleman wanted to ascertain the number which each paper printed, in order that he might know in which he should advertise. A truly important subject to be sure, to employ the whole force of Government! Would it not be as rational, if he called upon the Government to ascertain the custom of every tailor in London, in order that he might know where he should be best able to procure a coat that would best exhibit the graces of his person? A third Gentleman went further still, for he asserted the journals to be public property, and therefore that the public had a right to know all about them. But though last, not least, came forward a Gentleman who, professing to know a great deal more, really knew a great deal less, than any of the omniscients to whom he had alluded; and this Gentleman proposed to register all the proprietors. He (Mr. Walter) should have thought this the suggestion of some

563
attorney, in order that, if there were forty proprietors, he might be able to bring his forty actions. Now the Tory legislators, as they had been called, Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, for example, were thought to act with severity enough towards the press, but all their acts and doctrines were liberality itself when compared with those of the liberal Gentlemen of that House. They would have an inquisition. If they wanted to get at every body that could by possibility contribute towards slandering their fair fame, why had they not proposed a registration of the paper-makers, and the type-founders, and the ink-makers? for without the aid of all these, what they might be pleased to call a libel could not be published. If they wished to keep the press respectable, let them not interfere with its internal regulations at all. The liberty of the press had been fancifully called "the air we breathe;" it was the original object of this measure, he had no doubt, to have inflicted on it a terrible asthma. With these clauses, it might perhaps pant and wheeze through another session or two of that liberal Parliament, which had given it its death-blow, but that would be all. And then, what would be obtained by this ridiculous gimcrackery of the dies? Why, he would tell them what: the Gentlemen on the Treasury benches would learn for certain, what some of them would not like to know—that the greatest journals were the greatest journals still; and that the principles which they advocate, must, therefore, be the most prevalent in the country which patronised them. He had looked over the debates of the last period, when the rights of the press came under discussion, and he would conclude with reading a passage from a speech of Sir J. Mackintosh, as confirmatory of his opinion;—"A high sense of honour, a strong feeling of personal independence, and a reliance on an un impeached and unimpeachable character, were the best securities which could be taken from the editor or the proprietor of a newspaper. If these were once broken down by any restriction of the Legislature, the public journals would be thrown into the hands of men, either of desperate poverty, or of des-p rate fanaticism, or of desperate ambition, who would willingly brave all the penal statutes which could be enacted against them."
Dr. Bowringobserved, it had been represented to him, how truly he could not
564
say, that by the alteration in the original arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most valuable morning news papers published in the metropolis would be excluded from the benefits of the Act, as it would not come within the maximum fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. The paper, to which he alluded, was the Morning Chronicle
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the learned Doctor was quite mistaken, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had taken the largest size newspaper as his maximum, and the only alteration that had been made in regard to the size of the newspaper was, that he had allowed the admeasurement to be taken from the printing contained in the paper, in place of its being taken from the size of the paper itself, which was subject to great variation.
Mr. Ewartwas apprehensive, that by the words to which his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had alluded, many useful publications containing "remarks and observations" upon public occurrences would be rendered liable to duty, and thereby effectually stopped. He meant such publications as the "Companion to the Newspaper" for instance—one of the most valuable and useful that was published; he considered that such publications were calculated to improve and enlighten the people, and that they ought rather to be encouraged than put down.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerassured the hon. Member that such publications would not be rendered liable to duty by this Bill.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he should not object to the bringing up of this clause, but when the question was put that the Bill do pass, he should either move the adjournment of the House, or take some other means to obtain a postponement of the Bill.
Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed a formal amendment on Clause 10.
Mr. Waltersaid, that instead of the Bill being that which it was professed to be, a strictly financial measure, it was of the most oppressive kind. He particularly alluded to the provisions of Clause 10, to which he begged to call the attention of the House. It had been only proposed by Mr. Pitt, that two proprietors of a newspaper should be registered, but by this clause the

565
right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided that all the proprietors, even though they amounted in number to 100, should be registered, and not only registered, but that each newspaper should make a return of its proprietors every half year. The clause had been introduced after 12 o'clock at night, and nobody knew any thing about it until last Saturday. It was a most oppressive clause, and though it might pass this House, he sincerely trusted it would never pass the other House of Parliament. He should move the entire omission of the clause from the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that although he had seen the observations with which the hon. Member for Berkshire had just concluded in print this morning, as he had often seen them before, yet he must say, that the hon. Member's address to the Commons of England, that a measure which might pass their House would not be likely to pass elsewhere, was neither Parliamentary nor consonant (whatever might be the practice out-of-doors) with the usage and practice within the walls of Parliament. The supposition that a Money Bill, in relief of the subject and for the repeal of taxation, was not likely to pass elsewhere, was a new doctrine, which with all the experience the hon. Gentleman opposite might have of the particular subject-matter under discussion, or of the law itself, he would find it difficult to reconcile to Parliamentary practice. But with respect to this clause and another, he begged to say that they had not been introduced or brought forward by him. On the contrary, he had stated from the first, that he would not introduce into the Bill any clause that was not a revenue clause, and therefore when this clause, and that which established a distinctive die, was proposed, he had said, that whether they might be right or wrong, he did not want either of them for the protection of his Majesty's revenue. The hon. Gentleman was in error when he stated that the House had been taken by surprise with regard to those clauses. The hon. Gentleman forgot that they were discussed two days in Committee, and the propriety of their introduction into the Bill fully agitated, and on that discussion, so far from any difference of opinion arising upon them, there was not a single Member who took a share in the discussion, that did not express himself as being favourable to the introduction of this clause. And on what ground did they so express themselves? Why, they said they felt that there ought to be a responsibility in the conduct
566
of newspapers, and that those who took on themselves the privilege or duty of giving that species of information which a newspaper usually contained, had no right to abstain from giving their names, or to hide and cloak themselves from responsibility. On this ground the clause had been proposed and introduced into the Bill, and not with a view of either protecting the revenue, or of curbing the liberty of the press. Those Gentlemen who spoke their opinions through the medium of the press, ought not to object to make themselves known to the public, because on the principle of the constitution itself, when power was given, it ought to be accompanied by responsibility, more or less, for the exercise of that power. It was stated, and stated justly, by those who had proposed this clause, that at a time when propositions were made for establishing newspapers by joint-stock companies, it was important that some responsibility should be affixed to the machine, whether put in motion by Whigs, Tories, or Radicals. Such was the object of the clause—a clause which could not detract from the character of a paper by requiring the name of the commentators on the events of the day to be given to the public; and he must add, that if ever there was a clause not of the creation of the Minister, not asked for by him, but which the House had taken upon itself, after discussion, deliberation, and without division, that clause was the present.
Mr. Walterobserved, that when the clause was introduced last Tuesday night, it was at the late hour he had stated. Nobody had expected that the Bill would have been proceeded with on that night, and the clause having been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he held him responsible for it.
The House divided on the clause:—Ayes 58; Noes 15;—Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Etwall, R.

Baines, E.

Ewart, W.

Baldwin, Dr.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R.

Bernal, R. C.

Blamire, W.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Bowring, Dr.

Gordon, R.

Brotherton, J.

Hall, B.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hastie, A.

Bulwer, H. L.

Hawes, B.

Callaghan, D.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Chalmers, P.

Hobhouse, right, hon. Sir J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Horsman, E.

Divett, E.

Howard, P. H.

Elphinstone, H.

Hutt, W.

567

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Steuart, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord G.

Stuart, Lord Dudley

Lennox, Lord A.

Thomson, right. hon. C. P.

Maule, hon. F.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Thompson, Col.

O'Connell, J.

Thornley, T.

O'Connell, M.

Tooke, W.

Palmerston, Ld. Visc.

Townley, R. G.

Philips, M.

Tulk, C. A.

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Wakley, T.

Potter, R.

Wallace, R.

Price, Sir R.

Warburton, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S

Williams, W.

Robinson, G. R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Ruthven, E.

Mr. Baring

Stanley, E. J.

Sir G. Grey.

List of the NOES.

Borthwick, P.

Knightley, Sir C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clerk, Sir G.

Perceval, Colonel

Ferguson, G.

Praed, W. M.

Forester, hon. G.

Pringle, A,

Gladstone, W. E.

Trevor, A.

Gordon, hon. W.

TELLERS.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mr. Walter

Hale, R. B.

Colonel Sibthorp

On the motion that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Wakleyprotested against the Bill, and complained that he had not been fairly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as he had promised to repeal all the objectionable provisions of the existing laws, especially the 16th and 55th George 3rd, and yet this Bill was silent in this respect. He should oppose the motion that the Bill do pass, by all the means the practice of Parliament would allow him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad throughout this matter endeavoured to meet the question fairly, and he owned it was matter of surprise to him, that after the discussions which had taken place, any new objection should be started. It was now too late to move any modification or alteration, and all that the hon. Member could do would either be to adopt or reject the Bill. He was desirous to send the Bill elsewhere, notwithstanding the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Berkshire, and pressed as he had been to proceed with this Bill by persons out of doors, he should on every ground adhere to his motion that the Bill do now pass.
Mr. Wakleywas determined to take the sense of the House upon that motion.
The House divided on the question that the Bill do now pass:—Ayes 55; Noes 7:—Majority 48.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord George

Baines, E.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Baldwin, Dr.

Lowther, Lord Visct.

Blamire, W.

Mackenzie, S.

Bowring, Dr.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Buckingham, J. S.

O'Loghlin, M.

Chalmers, P.

Palmerston, Ld. Visc.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Parker, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Philips, Mark

Potter, R.

Divett, E.

Price, Sir R.

Elphinstone, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Etwall, R.

Robinson, G. R.

Ewart, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ferguson, G.

Ruthven, E.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Steuart, Robert

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Strutt, E.

Gordon, R.

Stuart, Lord Dudley

Grey, Sir G.

Thomson, right. hon. C. P.

Hall, B.

Hastie, A.

Thornly, T.

Hawes, B.

Townley, R. G.

Hobhouse, right. hon. Sir J.

Tulk, C. A.

Wallace R.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Howard, P. H.

Williams, William

Hutt, W.

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Mr. Baring.

Lefevre, C. S.

Maule, hon. Fox.

List of the NOES.

Borthwick, P.

Thompson, Colonel

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Trevor, A.

Knightley, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Lincoln, Earl of

Mr. Wakley

Perceval, Colonel

Mr. Walter.

Bill passed.

POSTAGE ON NEWSPAPERS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Postage on Newspapers Bill.
Dr. Bowringwished to know whether Spanish newspapers coming through France would reach this country post free?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas understood to say, that they would not. We could not expect that France should bear the charge of the transit of the papers of other countries to this.
Mr. Aglionbybegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the practice of sending papers through the post with crosses or lines to mark particular passages. That was a very different thing from marking out particular letters so as to make sentences, and thus carry on a correspondence. It was well known that many persons sent newspapers for the purpose of

569
calling the attention of those to whom they were sent to particular passages in them. That was frequently done when newspapers were sent to Members of Parliament, but the papers thus marked were often charged a very high postage. Now, he would suggest that a proviso should be inserted in the Bill to the effect, that any line or cross to mark particular paragraphs should not be included as writing, and thus rendering the paper liable to postage.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Post-office, which he was sure would not charge that as writing, which was a mere mark to call the attention of the party to a particular passage. If the making of such mark were legalised, it would open a door to many frauds on the Post-office.
Mr. Wakleyhad received many newspapers so marked, and had never been charged postage for them.
Bill read a third time, and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Loan Societies (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Tipperary, for that part of Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill that relates to the Division of Tipperary into Baronies. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

RAILWAYS.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose, in pursuance of notice, to move for a Committee relative to standing orders on Railways. Some anxiety had been expressed relative to the adoption of a general rule as regarded Railways that might come under the consideration of the Legislature hereafter; and a Committee of the other House had been for some time sitting, and would shortly report on this subject. It was, he conceived, advisable that their Lordships should take a similar course. He should therefore move—"That a Committee be appointed to consider how far it would be expedient to make alterations in the standing order relative to communication by Railroads, previous to the next sessions of Parliament."
The Duke of Wellingtoninquired whether it was intended to examine witnesses before the Committee?
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, it was not proposed to examine evidence.
Motion agreed to, Committee appointed.

TITHES AND CHURCH, [IRELAND].]
On the motion of Viscount Melbourne, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Tithes and Church (Ireland) Bill.
The Noble Viscount stated, that His Majesty had signified his assent to those parts of the Bill by which any interest appertaining to him might be affected.
The preamble was postponed, first and second clauses agreed to.
On the third clause, which provides "that all lands subject to the payment of tithe compositions shall be charged with an annual sum by way of rent-charge, equal to seven-tenths of such compositions, to be payable by the party having the first estate of inheritance in such lands," being read—
Lord Lyndhurstrose to move, as an amendment, that" seven-tenths" be struck out, for the purpose of substituting "three-fourths." It was only fair, with reference to the landlords and. to the in-

447
cumbents of parishes in Ireland, that some reduction should, under existing circumstances, be made, but not to the extent proposed by the Bill. As the landlords took upon themselves the liability, in the first instance, they ought to receive some benefit for that liability, and a distinct understanding should be come to on the subject. Considering that liability, it had been proposed formerly that 25 per cent., or one-fourth of their incomes, should be given up by the incumbents; to that they had consented, and the landlords, on the other side, also expressed their assent to the arrangement. The Bill framed by Sir H. Hardinge and the Bill which was introduced into that House in the last Session of Parliament, both recognized 25 per cent. as the amount of reduction, and he could see no reason whatever for extending it from 25 to 30 per cent. The noble Viscount, in moving the second reading of the Bill, had thought it necessary to give some reason for the alteration from 25 to 30 per cent., which was now proposed. The reason which the noble Viscount alleged was this—namely, that the longer the arrangement of this question was postponed, the greater would be the difficulty of collecting tithe. Therefore it was, that the noble Viscount wished to extend the reduction from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. This he conceived to be a most extraordinary argument, now that they were coming to a permanent arrangement—an arrangement that was to endure for all time—on this subject. To be told, at such a moment, and under such circumstances, that they were to be guided by what had taken place at this or that particular period of time, did appear to him most extraordinary. But the noble Viscount's argument would apply rather to a reduction than to an increase of the amount per cent. to be taken off; for it was a matter of notoriety, which no man disputed, that a greater quantity of tithes was collected in this year than in the last. The vigour of the law had done that which the supineness or the coldness of the Government never could have effected. Having thus briefly, and he hoped clearly expressed his view, he should, in justice to the tithe-owner as well as to the tithe-payer, call on the House to fix the reduction at 25 instead of 30 per cent. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, that 3–4ths be substituted for 7–10ths.
Lord Hathertonsaid, he had heard that it was the intention of the noble and
448
learned Lord to move an amendment of this nature, which appeared to him to be inconsistent with the measure of last year, and with the Bill of 1834. He called on the House to look to the course that had been adopted with reference to this subject. Four measures had at different times been submitted to Parliament with reference to it. Sir Henry Hardinge had introduced one Bill to the House of Commons, but nothing had been done with it. In 1834 he (Lord Hatherton) introduced a measure to the House of Commons with reference to the Irish Church. By that Bill he proposed a rent-charge or tax on the land of 77½ per cent., in lieu of tithes. That amount of income was secured to the Clergy by his measure, and an assurance was given to them on the faith of Parliament, that it would be paid to the day. As their Lordships would perfectly recollect, that proposition was for a payment to the Clergy of 77½ per cent without any appropriation clause, and that was rejected. He would ask any of the opposers of the present Bill if they thought that the clergy were likely to obtain any better terms? When the next Session commenced the reins of Government were in the hands of the party whose opinions were represented by the noble Lords opposite, and the right hon. Baronet who was at the head of the Ministry in the other House brought forward a measure for commuting the tithes of the Irish Church into a rent charge, the amount of deduction proposed in which was 25 per cent., the rent-charge proposed to be levied in lieu of them being only 75 per cent.; and on the retirement of that Government from office the same proposition was taken up by the succeeding Ministry, and the clause by which 25 per cent. was permanently deducted from the tithes was agreed to by their Lordships.—He begged distinctly to repeat that the clause, as he had stated, was agreed to, for he could call to mind no motion against it, nor any division upon it, during the progress of the Bill in Committee, and he certainly should expect some explanation to be given of the reasons by which noble Lords had been actuated then, as compared with those by which they were now impelled to support the present amendment. He must, however, declare that he did not feel any surprise on finding that the House of Commons had determined upon making an alteration in favour of the landowners to the extent now proposed by the measure,

449
He recollected very well, when the Bill was originally brought forward, the strong feeling of dissent and dislike which was shown by the majority, if not all, of the Irish Members and landlords to being fixed with a rent-charge in lieu of tithes, even with so large a deduction in their favour as was at first proposed; nor was he surprised that such objections should be entertained by these parties. The present measure was most certainly not so favourable to the landlords as the original measure, and yet they had consented to make the sacrifice, rather than prolong the present condition of things. With respect to the clergy themselves, their incomes, on an average, even after they had been subjected to the reduction at present proposed, would be quite equal to what they now were, and they would have the additional advantage of being punctually paid.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the fluctuations which the amount proposed to be deducted in settling the rent-charge were varied and remarkable; the Bill which was brought forward by Earl Grey's Government proposed that 22½ per cent. should be the amount sacrificed by the tithe-owners, in return for the benefit conferred upon them; the next proposal increased that deduction by 2½ per cent.; and the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet in the beginning of last Session confirmed the deduction at 25 per cent. Then came the Bill of the noble Viscount opposite, in which the amount was increased to 30 per cent., the sum now proposed to be permanently deducted from the clergyman's revenues. He considered that 25 per cent. was the just medium between 22½ and 30 per cent., and that was the sum he would agree to as the maximum of reduction. But it seemed that their Lordships were called on to agree to 30 per cent. being deducted, not because it was just and reasonable to do so, or because the clergy could afford it, but because it was called for by the pressure from without; or, forsooth, because the popular party (whose influence, let him observe, had been for the first time that evening avowed as a moving cause in their Lordships' House) desired that such should be the amount sacrificed by the tithe-owner. Now such was his feeling upon this sort of argument, that if he wanted a reason by which to be guided in
450
his determination not to vote for a reduction of 30 per cent., but to prefer 25 per cent., this of the pressure from without would be alone sufficient to induce him to do so.
Viscount Beresfordwas of opinion the liberal landed proprietors in Ireland would be quite satisfied with a reduction of twenty-five per cent upon the tithes, and that they would readily agree to the rent-charge of seventy-five per cent.
Lord Wharnclifferemarked, that the great objection to the Bill for the payment of seventy-seven and a-half per cent was not that that sum was to be paid by the landlords, but by the nation generally. Parliament and the country had had three years to reflect upon that, and up to the present moment nothing effectual had been done towards advancing its enactment into a law. That objection against the payment being made out of the consolidated fund appeared to him valid, for if such a payment had ever been consented to, it would have made the clergy dependent upon the Government for the time being, and whatever amount were fixed on as payable out of the consolidated fund would have been treated as a surplus available for any purpose to which the dominant party might think proper to apply it. He and those with whom he was in the habit of acting had formerly, did now, and would ever continue, to object to the clergy being considered as the stipendiaries of Government.
Lord Fitzgerald and Veseysaid, that he had objected to the Bill of the noble Baron opposite, not because he did not admit the principle, but because its details were impolitic and unjust. The principle he had admitted, and would again agree to, as he had shown by giving his support to the measure which was brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), who represented for the time the Government of Earl Grey in the other House of Legislature.
The Marquess of Clanricardehad understood the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Ripon) to say, the mere circumstance of a measure being acceptable to the popular party in Ireland would form with him a sufficient reason for voting against it. That appeared to him most extraordinary. Who were the parties interested in such a result as it was the object of the Bill to accomplish? None other than the landlords and the people of Ireland, and their opinion was, therefore, of the utmost importance;

451
most wisely, then, did his noble Friend (Lord Hatherton) in preparing his measure on the subject of tithes, refer to them, and modify the provisions of that measure by what was known to be their wishes and their necessities. Surely it would not be maintained that the institutions of this country, civil or ecclesiastical, existed for any other purpose than the public good, the benefit and advantage of the people; and for what purpose did the Established Church in Ireland exist, unless for the benefit of the people? The popular sentiment, therefore, in Ireland was a matter of the very utmost importance, and the character of that sentiment was anything but a reason against the measure before their Lordships. He should merely observe further, that the House could not have forgotten that ever since the year 1799, every law relating to tithes had pressed upon the landlord.
The Earl of Riponobserved, in explanation, that the Government of Lord Grey had proposed twenty-two and a-half per cent reduction for the clergy; that was the exact representation of the fact as given by him. The next Government proposed a reduction of thirty per cent. The difference between Lord Grey's Government and the present, as regarded this portion of the Bill, was exactly the difference that lay between twenty-two and a-half and thirty per cent. Now, he favoured the medium. He was for twenty-five per cent. He had certainly alluded to the pressure from without, and declared, that if he wanted a reason against the present measure, demands so made would have furnished him with that reason.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that he differed entirely from the assumption of the noble Marquess opposite with respect to the Irish landowners. He would give an instance. In the parish where he resided, the land was as fertile and as fruitful as in any part of Ireland, and what was the amount of tithe paid? Only sixpence an acre. He thought it neither common honesty nor morality to reduce the incomes of persons placed, with respect to their property, under the circumstances of the clergy of Ireland. Although he undoubtedly thought the moral of the principle bad, yet he would agree to a moderate reduction. The noble Viscount had urged as an argument in favour of the Bill, the state of disturbance in Ireland. He would charge that state of disturbance upon the noble Viscount, and upon the declaration
452
that tithes ought to be abolished. He thought it now rather too much for the noble Viscount, in consequence of a state of disturbance created by himself, to bring forward a measure to rob the clergy of their property.
Lord Plunkettwas understood to say, that the noble Marquess opposite had made an accusation—for such he must consider it—against the Government, which was not substantially true. He had said, that the conduct of the Government was the cause of the ill consequences and disturbances that had so long prevailed upon the subject of tithes in Ireland, and that the phrase "extinction of tithes" had originated in one of the Members of that Government. Now he must beg to say, it was not true that this expression first proceeded from the present Government. On the contrary, the expression originated with the Government of which the noble Earl (Earl Ripon) opposite formed part; and, moreover, he must say, that as long as he could remember Ireland, he could also remember the determined disposition which the people had shown to get rid of the tithes. As to the phrase "extinction of tithes," he begged to say, that he was on the Committee of their Lordships' House to which the original Tithe Bill was submitted, and he very well recollected that some word sufficiently expressive was for some time sought for to convey the unanimous impression of the Committee with respect to the necessity for imposing a payment in lieu of tithes. At length a noble Earl, whom he did not then see in his place, suggested the word "extinction" as the only appropriate word that could be used, and it was at once forthwith unanimously assented to as proper.
The Earl of Harrowbybelieved he was in order when he took the liberty of asking the noble Lord opposite if he alluded to him?
Lord Plunkett: I beg the noble Earl's pardon—I did not see him; but it is to him I allude.
The Earl of Harrowby: Then I beg most distinctly to be understood on this point. The word extinction did not originate with me. I admit that I adopted it when it was once suggested as an appropriate phrase, but I most certainly did not suggest it. I have before often heard that its first use was attributed to me, but I must beg to say this is altogether incorrect.
Lord Plunkettbegged pardon for having

453
quite unintentionally misrepresented this point, but his impression was most decided, and would have so remained, but for the correction of the noble Earl, in the manner he had stated. However, the noble Earl, as Chairman of the Committee, most certainly was the person by whom the phrase was first sanctioned, and under whose authority it was first used, and, therefore, the imputation cast by the noble Marquess upon the Government under which it came into use was not fair nor sustainable. Let him, however, put it to their Lordships, whether every postponement of the Bill did not subject the clergy of the Church of Ireland to fresh dangers? There had been four variations in the measure since it was originally introduced, and every variation had been marked by some additional concession being demanded from the clergy. Let him call the attention of the House to the circumstance, that measures proposed for the benefit of the country had been deferred till the favourable period had been lost. Thus measures receiving the universal assent had been so long postponed that they were at last carried in a way which their original projectors could never have thought of. The question of Parliamentary Reform was, most strenuously opposed, and was not carried until after a delay which he hoped would not be the case with this Bill. If it were known that a Bill would ultimately pass, what folly and imbecility it was, vexatiously to oppose it. He would refer to the Roman Catholic question, when Mr. Fox, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Grey, those distinguished patriots, supported that Bill; and he would ask the House if that measure had been agreed to when they recommended it, would not the question have been settled much more satisfactorily to the country? But the Government was long opposed to that Bill, and now it had not produced the effects which were anticipated from it. The chaplet had been stripped from the brow of those patriots, and it had been put upon the brow of an individual—it had made him the favourite of a country, because his course had been identified with that of the people of Ireland. A noble Lord had made some observations respecting the services of popular persons. He (Lord Plunkett) would say, that any Government that refused to avail itself of the popular party in Ireland—that party which represented the feelings of the people—would deserve the character of being insane. Who were the persons interested in the question? The people of Ireland.
454
And with respect to the Church of Ireland, that Church was established merely for the benefit of the people of Ireland. The case, in short, amounted to this: a measure of this kind was necessary to the safety of the country, and it was to be considered how it could be successfully carried, and he would say, that no measure could be successful unless it were supported by the feeling of the people of that country. Every year, he would repeat, made the question more difficult of settlement; and if this measure were not adopted, next year the House would be compelled to adopt a worse one. He should, therefore, support the clause.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, My Lords, I am desirous of calling the attention of the House to the question before it. The question is not upon Parliamentary Reform, nor is it upon Catholic Emancipation, nor is it upon the question whether the Catholic question was settled too late or too early. The question is simply, whether the composition for the tithes being paid by a rent-charge, that rent-charge is to be seven-tenths or three-fourths of the amount of composition. Now, my Lords, I beg you to recollect, that a very large proportion of the landowners in Ireland are now under the necessity of paying the whole amount of the composition—say, perhaps, 100 per cent. My Lords, I do not say that all are in this situation, but a very large proportion are so. Some, undoubtedly, have made bargains to collect the tithes for fifteen per cent; and those, therefore, of course, pay eighty-five per cent on the amount of composition. This Bill proposes a rent-charge of seven-tenths, and my noble and learned Friend behind me has proposed to your Lordships, instead of that amount, keeping in view the propositions which have been made to your Lordships on former occasions, that the amount of rent-charge should be three-fourths, or seventy-five per cent. Now, I ask your Lordships, is that, or is it not, a fair proposition, considering the relative situations of the two parties, what has been done up to the present moment, and that which has been in contemplation? The noble and learned Baron (Lord Plunkett) has urged that the proposition made on a former occasion was, that the payment should be seventy-seven and a-half per cent; but he forgets that of that a great portion was to come out of the Consolidated Fund—and the Consolidated Fund was to be repaid in a manner which rendered it exceedingly doubtful whether that repay-

455
ment ever would be made. I think that was a speculation which would have turned out a failure. But, my Lords, it is also urged that we agreed last year to a composition of seventy-two per cent. Now, my Lords, I beg to call to your recollection that in the Committee I made a motion upon that subject, which was not carried, that is to say, it was postponed. The noble Viscount subsequently thought proper to withdraw the Bill, and consequently I had no opportunity of renewing my motion. If the noble Baron recollects, that is what took place upon that occasion. As to the amount of rent-charge, my Lords, I cannot doubt that you will consider seventy-five per cent a fair compensation to the Church, and a fair amount also to the landowners, and I cannot think that you will pass the present clause. I thought it proper to say these few words simply for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention back to the real question before the House, whether the rent-charge should amount to seven-tenths or three fourths of the composition.
Viscount Melbournesaid, there could be no doubt that the question before the House had been correctly stated by the noble Duke. At the same time, considering the importance of the subject, and the interests which it involved, he thought their Lordships would hardly be inclined to consider the remarks of the noble Baron behind him inappositely or inappropriately introduced, or that his observations as to the conduct of noble Lords upon former measures could not be applied to the present occasion, or were not worthy of their Lordships' attentive consideration. The question was with respect to the amount of rent-charge. Now it was not an easy matter to produce any arguments to show why 22½, or 25½, or 30 was the proper sum. His noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) said, that he would take 25½. as the medium between 22½ and 30. Now, if by medium his noble Friend meant middle, he thought he was somewhat incorrect in his calculation; for it appeared that the amount he took rather leaned to the latter of the two extremes. But this Bill came from the House of Commons with the assent of that House, and of the large proportion of the Irish representatives; it offered to their Lordships for adoption a full and fair settlement of this question; and he would appeal to that House whether it was worth while to disturb that settlement, which was so much to be desired, by an alteration, in itself somewhat doubtful
456
as to its Parliamentary legality—and an alteration which would at the same time have a tendency to unsettle this measure? It was said this was done for the sake of the landlords of Ireland. They were in a situation of very considerable risk; but he would not now more particularly advert to that subject, which deserved well their Lordships' consideration, and was one of very great delicacy. Now it had been said, that the illiberal landlords were not those who avoided the payment of tithes, and that the liberal landlords only opposed the payment. They heard much about the willingness of the illiberal landlords to pay the tithes on this side of the water; but he apprehended that they were not quite so ready to pay their tithes when they got on the other side of the water—and he felt inclined to think that they would not be unwilling to have some reduction from the rent-charge. He (Lord Melbourne) had often told their Lordships that, with all their attachment to the Clergy, with all their devotion to the interests of the Church, and their zeal for the Bible, he did not believe that a single meeting had taken place in Ireland, at which the payment of tithes had been made the subject of resolutions. There was plenty of attachment to the Church, plenty of attachment to the Clergy, plenty of attachment to the Bible; but attachment to tithes had never been put forward at any of the numerous meetings in Ireland. But the noble and learned Lord who had made the present motion had said, that the clergy of Ireland were in a much better state at present than for many previous years, and that the energy and power of the law had not been suspended by the supineness and neglect of Government; it appeared to him to be a strange thing, to put in opposition the Government and the law. The Government was appointed under, and could not act separately from, the law. He apprehended, however, that there had been no progress made in the collection of tithes from the occupying tenant; and those compositions which had been effected were made under the measure for compulsory compositions. The only question now for their Lordships to determine was, whether for the sum of a mere five per cent. they would consent to disturb an arrangement assented to by the other House of Parliament—and one which, in all probability, would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland, as well as to the people of this country.
The Earl of Winchilseawould only trouble their Lordships with a few observations, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Viscount, as to the illiberal landlords of Ireland, and he would assure the House that he knew at least of one meeting—a meeting consisting of persons of the very highest respectability, and representing the whole property of the county—at which the only reason that the subject of tithes was not introduced into their resolutions was this—that it consisted of those who were the avowed and true friends of the Protestant Church, and there was but one feeling amongst the Protestant landlords throughout Ireland—a determination to render to the Clergy of their Church their first and undoubted rights. He challenged the noble Viscount to produce one single supporter of the Irish Church, that had refused to pay to the Clergy the full amount of what was justly due to them. He knew there were others, nominal Protestants, who cared not whether the Church were maintained in Ireland or not; they might have withheld their payments; but for the real sincere Protestant landlords, he could safely negative the observation of the noble Lord. The question before their Lordships was, whether five per cent. more was to be taken from the Clergy than had been taken last year. Now he had not heard one single argument in favour of that proposition. It had been admitted, that no body of men had ever been move liberal, more generous, in regard to claiming their just dues, than the Clergy of the Irish Church; and was this their return to those who had acted thus liberally, who had patiently endured persecution upon persecution—all of which he directly laid and charged at the foot of his Majesty's Government; for had they put the law into execution, such evils would have been repressed. Again, then, he begged to ask, upon what ground he could be called upon to take away from the clergy five per cent. more? Not one single argument had been advanced to justify that further deprivation. Such arguments only could be used as were employed by that individual who, he maintained, did direct and control his Majesty's Government; and he (the Earl of Winchilsea) doubted not, that next year the Ministers would come down to that House, and ask their Lordships to consent to a sum of 60 or 65 percent. He called upon their Lordships to spurn such conduct. They had now the knowledge, and strength, and character of the country with them;
458
and he was sure that they would act honestly and fearlessly with respect to this question, upon which hung the fate of his country, and of that Church which, as they had hitherto, he was sure they would continue to maintain.
Lord Wharncliffewished to know whether the noble Lord would promise that this should be a final measure? If any reliance was to be placed upon the discussions which had occurred in another place, this could not be looked upon as a final measure. Indeed, his Majesty's Ministers had been told, that it was not, and never could be a final measure, but only an instalment, and a step towards something more. Had it not been said, that whatever might be done, all would be in vain, until other and more serious questions respecting the establishment in Ireland were disposed of; and that they must come to those other questions at last?
The Marquess of Lansdonneconsidered the observations of the noble Earl (Winchilsea) to amount to a distinct confirmation of that which had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne). That noble Earl had alluded to a meeting composed, as he stated, of all the property and respectability of the county, at which resolutions concerning the general state of the county were unanimously adopted; and that which was omitted, he stated to the House, was the tithe question, from which the noble Earl had proceeded to infer, in the view which he took of his remarks, that that which the meeting appeared unanimously to resolve, had reference to questions upon which differences of opinion existed; but that that which they most carefully avoided altogether was, in point of fact, the real question upon which they were agreed. That might, indeed, be called by scoffers on this side of the water, a truly Irish meeting. But it was not for this that he had risen to address their Lordships. Speaking for himself, he did not think that this was the most important part of this Bill. But when so great a national settlement was offered—and only as a national settlement could he view it—whatever might be the opinions of individuals to whom the noble Baron (Wharncliffe) had alluded, and what measure, he would beg to ask their Lordships, had not been attended with such declarations, which, if they had been attended to, as the noble Lord desired upon the present occasion, would have hindered and destroyed the passing of every great question with which the noble Lord had himself

459
been concerned during the course of his political career. He defied the noble Lord to look back for the period at which there had not been some discontented, enthusiastic, exaggerating individuals, who had protested against settlements as imperfect, insufficient, and insecure, which had, however, become highly beneficial by the wisdom of Parliament, which, without paying attention to such protestations, had looked at the question in a large and enlightened point of view—considering the circumstances of the country which it concerned, and relying for the permanence and duration of its success upon the practical result of the benefits which the measure might be calculated to produce? Again, he would contend that this measure was founded in no arbitrary desire to reduce the income of the tithe-owners, whether lay or clerical. Now, this measure regarded two parties—the tithe-owner and landowner—upon both of whom it had an important operation. Undoubtedly it entailed a considerable sacrifice upon the one; but it also imposed a new and undoubtedly very arduous undertaking upon the other. Now what was the value of tithe property? According to every calculation which he could make, the value of tithes was certainly not more than sixteen years' purchase. That was the case, not only now, but under the most energetic Governments, the most Orange Governments, under the Government of the Irish, and subsequently of the English Parliaments, they would not find that tithe ever had a greater value than sixteen years' purchase. Now it was proposed to give to the tithe-owner the security of land, though to a somewhat diminished amount. If a landowner were by means of a mortgage to pay the value of his tithes, he would pay the interest of that mortgage at 64, or not more than 70. To make himself more intelligible, suppose that the tithes were worth 100 l. a-year, the value would be 1,600 l. at sixteen years' purchase; and the landowner would have to pay by a mortgage on land, interest only at 4 per cent., 64; or, at 4½ per cent., something more than 70. Thus, then, the Bill would give to the tithe-owner an increased security for a small sum, instead of his present insecurity upon a larger one. Then he contended that that was not an arbitrary principle, it was a fair and intelgible principle; there was a difference in the amount to be received, but they must deduct from that the difference between security and insecurity. As a landlord himself in Ireland, he would be the last person
460
to stand upon the value of any trifling amount—but he would not admit that there was anything unfair, anything unjust, anything ungenerous, in the specific clause then under their consideration.
The Marquess of Westmeathdenied that he had ever attempted to underrate the value of tithes, but at the same time he would ask whether any capitalist would advance a single sixpence on tithe, even at the promised rate of four per cent., or four and a-half per cent, mentioned by the noble Marquess?
Lord Alvanleybegged to ask the noble Viscount whether he could hope that any settlement could be effected now, if they consented to reduce the income of the clergy five per cent.? When they came to throw out the appropriation clause, as they naturally would do—the only result would be that His Majesty's Ministers would come down next year with a demand for further concession, and with the appropriation clause again. If they wished really for a final settlement of the question they must overthrow that appropriation clause; it was supported by a very small majority of the other House, and a majority which, if nicely analysed, would not be very satisfactory to the Protestant people of this country. For his own part he would be glad to give up the thirty per cent., if by that means some settlement of the question could be attained; but he was convinced that the only object was to procure this reduction, in order that a still farther one might be demanded next year.
Their Lordships divided on the amendment:—Content 126; Not-Content 48: Majority 78.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Charlemont

DUKES.

Craven

Grafton

Albemarle

Sutherland

Ilchester

Leinster

Leitrim

Argyll.

Granville

MARQUESSES.

Carlisle

Lansdowne

Scarborough.

Headfort

VISCOUNTS.

Conyngham

Melbourne

Clanricarde

Duncannon

Queensberry

Falkland.

Westminster

BISHOPS.

Tavistock.

Durham

EARLS.

Hereford

Radnor

Bristol

Burlington

BARONS.

Thanet

Say and Sele

Minto

Plunket

Sefton

Ducie

461

Foley

Mostyn

Seaford

Segrave

Holland

Suffield

Barham

Crewe

Teynham

Templemore

Glenlyon

Hatherton

Gardner

Strafford

Amendment agreed to. Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses up to 10 inclusive agreed to, with verbal amendments.
On Clause 11, relating to compositions for tithes,
Lord Lyndhurstwished to remind their Lordships of the history of the Tithe-composition Acts introduced by Mr. Goulburn and Lord Stanley. The number of compositions entered into under the first Act was 1,500, out of which only thirty-nine cases of appeal had arisen, of which fifteen were withdrawn. The composition had been reduced in only three cases. Lord Stanley's Act came into operation in 1832, under which, power was given to re-open compositions, and after an interval of eight years another opportunity of appeal was given. But there were only six appeals entered, four of which were dismissed; one composition was increased, and the other reduced. Would they consent to re-open the tithe-compositions under such circumstances as these? There would be a great risk of doing injustice to the parties concerned, as well as considerable difficulty in attempting to re-open those compositions. This was felt in the year 1823, in consequence of the peculiar mode in which tithes had been paid in many instances. To call upon the House to rip up transactions, and to overturn agreements that had been settled twenty-one years ago, appeared to him to be the height of injustice. He also objected to the mode of appeal as expensive and unsatisfactory. Under the former Acts appeals were decided by the Privy Council, but now there were to be three barristers sent about at an expense of five guineas per day besides travelling expenses, and the wretched incumbent who was not able to get in his tithes was to be subjected to all the expenses and costs attendant upon the visits of those barristers. He called upon their Lordships to reject these clauses—namely, from clause eleven up to clause twenty-four inclusive. It had been said that some of the compositions under Lord Stanley's Act had been hastily made, so that concealment and fraud had been practised; if so, such cases ought to
462
be revised, not by three barristers, but by a proper tribunal. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the eleventh clause, and other clauses consequent upon it, be omitted.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the clause in the present Bill was similar he believed to the clause in the former Bill presented to their Lordships. He must confess he had felt that this was the most objectionable clause, in point of principle, of any to be found in the Bill. He considered that it was a clause which must rather be viewed as an exception, founded on special circumstances, than as one that could be said to stand on its own intrinsic merits. He must say, however, that the noble and learned Lord had made his case so strong against opening compositions at all, that he had scarcely left himself any grounds to go upon for agreeing to that point to which he did accede. There had unquestionably been very great neglect in entering into these compositions; power of appeal had not been efficient, it having been generally thought that tithe was never to be paid again. It had been represented to him, and on that information the clause had been framed, that whatever compositions had formerly been entered into they were in fact extremely unequal, and in many cases extremely oppressive. It appeared to him that when they were contemplating a departure from principle, it was much more satisfactory to comprehend as many cases of redress as possible. He thought it better, then, that their Lordships should adopt the Bill as brought up by the other House; but if the noble and learned Lord persisted in his amendment, he should not take the sense of the House upon the question.
Lord Carberysaid that the tribunals before which appeals were made ought to be local, otherwise great hardship and expense would be entailed upon parties.
Lord Plunkettsaid, he had reason to know that the operation of Lord Stanley's Bill had produced great expense and inconvenience to parties.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that the Assistant Barristers might hear appeals, with an appeal from them to the judge of assize.
Lord Hathertonsaid the whole time of the Assistant Barristers was already fully occupied. His own opinion was, that appeals should be heard in the respective parishes, by what number of barristers might be settled upon a future occasion. This would be the most cheap and efficient way.
Amendment agreed to, and clauses up to 22 inclusive were struck out.
Clauses from 23 to 49 inclusive were agreed to, with verbal amendments.
Upon Clause 50 (the appropriation clause),
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that the House, in arriving at this fiftieth clause, had come to an entirely new subject. The forty-nine previous clauses had all closely related to the measure for the commutation of tithe in Ireland—a measure admitted on all hands to be most desirable, and which was stated by the noble Viscount, in the strongest terms, to be a measure most beneficial to Ireland, in being eminently calculated to effect the very important object of securing to that country that peace and happiness, the absence of which had for so long a period been made the subject of general complaint. It would, therefore, be very naturally asked, why this measure—entire and perfect measure as it was—a measure unanimously assented to by every Member of their Lordships' House, and all but unanimously assented to by the House of Commons—it was made a matter of very natural inquiry, why a measure in itself so perfect and so desirable, and so unanimously assented to by both Houses of Parliament, had not, long before this, been passed into a law? A noble and learned Lord, a distinguished Member of the Government, had exhorted noble Lords on his (Lord Lyndhurst's) side of the House to pass this measure into a law; and he would very earnestly give the same exhortation to the noble and learned Lord and his friends. What could be the reason why this beneficial measure, this measure so warmly eulogised by all parties, had not been finally adopted by the Legislature? The answer was as ready as it was complete; it was simply because his Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to engraft upon this desirable measure a proposition of a very different character, a proposition which had no natural or necessary connection whatever with it. Year after year the noble Viscount had reproached those Members of the House with whom he (Lord Lyndhurst) had the honour to act, with rejecting a measure which he described as so essential to Ireland; but he would altogether deny that they had rejected it; on the contrary they had adopted the measure. In the last session of Parliament they had expressed themselves quite willing to consent to its being passed, but they then, as now, absolutely refused to consent to the other proposition which was engrafted upon it—a
464
proposition so widely different from it—and this was the reason why the measure had not been passed into law. What was the reason of all this? That reason had its origin in, and was fully borne out by, the fatal resolution which had been passed upon the principle involved in the House of Commons. He was far from wishing to speak disrespectfully of any measure adopted by that body, but in reference to those who originated and framed, and carried through the measure of which he spoke, he must call to the recollection of the House the fact, not denied even by the party themselves, that they had acted together in recommending it to the House of Commons in the view and determination thereby to overturn the then Ministry, and to put themselves in office. Of such a proceeding as this (looking to its object merely) he would leave the House to judge; all he would say of it was, that it did not appear to him to be a very laudable one. But when he considered that the party in question must have known, at the time they were forming their plan and putting it into execution, the fearful consequences which were likely to result from it, and which, in fact, had resulted from it—the mischievous effects which it must infallibly produce, not only upon the present but the future condition of the country—when he considered that this party must have been fully aware that in what they were doing they were acting against the best interests of the country, that they were introducing a proposition which must infallibly become the grounds of serious discord between the two Houses of Parliament—a proposition which was eminently calculated to form a bar to the passing of that very measure which they themselves so loudly cried for as almost amounting to a panacea for the misfortunes of Ireland—when he considered all these circumstances, he must at once fairly say that there were no terms of reprobation sufficient to mark his sense of the conduct of those who had been instrumental in bringing forward the proposition in question. The case being as he had thus stated it, he hoped, and, indeed, confidently expected, the more particularly when he called to mind the language and manner of the noble Viscount opposite on bringing forward this measure the other night—he hoped and expected, he would repeat, that that noble Lord would now consent to abandon this most obnoxious principle; that the noble Lord, seeing the

465
fearful consequences—the disasters which must necessarily befal the country if that principle became a law—would have the good sense, the patriotism, and the manliness, which so corresponded with his character, at once to free himself from the fetters, to throw off the bonds by which he was unhappily confined, and manfully abandon a proposition which was so mischievous and fearful. If any arguments were wanting to show the impropriety of this proposition, they were fully supplied by the circumstances to which he had adverted. At the time the resolution spoken of was passed the state of the Irish Church was totally misunderstood. The grossest, the most absurd exaggerations, had for a long time existed on the subject. It was unnecessary for him to advert in detail to the statements made in Dr. Doyle's often-quoted letter; the general summing up of that letter was, that the revenues of the Church of Ireland amounted to several millions sterling; and that the Protestant population of that country, meaning that part of the Protestant population which conformed to the Established Church was only 320,000. This was one of the absurd exaggerations which were industriously circulated. Again, in the year 1834, a Member of the House of Commons, a gentleman who had honoured the present Ministry with his support upon great occasions, but who, it was to be remarked, had within the last day or two exhibited some alarming symptoms of wavering—a gentleman, moreover, who had no inexperienced head at figures—he alluded to the hon. Member for Middlesex—this gentleman, in 1834, actually stated to the House of Commons, as the result of sundry close calculations he had made, that the precise amount of the revenues of the Irish Church was no less a sum than 3,300,000 l. Such being the exaggerations carefully set abroad, it was no great matter of surprise, certainly, that a very warm feeling upon the subject should have arisen. It was true, no doubt, that since that period, these statements had been subjected to the correction of facts; and that, consequently, such representations had been very considerably modified; but what the House had to consider was, that at the time the mischievous resolution in question was passed by the House of Commons, these misstatements were in full operation, and had given rise to the existence of a very general impression, that
466
the revenues of the Irish Church, as compared with the members of that Church, were most extravagant and enormous. It being now, however, made clearly apparent that these statements were gross exaggerations, that the revenues of the Irish Church were not more than were necessary to provide for the care of the 900,000 souls under its charge, common sense and reason loudly protested against the idea of longer adhering to a resolution the foundations of which were laid in the grossest misrepresentation of the real state of the Irish Church. Upon these grounds he confidently submitted to the noble Viscount, that he was fully justified in throwing over, and entirely abandoning the principle involved in the present clause; and he firmly trusted that the noble Lord would never consent to sacrifice the best interests of the country for what might, in fact, now be looked upon as a mere punctilio. There were other grounds for abandoning this principle, which he would beg to submit to the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount had told the House on a former night, and had told it, moreover, with great emphasis, that all his measures were his own; that he suffered no dictation, no influence, no control, direct or indirect, to bias his conduct. This was a declaration which it had given him great satisfaction to hear; he had, of course, never for a moment supposed that the noble Viscount, upon any occasion, would permit direct dictation to be exercised towards him by any individual or any body of men; but at the same time he must observe the House was pretty generally aware that there did exist an individual—an individual described by the noble and learned Lord opposite as the favorite of the country—the House, he would repeat, well knew that there did exist an individual who at this point of time was placed in such a position as to be able either to uphold or to destroy the present Administration—by that individual's fiat must the Government stand or fall. Such being the case, such being the position of the noble Viscount and his colleagues, trembling under the sword, which hung suspended over their heads—the House might entertain some apprehension that—however decidedly the noble Viscount might repel direct interference—some indirect influence or control might, by possibility, be exercised upon the proceedings of the Government by the indi-

467
vidual alluded to. Our great dramatic poet had it,—
"That when the lion fawns upon the lamb,
The lamb doth never cease to follow him,"
He rejoiced in the assertion made by the noble Viscount, and in the statement, not only that he had no direct control exercised over him, but that he was not subject even to indirect influence or control from any quarter; and he appealed to the sound and manly understanding of the noble Viscount with some confidence that he would consider well the position in which he stood, in which the country stands, and that he would not suffer this idle scheme—for he trusted he should be able to show their Lordships that it was an idle scheme—to stand in the way of giving effect to the measure which everybody admitted the state of Ireland required, and which everybody admitted was necessary for the tranquillity of that country and the security of the empire. There was another personal argument which he should address to the noble Viscount, and which he also hoped would have some weight with him. The noble Viscount sometimes condescended to give advice to noble Lords at his (Lord Lyndhurst's) side of the House. He sometimes read them lectures as to the prudence and propriety of the course they were following. Now it was not very long since the noble Viscount, pursuing that strain, directed their attention to the decrease of their numbers in the other House of Parliament as the touchstone by which they should be guided, and the test by which they might measure the prudence and the propriety of the course they were following. That was the argument which had been made use of by the noble Viscount. True it was, that that argument had been addressed to them in a moment of temporary elevation and excitement, when the party barometer stood very high, when it was, in fact, up to eighty-six, when it had attained the point of movement heat. It had since, however, sunk down to twenty-six, which, according to his recollection, was something below the freezing point; and if the principle were correct as applicable to eighty-six, it could be no less correct when applied to the number of twenty-six. Now, the noble Viscount must recollect, that when this Resolution was first proposed in the other House of Parliament by a person in the
468
opposition, with all the influence and power of Government against him, it was carried by a majority of thirty-nine or thirty-seven. A year and a-half had since elapsed. The noble Viscount had been during the whole of that time in possession of office, and all the power, control, and influence that belonged to it; yet the majority on this question had been reduced to twenty-six. If, then, they were to take advice and counsel from the declining numbers on their part in the House of Commons, he would take the liberty of presenting to the noble Viscount this position of things as a reason why he should consider well whether it was fair and proper for him to adhere to his former course. But there was another observation to which a noble Lord near him had directed his attention, an observation which was a matter of most material consideration—namely, that in taking the numbers of the other House of Parliament as a guide to the course of conduct they ought to pursue, they were not to consider the numbers only of the majority and minority, but of what they were respectively composed. The other House of Parliament had unfolded the means of analyzing the majority, and had shown of what it consisted. When he informed their Lordships that the majority of Protestants in that House, including his Majesty's Government, were opposed to this measure, he thought that such a circumstance should weigh strongly with the noble Viscount. When he informed their Lordships that the majority of the English representatives, including Catholics and Protestants, were against that measure, and lastly, when he mentioned, that upon withdrawing from the division the names of His Majesty's Ministers, there appeared a clear majority against the noble Viscount, he thought that these circumstances would also have some weight with him. When the noble Viscount considered how that majority was composed, and of what materials it consisted, and when he recollected the statement which he himself had made in that House—namely, that the whole Church was against him—that the Universities were against him—that he had against him the landed interest of the country—that he had against him the gentry of the country, and that the great majority of the peerage was against him—when he recollected all this, was he not entitled to infer that the noble Viscount would pause

469
before he ventured to persevere in the course he had hitherto pursued? He now came to the consideration of the measure before their Lordships' House. He considered it a distinct measure. It was in itself distinct, and ought not to be encumbered with a measure altogether of a different nature, uniting, as it were, the living with the dead. He thought that those who looked carefully into the provisions of this Bill would agree with him in looking upon it as the most mischievous measure that had yet been presented to their Lordships' House; the object of which was, by a new arrangement of the benefices of Ireland, and of the incomes of incumbents, to squeeze out a surplus, to be appropriated to the provisions of this Bill. Assuming that a surplus could be created, it was not to be so appropriated, to use the words of his noble and learned Friend, until a proper and ample provision should have been made for the clergy of the Irish Church. First of all, assuming that something could be saved—that they could reduce the standard of the payment of the clergy of Ireland, and that something could be thereby saved, allow him to point their attention to the manner in which that, in the first instance, was to be done. The Church Temporalities Bill had been passed for a laudable object. It was supposed that by the reduction of ten sees, and by other means suggested in the Bill, a great and important object would be attained. That reduction was to be directed to the payment of church cess; it was to be applied, to the augmentation of small livings, the building and repairing of churches and glebe-houses—objects all of which had been described by the noble Earl (Grey) when he moved the second reading of the Bill, as great and important to the welfare of the church itself. They all knew what had been the result of that measure, and that, with the single exception of church cess, not one single sixpence could be applied from that fund before the year 1873—a period of nearly forty years from the present time—to any of these great and important objects connected with the welfare of the church—namely, the building and repairing of churches and glebe-houses, &c, all of which must be postponed to the time he had mentioned. There was at this very moment moved for by his right hon. Friend in the other House of Parliament, a return of the Eccle-
470
siastical Commissioners, describing the deplorable state of things in reference to this subject. He believed it had not been yet laid upon the table of that House, but he had seen it, and knew what were its contents. There was at this moment a sum of 57,000 l. and upwards wanted for the repairs of churches. A large sum wag also required for the building of churches; a large sum was most pressingly wanted, and had been most urgently applied, for the enlargement of churches in extensive and populous districts. If there were any surplus, if they could by any process extract a surplus, to what was it in the first instance to be applied? Was it not understood that it should not be applied to other than ecclesiastical purposes until all these necessities had been amply provided for? and until they were provided for, any surplus that might arise should certainly not be applied to the provisions of this Bill. This subject had been considered over and over again in the other House of Parliament. It was a question of figures, and it had been shown to absolute demonstration that there could be no surplus. Indeed, he might say it had been admitted by the noble Viscount himself the other evening, not certainly in terms, but undoubtedly admitted by the manner in which he conducted himself on that occasion—by his very gesture and tone, and by the very style in which he told the House—"There is a surplus for you!" No one, he (Lord Lyndhurst) well knew, could see through an absurd or ridiculous question sooner than the noble Viscount; and it was very evident that, on the occasion alluded to, he did not so much as desire that any one of their Lordships should suppose he had any other notion of the question than that it was a ridiculous one. He would ask their Lordships whether the noble Viscount did not actually himself ridicule and laugh at the idea of a surplus? Let them now see how this surplus was to be created. The first process was, to reduce the number of livings from 1,385 to 1,250. Now that reduction had been formed upon an obvious, and indeed admitted, mistake; for it was supposed, when it was made, that each of the 1,250 livings contained only 10,000 acres, and about fourteen square miles. Now, instead of 10,000, each living contained 16,000 acres; and instead of fourteen, the number of square miles in each was twenty-two or twenty-three, so that that process

471
had utterly failed. Take the extent of Ireland to be 20,000,000 acres, and divide that by 1,385, the number of livings, and they would find the result to be 14,440 acres, or about nineteen square miles, to each benefice. If they then divided the same number of livings into the amount of that part of the population which adhered to the church establishment, viz., 852,084, they would give to each benefice 615 persons. Now he took that as the basis, and asked if the existing state of things in Ireland warranted this proposed reduction in the number of benefices? The average extent of every living would be nineteen square miles, aad the average amount to each living of members of the Church of England would be 615. Did this call for any reduction in the number of livings? Most undoubtedly not. The very first principle of the calculation proved it to be entirely false; and showed that there was no ground whatever for reducing the number of livings in Ireland. It was idle to say that there was, in some places, but few Protestants. The object was to augment small benefices, and in making calculations they should take the average amount of the whole, not individual instances. With respect to remuneration, he would take the sum slated to be applicable to the parochial clergy of Ireland—namely, 459,550 l., including tithes, ministers' money, Primate Boulter's fund, and glebe lands, stated at 86,500 l. If they divided that sum, after making an allowance for the present curates, as provided by this Act, amounting to the sum of 84,400 l., thereby reducing it to 375,150 l.—if they divided that by the number of livings, 1,385, they would find the result to be nearly the sum of 274 l. for each living. Now if, as his noble and learned Friend had stated, the clergy of Ireland ought to be properly paid, he (Lord Lyndhurst) would ask whether 274 l. to the rector or vicar of each benefice could be considered as too large a remuneration? That sum was less than the sum mentioned by the noble Viscount, who stated it at 295 l., exceeding the amount stated by him (Lord Lyndhurst) by 21 l., which, multiplied by the number of livings, would give, instead of a surplus, a real and absolute deficiency of upwards of 26,000 l. Even taking the statement and principle that had issued from the Government itself, he thought, upon that statement and principle, he should be able to satisfy their Lordships
472
that so far from there being a surplus, there was a real and positive deficiency. The sum to be applied was 459,550 l., and the charge upon that fund, according to the statement made by the noble Viscount, was 362,148 l., which left a balance of 97,612 l., although the noble Viscount made the amount of surplus about 75,000 l. It was, in truth, 97,612 l., according to items from time to time stated by the noble Viscount. He, however, could show their Lordships, that items had been omitted which would at once destroy that balance; and he would now state what they were. The sinecures and suppressed livings under the Church Temporalities Act, amounted to 22,500 l.; the sale of advowsons, for which no provision had been made,—the calculation upon which was, that one-half the income would be lost upon every sale—was, as stated by those conversant with the subject, not less than 25,000 l. The glebe was overstated, according to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the amount of 9,700 l.; it being, according to their calculation, 76,800 l., instead of 86,500 l.; tax upon livings, 20,000 l.; allowance for opening compositions, 10,230 l.; and amount of curates' income understated, 6,962 l., added to the foregoing items, none of which were included in the account, would give the sum of 103,492 l. to be deducted from the gross income, which, allowing the supposed surplus to be, as he had stated, 97,612 l., would show, instead of any surplus at all, a deficiency to the amount of 5,882 l. With regard to the tax upon livings of 20,000 l., he knew it might be said, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would remit it; but they could not afford to do so. He defied the noble Lord, whom he perceived looking at the figures, to get rid of one of the items to which he had called the attention of their Lordships. They were then talking of a non-existing surplus and of a real deficiency, and yet, taking the calculation according to Government, how did it stand? What were they obliged to do?—Why, to reduce 130 livings to 100 l. a-year. Men of education, brought up to a learned profession, who were expected to live decently, to keep in practice the laws of hospitality, to maintain the same respectability as persons amongst whom they lived, to support and educate a family—men of that class were to have their stipend reduced to 100 l., in order that the Government might be able to extort something

473
like a surplus. This was the kind of "proper allowance" his noble and learned Friend was to confer upon the clergy. Why, that was a sum which their Lordships would give to an upper servant. Well, there were 800 of the clergy, rectors and vicars, who were to receive less than i 200 l. a-year. The income of two-thirds of the clergy of Ireland was to be reduced below 200 l. a-year. Were their Lordships prepared to approve of that? If this money were to be drawn from the consolidated fund,—if it were to come from out of the public purse, and that they were providing in the first instance for the clergy, when they might perhaps justly say that they could afford no more, then indeed there might be some reason for this scanty provision; but they were taking from those men the property they actually possessed. Would their Lordships descend to such a measure? He remembered that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had some time ago introduced a bill respecting imprisonment for debt, under which there were some merely ministerial offices requiring to be filled by persons, not of any previous education, but having some habits of business; and how did he propose to remunerate them? Why, according to the schedule of the Bill, they were to have 300 l. a-year; and yet here they were taking away from persons such as he had described their own property, reducing their income in some instances to 80 l., for the purpose of creating a surplus. The noble Viscount ought, therefore, in a manly way, to abandon this idle project at once. But when was this ideal surplus to come into operation? Not during the lives of the present incumbents. They must all die off before this ideal surplus could be realized. So much for that part of the case. The livings of Ireland were to be cut down and new modelled to correspond with the feelings and opinions of noble Lords opposite. By what machinery was that to be accomplished? By a Board composed, in the first instance, of a Committee of the Privy Council, the number of the Board to be unlimited, to be depending upon the will of the Government for the time being, and to be removeable by that Government. They would, no doubt, have some security, while the noble Viscount continued at the head of the Government; but how long would that be? His reign might be short; it was uncertain by whom he might be succeeded; and was it to the nominees of
474
future Governments—for this was a Bill operating in futuro,—was it to persons of whose characters they could know nothing they were to intrust this delicate task, and at whose mercy they were to place the Church of Ireland? The noble Viscount, forsooth, had given a security. He said, that they should be members of the Established Church. Why, some of the worst enemies of that Church were to be found amongst its own members, and he should be sorry to place it at the mercy of any set of men, upon that security alone. After the opinions he had heard broached in particular quarters, he could feel no confidence, no reliance upon such a security. He should not forget that, in addition, it had been proposed that the Archbishop, if he happened to be a member of the Privy Council, should be a member of the Board, and have a double vote. It was provided, that the majority should decide; and what in that case would become of the single or double vote of the Archbishop, in an assembly, the number of which was unlimited, and which was formed at the dictation of Government? This was the power, this the authority, to which the Church of Ireland was to be consigned. They reduced that church by the provisions of this Bill to the lowest ebb. But it did not stop there. The decisions of those persons were to be final. They might make arrangements from time to time for new modelling all the benefices in Ireland. They might still further cut down the incomes of the incumbents. It did not even stop there. In addition to the reduction of thirty per cent.—in addition to the 97,000 l. surplus, they had the power of reducing incomes of 100 l. to any sum they might think proper—of 200 l. to 150 l., of 400 l. to 300 l. and of 500 l. to 400 l. If their Lordships would take the trouble of making a calculation on this head, they would find that those persons were to be vested with a power of reducing the income of the Church of Ireland, beyond what it was now proposed, to the extent of 74,000 l. Was not all this a subject of great delicacy? But they were to have, besides, a control over the glebes of Ireland, an object to which they knew certain persons looked with a good deal of hope and expectation. They were empowered to dispose of as much of these glebes as they pleased, and if they were not given to incumbents, they were to form so much of the general funds of the

475
country. They had heard that the Catholics of Ireland asserted, that their lot should be that of the glebe, and they looked to have the glebe in their own possession. What the result of all this was, their Lordships would see by referring to the documents to which he had taken the liberty of directing their Lordships' attention. In the first place, there was the supposed surplus of 97,612 l. to be taken from the Irish Church; then there was to be deducted thirty per cent., which amounted to 153,450 l.; by glebes a deduction of 86,500 l. would be made, and a still further deduction was within the power of the Privy Council to the amount of 74,600 l.; making in all no less a sum to be deducted from the revenues of the Church of Ireland than 412,162 l. The whole revenues of the parochial clergy at present amounted to only 613,000 l.; so that by the powers conferred on this Board, at the mercy of which the Church was to be placed, the property of the Irish Church might be reduced in the proportion of six to four, and two-thirds of it entirely taken away and devoted to other than ecclesiastical purposes. If the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) upon a former occasion last year felt bound to confess that the measure he then introduced would inflict a heavy blow on Protestantism in Ireland—if he was forward to admit that it would operate great discouragement to the Church, and give great triumph to its adversaries—if that was justly said respecting the measure of last year, what was to be said of that now under their Lordships' consideration? He would be no party to such a measure—he would be no party to dealing such a blow upon Protestantism in Ireland—he would be no party to inflicting that discouragement upon the Church established, nor would he assist in administering materials of hope and triumph to its enemies. And for what was all this intended? For the purpose of conciliating the agitators of Ireland. That was the avowed purpose—a vain and idle hope. Those agitators had declared themselves that they would not be conciliated. They had said they would take this Bill only as an instalment of the debt of justice which they represented to be due to them—and that nothing would satisfy them short of the extinction of tithe in substance as well as in name, in whatever form or shape it might be found to exist. They had proclaimed in terms too distinct to be misunderstood, that as long as the Estab-
476
lished Church remained an Established Church, they should continue to disturb and agitate the land. It was impossible—it was vain—it was idle to attempt to quiet and conciliate spirits of that description; instead of putting an end to the system which they were now pursuing, this measure of concession would only tend to increase their eagerness in the pursuit of their favourite but destructive schemes. Such were the observations with which he had thought it his duty to introduce the amendments he was now about to propose. He did not intend to strike out these clauses without substituting any thing in lieu of them; and what he proposed to substitute in their room, he would shortly describe to their Lordships. But before he did so, there was one clause to which for a few moments he begged leave to call their attention,—he alluded to a clause (the 53rd), by which, in consideration of the sums taken from the benefices of Ireland to be paid into the consolidated fund, a sum of 50,000 l. a-year was to be advanced from the consolidated fund for the purposes of education in that country. He had no objection to large, liberal, extensive allowance in money for education in Ireland. When he had the honour of being a member of his Majesty's Government the grant for that purpose was by that Government increased from 30,000 l. to upwards of 50,000 l. a-year. There was no indisposition to do anything that was necessary in order amply to provide for so important an object. There were large and rich endowments in this country directed to that purpose; but in Ireland they were scanty and few; and he had no objection to supply the deficiency. But under the provisions of this measure, the moment they did that which was necessary with this view—the moment they struck out the few first lines of the clause in question, they altered its whole character; they made it a money clause—a clause of taxation; and then they would be told they were going beyond the constitutional powers of that House. Nothing could be more fatal to the whole question than sending down the Bill amended to the other House of Parliament with this clause so altered; for instead of discussing the matter on its substantial merits, they would be met in limine with taunt and objection, and their Lordships would be charged with having committed a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He was therefore prepared to state that it would be necessary to strike out that clause altogether.

477
Having stated thus much with respect to that clause, he had now to refer more immediately to the clause under consideration. He proposed, then, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the power—and that power was given to them by the clause he had prepared—of diminishing or extending particular benefices in Ireland, with reference to the extent of parishes, the duties to be performed, and the circumstances of the population, with power to diminish or augment the income of incumbents in those respects. He could not better describe the object of the clause than by referring to a noble Lord (Lord Stanley), a Member of the other House of Parliament, whose secession from the Government the noble Viscount took occasion the other night to declare had been to him a source of deep regret; it would be sufficient, therefore, to say that the clause had been framed to give effect to the wishes and intentions of that noble Lord, and from the encomium pronounced upon him on the occasion to which he alluded, he trusted the proposition would receive the support of the noble Viscount. There would be a power of reducing benefices not in towns which were upwards of 500 l. to 500 l. per annum, and to apply any fund that might arise from such deductions in augmenting smaller benefices, provided they were not increased beyond 300 l. a-year; and he very much feared there was no fund that could possibly be collected from reducing the higher livings which would enable him to raise the poorer benefices to the proper and barely adequate scale. It was not necessary for him at present to do more than state the general outline of the clause; but he could not sit down without entreating their Lordships to take the measure thus altered and modified into their favourable and candid consideration. He entreated the noble Viscount, and his associates near him, to receive the measure in the same spirit. Never were men, never was a Government, placed in a situation more enviable than that in which the noble Viscount at present stood. [Ironical cheers from both sides of the House.] He did not mean to sneer—such was not his practice or habit—he spoke in sober seriousness. By accepting the Bill as it now stood, they would tranquillize Ireland, they would put an end to the discussion of this great question which had so long disquieted and agitated that country, and provide for the security of the empire at large. The noble Viscount might live long, he might per-
478
form much, but nothing he would ever achieve could exceed the good he would accomplish by adopting this measure as it would be modified by the proposition which he called upon their Lordships to sanction by their approval. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving that the 50th Clause be struck out, for the purpose of substituting that which he had prepared for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects above stated.
The clause having been read,
Viscount Melbournesaid, notwithstanding the various modes of persuasion and attempts to convince, adopted by the noble and learned Lord in the course of his very laboured and eloquent speech—notwithstanding the ridicule in which he indulged in one part, and the entreaties he addressed in another, it was perfectly impossible for him to comply with the request, or adopt the course, which had been so forcibly recommended by the noble and learned Lord. The same request had been made by a noble Friend on the cross-bench, which had cut short and nipped the hope rising in his mind during the whole debate, that instead of asking concession from him, noble Lords on the other side would have been prepared to concede the principle of appropriation, to what he undoubtedly regarded the general wish which the country felt upon the subject, and the necessity of at length concluding the discussion of this question, and which might easily be effected if the noble and learned Lord would only give way on the present occasion. The noble and learned Lord had stated many arguments—he had made many attacks on the Government in various parts of his speech, and he had also, besides criticising and expatiating on the measure of Government, opened much matter of his own. He would not attempt to follow the noble and learned Lord through the details of his speech, but he would observe, if the noble and learned Lord persisted in striking out the clause which he had expressed his intention to move the admission of—if he succeeded in inducing the House to agree with him in removing those clauses from the Bill, which he seemed to think could be done without involving the principle of the measure, he begged to state that he should consider that the measure was virtually destroyed. He begged to state that these clauses could not be struck out of the Bill without being fatal to its efficiency. The noble and learned Lord seemed to think that they could not continue these clauses in the Bill without its proving fatal to it, but that they might

479
attain all that was required by Ministers, by striking them out, and by substituting his amendment; but for his part he would say, that if they omitted these clauses he would wash his hands of the Bill, and would not persist in the measure, which, would be deprived of the principle to which indeed, he was pledged, and which he deemed necessary to make it effective for the purpose to which it was directed. The noble and learned Lord had taunted him with some arguments he had used on a former occasion with respect to the increasing majority for Ministers in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord endeavoured to turn his argument against himself, by stating that a falling-off in the number of the majority might now be urged against him. The noble and learned Lord did not attach much weight to this argument when it was applied against himself, and he (Lord Melbourne) did not see why it should have more effect when urged against him. He had on the occasion to which allusion had been made referred to the progressive increase in the number of the majority in the other House in favour of Ministers—namely, that it had gone on increasing from seven or ten to eighty-six; but the noble and learned Lord had taunted him because the majority in favour of the appropriation clauses in this Bill had declined from thirty-seven, which it was last year, to twenty-six. Now this might be matter of accident, but whether it were so or not is immaterial; but he would tell the noble and learned Lord that he and his colleagues stood on that principle—they stood on the principle on which they had received the support of a majority of the other House—they stood on that to which they were pledged; and if they were not longer supported in the maintenance of that principle they were immediately ready to resign the offices they held; but they would not resign while they believed that they were supported by a majority of the other House of Parliament, and by a majority of the country. The noble and learned Lord had also adverted to another argument which he supposed he had used on a former occasion. He did not then admit what he had stated as a fact, but had made the admission for the sake of argument. He then said, that he would admit that the bulk of the gentry were opposed to them, that the bulk of the clergy were decidedly opposed to the Administration, but that he would not go into any calculation as to the amount in number on each side; but supposing this to be the case, he
480
requested the noble and learned Lord not to rely too much on that circumstance, because, in fact, on looking back to the history of this country, it would appear that the bulk of the nobility and gentry had never opposed themselves to the general feeling and opinion of the country, but that they had been beaten in the long run. This was what he meant to state, and what he said with perfect sincerity, and from his anxiety to preserve the constitution and to promote the welfare of the country. He could not help feeling that it was a sound and wholesome truth, and he had stated it without intending to say anything in the least degree insulting, or to hold out anything like intimidation. He repeated, he conceived it to be a wholesome truth, which he thought should be present in the minds of noble Lords, and should be alive in the recollection of their Lordships. He had stated the general grounds on which he intended to rest with respect to the surplus. It would be impossible for him to go through all the figures to which the noble and learned Lord had adverted. He had before him very long calculations in support of the view of the subject which he had taken in regard to a surplus, and in accordance with the principles laid down in the present Bill. For his own part, he firmly believed in the accuracy of these calculations. The noble and learned Lord said, when he (Lord Melbourne) stated that there would be a surplus on a former occasion, that it was perfectly evident from his manner of doing so that he was not sanguine in his belief that there would be a surplus. He owned that there was considerable difficulty as to arriving at anything like an accurate estimate as to the amount, for it must obviously be very difficult to calculate accurately what would be the sum derived from such a variety of sources. As to whether the sum would be large or small, it might happen, as often happened in other calculations, that the surplus which they calculated to amount to only a small sum might be of large amount, and consequently much more than they had anticipated; and it might happen, on the contrary, that a different result should be attained. It was only the general result that he meant to express, but he could assure noble Lords that, as far as he was able to judge, if they acceded to the measure, and adopted the principle of appropriation as laid down in the present Bill, the peculiar effect which he had stated to the House would be produced. It was not his intention to make many observations in re-

481
ply to the remarks or insinuations which had been thrown out as to the influee under which he was supposed to act. He had before alluded to this subject, and had directly contradicted the various statements that had been made; but he must again say, that if such influence as had been described was exercised with reference to the present Administration he was utterly unconscious of it, and he did not know anything whatever of the existence of such control; and, of course, for that of which he was unconscious, or which was unknown to him, he could not be held responsible. He would only state in reply that which he had repeated on a former occasion, that the noble and learned Lord had given credit to a statement without credit or foundation. But the noble and learned Lord now said, that the part of the measure before the House to which he objected had been adopted for the purpose of conciliating the agitator of Ireland. [Lord Lyndhurst had said agitators, he had used the word in the plural sense.] Well, then, as for the conciliation of agitators, he begged to deny the observation, as he formerly did, and to remark, as he had done when he had brought forward the proposition, that his object was to conciliate the whole country, and for the purpose of settling a question which the noble and learned Lord had himself said they should make any sacrifice to set at rest, which had so long distracted the country, and so long produced so much discord and dissention in that House. He had felt himself called upon to make these observations when he found that the noble and learned Lord had determined to persist in his intention to strike out of the Bill those clauses which he believed absolutely vital and essentially necessary to make the Bill satisfactory to the people of Ireland. After this he would not follow the noble and learned Lord into the plan which he had proposed as to the reduction of benefices; but he did not think that there was anything unfit or untenable in the proposition which he had made. With respect, however, to what the noble Lord had said regarding the stipends which he alleged would fall to the lot of many clergymen, he had some observation to make. The noble and learned Lord, after alluding to the character and learning of the clergy of the Church of Ireland, stated that they proposed to grant them incomes less in amount than
482
the salaries which noble Lords allowed to their upper servants. Was that, he would ask, the way to consider the question? How many public functionaries were allowed but a small income? He could not help thinking that this was one of the worst comparisons that could be adopted. He believed, that if the matter were carefully examined into, it would appear that the average amount proposed to be allowed to the Irish clergy was considerably superior to that which was made to the clergy in England. He believed this was the case; and noble Lords ought also further to recollect, that Ireland was a country in which everything was much cheaper, and the scale of prices much lower than was the case in this country. He would not attempt to follow the noble Lord into a statement on the details of the measure, for this probably would be done by other noble Lords; and he readily admitted that there were many of his noble Friends near him who were more conversant with the details of the Bill than he had had an opportunity of being. But he stood up to declare his adherence to the great and decided principle of the Bill which he had adopted, and which he had determined to abide by, and from an adherence to which he could not depart without a sacrifice of his character and reputation, and the success of which he firmly believed would be beneficial to the country, and which he and his colleagues were determined to stand by. Allusion had been made to a resolution on this subject which had been adopted in the other House, and it had been censured as highly reprehensible. He knew that the resolution had been adopted at the end of a long political contest, but he contended, and he firmly believed it to be the case, that the resolution was framed in milder language than such things generally were at the end of a political contest. Noble Lords must be fully aware that great heats arose in contests of this nature; but notwithstanding the length of the debate, he did not think that there was any violence or harshness of language in the resolution, and he certainly did not agree in the censure passed on it by the noble and learned Lord, who had resorted to more invective and contumely with respect to it than any violence of language it contained. If, however, there was anything violent or rash in this resolution, he thought that noble Lords opposite were

483
blameable, if not to the same extent, at least nearly so, as those who drew up the terms of the resolution. His own opinion was, that they should have resigned on the first vote when it was shown to them that they did not possess the confidence of the House of Commons, for there was hardly a vote of importance which the House of Commons came to when they were in office which did not mark a decided want of confidence in the Government which had called it together. If, therefore, there was anything violent or indiscreet in the language of the resolution, it was as much owing to the pertinacity manifested by noble Lords opposite, in attachment to office, as it was to the feeling of the party opposed to them. But he was of opinion that the resolution in question was not indiscreet—he was of opinion that the resolution was not rash and violent, but that it was calculated to set the question at rest, on grounds which would be really satisfactory to the country. Therefore, not only in point of honour, but in point of feeling, in point of every regard which they could consider binding on themselves as public men, he and his colleagues felt bound to adhere to the principle and to the letter of the resolution; and on these grounds he should give his decided negative to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord.
The Earl of Mansfieldspoke as follows: As the noble Viscount has declared his intention of opposing the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) I beg leave to trespass on the indulgence of your Lordships for a few moments, with observations on the Bill now under consideration; the objects of which, as they were most perspicuously detailed by the noble Viscount, on a former occasion, appear to me not to be necessarily combined in one Bill. If I entertained the opinion which appears to be held by his Majesty's Ministers, that no settlement of the tithe question will be satisfactory, unless it be accompanied with a new distribution of the Church revenues, and the appropriation of a surplus which appears, consequentially, to spring from that distribution, I should still have thought it better to divide the subject into two separate Bills, and should have directed your Lordships to the unfettered consideration of the tithe question, on which, although we entertain different
484
opinions, we might eventually have come to some agreement. In the Bill of last year his Majesty's Ministers held out to the clergy the advantage of a remission of the arrears due from them in consideration of their consenting to a clause which they knew would be objectionable, and upon the propriety of which I will not now argue. Your Lordships were incapable of listening, unmoved, to the details of the sufferings endured by the unfortunate clergy, who were, in some cases, actually obliged to till the ground for the maintenance of themselves and their families; details which were, on the contrary, met by some of the supporters of Government with little short of the most insulting levity. I do not recollect the particular provisions of that Bill, but it seemed to me to be drawn up with some recollection of the opposition they had previously received; the clergy, however, are now rather in a better situation, owing to the operation of Lord Stanley's Act. I have always been favourable to a consideration and settlement of the tithe question, particularly in a country where religious opinions are so various and opposed as they are in this. We have lately passed a Bill for this purpose applicable to England, and a meritorious one it is. His Majesty's Ministers excused themselves for not having completed it last year, on the ground of the great difficulties attendant upon the question. We have now, however, happily completed it; and although the circumstances of England and Ireland are certainly different, the equitable principles of that Bill are equally applicable to both countries. In the English Bill, your Lordships have recognised the validity of the property in tithes, and repudiated the idea of their being only the property of those who officiate in the Church. You have recognised the right of the lay impropriator, as well as of the incumbent, ascertaining only as far as possible the amount of tithes to which they are respectively entitled. Your Lordships, in this Bill, are required to apply the same principle to the patrons of advowsons which are to be purchased. In order to do this it is necessary that you should know the real amount of the deductions to which the tithe is subject, that you may ascertain its real value; and it is on that ground I am not averse to the re-opening of the commutations in some particular cases; and I am sorry that a suggestion

485
of mine was not adopted, to the effect that the Commissioners should not, in all cases, strictly abide by them. I quite agree with the noble Duke, who so clearly discriminated between the commutations effected under Lord Stanley's, and those effected under Mr. Goulburn's Act. This is an important measure. Whether it will tend to the pacification of Ireland or otherwise I know not, but we have considered it deeply, and done what we think to be just. I agree with the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) as to the effect which will be produced by reducing the incomes of the ministers. I believe that the landlord will be the only person who will profit by the change. The next point which presents itself for consideration, is the distribution of the revenues of the Church; this is a subject of some difficulty, and one has a natural reluctance to acknowledge the principle involved; but under all the circumstances of the case, I must conclude that the time is come when we can no longer, with propriety, refuse to make a fresh distribution of the revenues of the Church, for the purpose of rendering that institution more efficacious, and extending the Protestant religion. This was the principle on which the Church Temporalities Bill was founded; a Bill to which I never assented, in all its parts. To a re-distribution, however, of these revenues, made by persons who are the most capable of judging of the matter, I am not disposed to object; but I have a different opinion upon the subject from that which has been expressed by the noble Viscount. I cannot admit that the labours of a minister are to be estimated merely in proportion to the number of his parishioners; the extent of his parish must also be taken into consideration. There may be a small number of Protestants in proportion to the whole population, but those Protestants may be dispersed over a very wide circuit; and is the small-ness of their number any reason why the Church should be suffered to fall into decay, and to be left without a minister to officiate in it? I do not think that where the number of Protestants is so low as twenty-five, even a minister will be stationed among them in vain. I am acquainted with Ireland only through the descriptions given of it by those who belong to that country; but speaking from information thus acquired, I believe I may with confidence ask even Roman Catholics
486
themselves, whether the ministers of the Church of England have made any difference between them and their own Protestant flocks in those seasons of sickness and distress which render all men alike objects of sympathy and compassion; and yet this Bill seems to proceed upon the assumption that they have been exclusive in their attentions, and that they shall now be dealt with in the proportion of the numerical amount of one profession, as compared with the other. The Bill assumes that there is a superabundance of revenues to be dealt with; if so I would claim out of it a decent and becoming stipend for the ministers of the Established Church. I will not enter into any details for the purpose of ascertaining whether there be this surplus or not. I think that the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) has shown that we cannot calculate upon it. I should even, at one time, have thought it ridiculous to argue upon it; but as the Bill is formed upon the assumption of its existence, and enacts that an advance shall be made out of the Consolidated Fund on the credit of it; and as we are now discussing that Bill, I fear, not for the last time, some observations on the subject may not be totally irrelevant. I would not engage the House in any unnecessary dispute upon the nature of Church property. I will not presume to impugn the power of Parliament, to deal with the property of the individuals now holding it, and of their successors; but I must say that any violent and capricious interference with it, without providing proper compensation for the parties interested, not only for their pecuniary loss, but for their wounded feelings, would be an unwarrantable interference with the property of the country, would diminish its security, would prevent its beneficial investment, and would excite a general indignation against the injustice of Parliament. Trust-property and church-property are differently situated. A temperate and wise interference by Parliament with trust-property may not, at times, be utterly indefensible. I consider this property to be as sacred as our own; but there are cases of malversation in which the Courts of Law have interfered to make a distribution more consonant with the will of the founder of the trust, and I believe that in such cases as those the Parliament may justly interfere. Whether or not the property shall return to the family of the founder of the

487
trust, if the objects to which the property was originally to be applied, shall have ceased to exist, may be matter of debate; but I believe that even in those arbitrary Acts of Henry 8th.—proclaiming the suppression of the monasteries—there was a reservation made of original rights. The property of the Church rests upon this basis, that it must be vested in the Church, and appropriated to the uses of the Church. It has been stated by a great authority that our duty is, in the first instance, to apply the funds of the Church to its own benefit; that when we have provided for all its wants, we may see to what other purpose the remaining portion may be applied, and that we cannot apply them to a better purpose than that of moral and religions education connected with the Established Church. To this proposition I assent. I estimate the importance of national education so highly, that upon the mere abstract question of the advantages which the community would derive from it, I should have no hesitation in consenting to a grant of money to be applied to that object; but I look upon the property of the Established Church, as property which must be exclusively appropriated to the purposes of that Church—a Church which I must regard as the Church of the majority of this realm. It is not, certainly, the Church of the majority if we confine our attention to Ireland alone; and if the Union had been merely a federal union, and not one of consolidation, I admit that the property of the Established Church in that country would not have stood upon the same ground it now does. But even supposing that we were disposed to make a distinction between England and Ireland in this respect—to sequester the property of the Church, and say that both Protestants and Roman Catholics shall respectively support their own Churches, what reason have we to suppose that this would satisfy the Catholics? Have they not declared the total subversion of the Established Protestant Church to be the object at which they aim? And, of course, it is not for your Lordships to legislate for such an object as that. In distributing the revenues of the Church we must proceed as if all were belonging to it; and as if there was no difference of opinion among us. If I may rely on the evidence of Mr. O'Connell, the Irish people do not demand to be freed from the payment of
488
tithes on religious grounds; but that tithes would be equally objectionable to them, whether paid to the lay impropriator the clerical incumbent, or to persons of their own persuasion. Dr. Murray says, that the distribution of the revenues of the Church is not connected with religious feeling; he makes it a mere matter of political economy. Your Lordships, by this Bill, have relieved the people from the pressure of tithes; and there is another relief you have given them—that of the vestry cess, which they had no right to claim. I have no objection to appropriating the revenues of the Church to the purposes of education, provided that that education be given under the direction of the Established Church, and by the hands of her ministers. It is imposed upon them, indeed, as a duty, by an Act of Henry 8th., although as I think, rather for the purpose of substituting the English for the Irish language, than of giving the people such a moral and religious education as your Lordships wish to bestow upon them. I have no wis to speak with any disrespect of the Commissioners of education in Ireland, although I know that severe complaints have been made against them which will afford good grounds for inquiry. I am not satisfied with the practical effects' of their operations, because our object should not only be the maintenance of the Protestant religion in Ireland, but we should also legislate for the maintenance of the principles of the Established Church. The persons who have the direction of these schools, should be orthodox members of the Established Church. The spirit of the Reformation, I admit, was a spirit of inquiry, but it was an inquiry into truth, as embodied in the doctrines of that Church. I have as unqualified a respect for the Universities as I have for the right Reverend Bench; but I do not think that the Universities should be made an arena for theological discussion; nor do I think it an improvement to put persons of discordant opinions upon the Bench. I go further, and say, that in preparing the clergy for the higher episcopal duties of their sacred office, I do not think it likely to conduce to reform, to place persons of heterodox principles in the theological chair. The noble Viscount having left us some time in doubt, has at length declared that he will abandon the Bill, if we resist the appropriation principle. I am sorry to hear this, because I think that the discussions which have taken

489
place in this House, and which must be universally known, would have the effect of persuading the other House to accept of certain portions of the Bill upon which there is but little difference of opinion. That the settlement it contains of the tithe question would be acceptable to a great portion of the people of Ireland, cannot be denied—although complete satisfaction, I am afraid, is more than can be expected from any measure we may think proper to adopt. The threats of civil war which have been held out will have no effect upon me. In retiring from this House, I think we may say we have done our duty; which must be our consolation should we meet with censure where we think we are entitled to praise. We are supported cordially by the landed gentry; and I believe that the people—whose interests are surely as dear to us as our own—will do us justice, seeing that we have been always ready to accede to any reasonable projects of improvement, will not condemn us for rejecting those we have deemed to be of an opposite character. I do not think they will condemn us when they see our readiness to extend to Ireland the principles of an Act for the Commutation of Tithes which we have passed for England; but, should the feeling of the majority unfortunately be the contrary, we must submit to it with patience. For my own part, as long as I have a seat in this House, let there be censure or let there be praise, to be earned by the conscientious discharge of my duty, my vote shall correspond with my own feelings and opinions, as well as with those of my noble Friends, of whose patriotism I entertain no doubt, and with whom it is at once my pride and my pleasure to act.
Lord Hathertonobserved, that there was no individual in the House who had less reason to lay down grounds to persuade their Lordships to give him credit for sincerity than the noble Earl who had just spoken. If he could bring himself to think that this Bill was in any degree calculated to do harm to the Church of England, he would be the last man in the world to give it his support. He advocated it, however, on the present occasion, because he entertained a sincere conviction that, surrounded as the Church of England in Ireland was by a hostile population daily dragging its abuses into light, and thus calling into question the expediency of
490
its existence altogether, there was no other chance of salvation for it save by giving to that hostile population some interest in that surplus of revenue above its actual wants, which of late years had been very clearly proved to exist. The Church of England and the Church of Ireland, though united in law, were in a somewhat different situation; and his Majesty had never been more wisely advised than when he had declared from the Throne, that though the two Churches were in law inseparably united, there were circumstances connected with the Church of Ireland which rendered it desirable that Parliament should give to the affairs of that Church a separate consideration. The noble and learned Lord who had commenced this discussion, and who he was sorry not to see at that time in his place, had stated, and had stated with considerable emphasis, that it was worth the consideration of their Lordships, that Ministers would have, been in a minority on the appropriation clause had the Catholic Members connected with Ireland been withdrawn from their majority. He heard with the deepest regret such an observation proceed from the noble and learned Lord, for it was aimed directly at the union now happily existing between the two countries. He would have put it to the candour and fair dealing of the noble and learned Lord, had he been present in the House, whether, if that clause had been to be decided by those only who were connected with Ireland by birth and property, there would not still have been a large majority in its favour. He contended, that, as an union had been effected between the two countries, it was the bounden duty of every Member of the united Parliament to consider upon every measure relating to Ireland what were the opinions of the people of that country respecting it. Could there be any doubt that the Church of England in Ireland would not be permitted to exist for another session with its present extensive establishment, supposing that the people of Ireland had a Parliament of their own sitting in Dublin? That was a reflection to which he had unavoidably been led by the remark, the lamentable remark, which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He was not going to question the propriety of the existence of the present Church Establishment in Ireland. He knew that it had long existed there; he knew that it had been planted and maintained there, not by the affections of

491
the Irish people, but by the influence and power of the British Government. Rights and interests had in consequence sprung up, which claimed consideration. He was not going to advocate their subversion, but he was going to say that there never was a clearer course marked out for a British Legislature, seeing that the population which conformed to the Established Church did not exceed one-fifth of the whole population of Ireland, than that of extinguishing all the abuses which had grown up under it, and of applying such part of its revenue as exceeded what was indispensable for its own purposes to the religious and moral education of the Roman Catholic population. He always approached details of figures and statements of finance with a feeling of regret in that House. The noble and learned Lord to whom he had before alluded had given their Lordships an impression—he must be permitted to call it an erroneous impression—as to the nature of the distribution of Church property proposed under this Bill, and had said, that if that distribution were followed up, there would be no surplus for the Bill to appropriate. Now, to an orator of that noble and learned Lord's ingenuity, nothing would be more easy than to maintain a system of distribution by which no surplus would be left out of the revenues of the Church, even if they were eighteen, instead of eight hundred thousand, pounds. There would be no difficulty to a person of the noble and learned Lord's acuteness in proposing a system of distribution which would make any surplus, however large, disappear. In order to show the fallacy of the noble and learned Lord's statement, the noble Baron entered into a detailed account of the revenue of the parochial clergy arising under the provisions of the Irish Tithe Bill, and the expenditure consequent thereon. From this statement, which was nearly the same as that made to the House of Commons by Lord Morpeth—it appeared that the gross amount of revenue belonging to the parochial clergy was 461,900 l., and that the gross amount of expenditure required by the provisions of this Bill would be 385,425 l., thus leaving a clear surplus revenue of 75,475 l. Out of this surplus it was proposed to appropriate to the purposes of national education a sum of 50,000 l., thus leaving a balance of 25,475 l., which would be applicable to defraying the expenses of collection, and the management of the rent-charges, to compensating the owners of lay advowsons, and to paying off
492
the charges on existing benefices. Under this arrangement the fund provided by the Church Temporalities Bill would remain untouched, and that fund would, he contended, be much larger than had been calculated upon certain data furnished to Mr. Finlayson. He calculated that when this fund came into full operation, the total surplus would amount to 139,000 l. His noble Friend near him (Lord Melbourne) had properly stated, and had stated very truly, that the clergy of the Church of Ireland would be much better off under this Bill than the Clergy of the Church of England. Under this Bill each clergyman in Ireland would have an average gross income of 294 l., or an average net income of 282 l. Now the average net income in England was 285 l., but there the clergymen were liable to risks and losses, had the labour of collecting their revenue, and had also the task of paying their curates. Their average income was, therefore, less in point of reality, though it appeared larger in nominal amount. A noble Friend of his (Lord Fitzgerald), in a former debate, had made a reference to him, to which he had not adverted at the time, but on which he would say a few words on the present occasion. His noble Friend had quoted an expression of his in bringing in the Tithe Bill in 1834—namely, that in his (Lord Hatherton's) opinion it was desirable to keep the tithe question and the appropriation question distinct and separate. That opinion he sincerely entertained at the time, and he regretted that their Lordships by their own act and deed had rendered it impossible for the country to adhere to it. Their Lordships had then before them a measure giving to the clergy eighty per cent, on the gross amount of their compositions, without any appropriation clause at all; but that measure they had in their wisdom deemed it fitting to reject, and it was not for them now to taunt his noble Friend and himself for the failure of a measure which it would have been well for their Lordships and well for Ireland had they accepted. They might depend upon it, that the appropriation clause was the only price at which they could buy the settlement of this great question. It was the only price at which they could purchase the consent of the people of Ireland to it—it was the only price at which they could induce the representatives of large towns and popular constituencies in this country to agree to making the consolidated fund responsible for the payment

493
of the Irish clergy. If their Lordships would not consent to pay that price, they might rest assured that the question of suppression would take the place of the question of appropriation, and that in a few years they would hear of the principle on which that subversion was to be accomplished. He begged their Lordships to recollect, that the appropriation of the revenues of the Church of Ireland had been the real source of all the disputes and affrays amounting almost to civil war, which had so long obstructed Government in obtaining tranquillity in Ireland. The severity of the laws directed against this evil had only aggravated its intensity. The real cause of the evil was to be found in the universal sentiment entertained by the people of Ireland of the injustice of the existing appropriation. That had always been avowed by the Roman Catholic priests and the Roman Catholic agitators. The 4th of William 4th had relieved the lower classes of the occupying tenants of Ireland from the payment of tithe; but it had not lessened their dislike to the system. And why was this? Because every Irish tenant knew that the assessments which he paid to the repair of the roads on which he travelled, and to the maintenance of the police, were all institutions from which he at some time or other received benefit. It was from the opposite reason, because he knew that he derived no benefit from the payment of tithe, that the resistance to that payment excited the warmest sympathy among the peasantry of Ireland. What had been the course taken by the Legislature to subdue that resistance? Seventy years ago they had enacted, in point of legislation as to six or seven counties in the west of Ireland, the very same measures which they had recently enacted respecting them. Then their enactments had been attended with greater success than they had been attended recently, and for this reason, then their Lordships were stronger. Year after year they had loaded the statute-book with severe, and he might even say sanguinary laws, for the purpose of supporting the tottering fabric of the Church Establishment in Ireland. They had advanced a large sum for the support of glebe-houses in Ireland, and yet they had advanced but little in the consummation of their projects. They had taken military possession of the country by detachments of horse and foot and artillery, and after all that parade of force had succeeded in collecting 25,000 l. of tithe arrears at an ex-
494
pense of 12,000 l. They had voted 1,000,000 l. as a loan to the clergy on the security of their tithe, and not one farthing of it had yet been, or ever would be, repaid. And now, when all the hopes of the Church rested on four Barons of the Exchequer and their drunken commissioners of rebellion, it was said that the affairs of the Church never looked better. He admitted that in some cases payment had been got, but did their Lordships believe that the same feelings would not again break forth into the same resistance, and that they would not produce the same results? In discussing this question their Lordships were bound to recollect, that the Reformation had never taken effect in Ireland. For 300 years and more, by laws of sanguinary operation, they tried to support and advance the Reformation in that country—oppression, imprisonment, confiscation, arming the son against the father, and the father against the son, disinheriting of brothers—fraud and treachery of every kind—all had been tried, and tried in vain. The Roman Catholic population had signally defeated their oppressors—step by step—item by item, they had re-conquered all their civil rights—and here their Lordships were, with the experience of 300 years before them, following the same blind course, debating, not the question whether the temporalities of the Church should be given to the religion of the majority of the people, for that was not asked of them—debating, not the question whether there should be some proportionate division of those temporalities among the different sects, for even that was not required—but insisting that not one farthing of the revenues of the Church should be employed to enlighten the minds of the Roman Catholics or the Dissenters, although they formed ten-elevenths of the community of the kingdom. He had quoted to their Lordships an extract from the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to show that there was a large number of Churches in Ireland in which there were either no congregations or only very small ones. He had shown that there was not less than 240 parishes which contained not more than ten Protestant families. Now, he would ask of those noble Lords who were connected by birth or property with Ireland, whether they had never seen that which he saw twenty years ago for the first time, which had then made a powerful impression on his mind, and which had never since been

495
obliterated from it—he would ask, he said, any of the noble Lords opposite whether they had never seen in Ireland a hundred Roman Catholic peasants on their knees on the cold ground, round a humble edifice too small to contain them, and yet built and maintained out of their scanty earnings, while the Protestant Church was either left entirely deserted, or only echoed to the footsteps of two or three worshippers pacing down its aisles? Whilst on this subject he would call their attention to another fact, which bore strongly on the same subject. He observed that some short time since, the right reverend Prelate, the primate, had presented a petition from the diocese of Kilfenora, praying for a redistribution of the Church property of Ireland. Now, on looking to the Parliamentary Returns, he found that in the diocese of Kilfenora the members of the Established Church formed scarcely two-thirds per cent of the whole population. They were in the proportion of two-thirds of an unit to seven. If a redistribution of property took place in that diocese, he thought that the clergy of it would not even have salt to their porridge. But was this a solitary instance in Ireland? Quite the reverse. In the province of Armagh they formed sixteen—in that of Dublin fourteen—in that of Cashel four—and in that of Tuam three per cent of the population. There were three dioceses in which they were less than one-fiftieth, and eight in which they constituted less than a twentieth of the population. Startling as these facts were, there would be something consolatory if there were any prospect of this state of things being reversed, and if there were any hope that the number of Protestants was on the increase. But there was no such prospect, no such hope. He had referred to documents to see what the number of Protestants were some years back, and what they were now. The facts which he was now going to submit to the House were extracted from a very able article on this subject, published in the Edinburgh Review, of last July by Mr. Lister. In the reign of Charles the 2nd, Sir W. Petty stated the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics to be as three to eight. In the year 1733, Dr. Maule, Bishop of Dromore, stated it to be as three to seven and a-half. In the same year, the hearth-money collectors made it to be as three to eight. In 1731, the Roman Catholic
496
Bishop of Ossory made it to be as three to five and three-quarters; but Mr. Lister abjured his authority, as liable to suspicion. "Thus," says he, "the least exaggerated of these estimates of the number of Protestants a century ago makes them to the Catholics as three to eight. The proportion which they now bear is only three to twelve and three-quarters." He regarded this as a proof, not only that the Reformation never had taken effect in Ireland, but also that it never would take effect under their past system of legislation, and that liberality, and liberality alone, was the course which their legislation ought to follow. It was not unimportant to ascertain what was the course of other Governments in similar circumstances—as, for instance, in Austria, where the majority of the people were Catholics. He would not repeat what his noble Friend near him had said to their Lordships on that subject. The argument employed by his noble Friend was an argument of great weight, and must have produced considerable effect upon their Lordships. He would only say, in addition to it, that there was no state in Europe, save Spain and Portugal, and Italy, with which their Lordships would blush to have England compared or assimilated, which had not pursued a course diametrically opposite to ours. In Saxony, where the royal family was Catholic, the ministers of four different sects were salaried and paid by the state. In France, in Holland, in Catholic Belgium, all religions were treated with equal favour by the State. He found that the King of Prussia, to whom several Catholic provinces had been ceded on the termination of the war, had not only established in them all the different religions on the same footing, but had also established in his Lutheran provinces Roman Catholic Bishops, and had attached to them chapters and canons, and also a seminary for priests; and thus those Catholic provinces, which it was feared would be a constant source of danger and alarm to him, had become part of his strength and defence. In Ireland alone it was deemed safe and prudent to disregard the religion of the majority; and the result had been, that the Roman Catholics had there formed for themselves an Established Church not destitute of wealth, and that their priests, smarting under a sense of injustice, were bringing up the youth intrusted to them for tuition in feelings of

497
hatred, if not of hostility, to England. He contended that the education of the lower classes of Catholics could not be neglected any longer with safety to the interests of the Established Church. The value which was attached to education in Ireland was proved by the establishment of the Kildare-street schools, of the Diocesan schools, and of various other similar institutions. Latterly the Government had entered upon a better and a wiser course. It had established what had been justly and properly called a national system of education. Among all the great boons which the empire owed to the Administration of Lord Grey, and he had only to mention the improvement in our representative system, the opening of the trade to the east, and the total abolition of slavery, to remind them how great those boons were—there was none of such invaluable importance as the introduction of the national system of education in Ireland. That system was conceived in the true spirit of benevolence and philanthropy; it rested on the everlasting basis of Christian love and Christian charity; it would be known to posterity by the feelings of peace and amity which it would generate, by drawing under the same walls children of different religions, and by establishing among them relations of mutual confidence and harmony. There could be no doubt that these would be the happy results of this system, and he, therefore, rejoiced that the House of Commons had sent up to them a second time a Bill on this subject, and that they had connected with it a measure so well adapted for the moral and religious education of the people of Ireland.
The Bishop of Exeterspoke as follows*: I rise more particularly at the present moment, because the noble Baron, who has just sat down, has put forth principles which have not yet been advocated by noble Lords on his side. He has left us nothing to conjecture; he has told us, plainly, that the Church must give way:—that it is useless to persist, and that there is no hope of peace in Ireland while we continue the Establishment in its present state,—that it is not likely to take any hold upon the people of Ireland. The noble Baron has especially challenged us to consider the progress of reformation in that country, telling us that the know-
* From a corrected Report,
498
ledge of true religion has not advanced there. Now, to such an assertion as this, I offer the most unqualified contradiction. True it is that the cause of religious reformation was not taken up in the first instance in such a manner as became those who wished to propagate religious truth;—true it is that Henry 8th, Queen Elizabeth, and perhaps all the Sovereigns of the House of Stuart, with the exception of King James 1st, neglected the first duty of their station,—that of endeavouring to impress upon their subjects the knowledge of religious truth,—upon which both the security of the Throne and the temporal and eternal happiness of the people depend. Shame to their memories for that neglect! Until within the last thirty-six years there has been too much of the leaven of human politics in every thing connected with the Church of Ireland: from an early period of her history until recently, the Church has been starved, notwithstanding what we now hear of its enormous wealth. Some noble Lords, I see, appear to be astonished at such a declaration as this, but that astonishment must be removed if they will call to mind what they have read; for I suppose there are none among us who would attempt to interfere in such matters, without having read the works of Sir Henry Sydney, and Sir John Davis, with Clark's History of Ireland, and all those other writers who give an account of the state of Ireland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; all of whom show that the Church was then in a state of disgraceful degradation,—disgraceful, not to the Church but to the Governments which had anticipated, or, until within the last half century, continued that infamous Resolution passed by the Irish House of Commons in 1734; a resolution which ensured the poverty of the Church, with the exception of the episcopal revenues, for after ages. At that time there had been hardly any tillage in Ireland; indeed, such had been the want of it, that there had been an Act in force, until a very recent period, making it penal upon every cultivator not to till at least five acres every year. The demand for tillage was so small that it became totally neglected; and Campbell, in his "Survey of the South of Ireland," states, that in the year 1775, the clergy of Munster were in a pitiable state of poverty, in consequence. To such an extent did this poverty prevail, that the Royal Society of Dublin, so lately as the year 1771, adopted, at one of its

499
most solemn meetings, a resolution, deploring the condition of the country. And still later, in 1772, this poverty still continuing, no less a sum than 600,000 l. was expended in the importation of meal, corn, and flour, for its relief. At the discussion which took place in the Irish House of Commons, in 1793, a noble Earl, whom I do not now see in his place, distinguished himself by a speech, which was almost prophetic of the ills resulting from that disastrous vote of the Parliament, the resolution granting the elective franchise to the Roman Catholics. He stated, on that occasion, that tillage was of recent introduction into the country—the consequence of which was, the utmost poverty and total inefficiency of the Established Church in Ireland. Since the Union, however, the case has been very different; and in no country has there been so wonderful a spring as has been witnessed in Ireland, in religious character, owing to the diffusion of sound religious knowledge, in spite of the interruptions and tremendous persecutions which the clergy of the Established Church for the last few years have undergone. If it be, then, asked, what hope is there that any thing will be done for Ireland by the Established Church? I appeal to its present condition, there, for my reply. We have in it 2,000 ministers, who are an honour to the Christian Church. We have nearly 1,000,000 of professed members, who, in their religious character, and in their real attachment to the Church to which they belong, are very different from many of the so-called members of the Church of England. There is a strong and vigorous principle of religion in Ireland, which, although it is sometimes displayed with a degree of irregularity which I am not by any means disposed to applaud, is so vital in its character, that I have no doubt it will eventually sober down into the pure spirit of Protestantism. The condition of the Church is, therefore, an assurance to us of God's blessing that it will not be deserted by our High Master, but that he will eventually add to its followers from the multitudes of that benighted land. And I am not a little astonished, my Lords, when I consider what the party is which has been pursuing this amended course; most highly to their honour, when they were intrusted with the affairs of the Administration in 1806 and 1807, they were actuated by a laudable and earnest zeal to promote the best interests of the Church in Ireland. I hold in my hand a copy of a
500
letter which was sent by the late Lord Spencer, then Secretary of State for the Home Department, to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. It is couched in terms highly honourable to the Government who dictated it, in which honour more than one of his Majesty's present Ministers has a right to participate, and of that honour I freely give them their share. The letter is in these words—
"Among the important subjects involved in the Government of that part of the United Kingdom over which your Grace is appointed to preside, there is none on which his Majesty's paternal care for the welfare of his subjects leads him to look with more anxiety, than the present state of the Established Church in Ireland; and the obvious necessity of adopting without delay, proper measures for its support, and for remedying the evil which at present unfortunately exists. With this view, his Majesty is pleased to command me to write to you, requesting you to inquire into all such matters of information as may suggest themselves to you, or which may have occurred to the Bishops themselves, as useful in enabling his Majesty to give effect to his benevolent intention, of supporting the Established Church in that part of the United Kingdom."
Such were the instructions given to the Lord-Lieutenant by the Whig Cabinet of that day, and the Lord-Lieutenant followed them up by a circular letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church, in these words—
"I have the honour to submit to your Grace a copy of a letter I have received from Lord Spencer, intimating the command of his Majesty to communicate with your Grace, and the other Prelates of Ireland, upon the important matters therein contained. It will afford the most heartfelt satisfaction to me to be the instrument of promoting his Majesty's benevolent views towards the support of the Church, and to give effect to his paternal solicitude for the welfare of his people on a subject so vital to their interests, and in which the essential interests of the empire are so immediately concerned."
In consequence of these letters, inquiries were made throughout the several provinces and dioceses in Ireland. His Majesty's Ministers indicating at the same time the liberal intentions of the Government—announcing their intention of proposing votes for the support of the Church, as well as for the building of glebe-houses. Those Ministers were shortly superseded; but the Government who followed them acted upon the same principles; and the Commissioners of Instruction reported, in 1831, that the

501
churches had increased from 636 to 1,838 in number. This eagerness to increase the number of churches is, however, still more apparent from a return now on your Lordships' table. In spite of the discouragements it was necessary for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland to give to such applications, by announcing the hopelessness of compliance with them;—it appears that there were no less than thirty-eight applications for new churches, 147 for enlargement, and 113 for rebuilding, and these demands were not made under any supposition that the whole cost would be furnished by the Commissioners; for in every case in which they gave assistance, they required that the applicants should themselves supply a certain portion of the necessary funds, which, notwithstanding all their distress and suffering, they most liberally did. Is this, then, such a mark of coldness towards the Church as destroys all hope of her efficiency? There is no indication so conclusive on the subject of clerical residence as the means which are provided for ensuring it; the increase of glebe-houses is a satisfactory proof of the extent of residence in the benefices of Ireland. At the beginning of this century there were no more than 291 glebe-houses in Ireland. It appears, however, by the Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction, that in 1831 these had increased to 850, principally erected by the clergy themselves with but a trifling assistance from the State; and yet the noble Viscount tells us, that it is necessary to introduce a Bill for the reduction of the Church. The noble Baron, who spoke last, seems to think that reform is advancing with too rapid strides, that religion is travelling at too quick a pace; so much so, that it is absolutely necessary to check the eagerness on the part of the people to receive,—and on the part of the ministers of the Established Church to impart,—religious knowledge; for he has struck off one-sixth of the number of clergymen at a single blow. But is this in reality the object of the noble Viscount? Yes; the scheme which is to satisfy so perfectly the demands of justice, which is to produce so much tranquillity and effect so many glorious ends, consists in reducing the number of benefices from 1,385 to 1,250. The noble Viscount—and on this point he was followed by the noble Baron—has ventured to tell us, that the opulence of the clergy is so great, that it is necessary to give it some check; that the Church is in such an exuberant state of
502
prosperity—[Viscount Melbourne: No, no!]—You did not use those words; but you said that, from which I draw such a conclusion. I have a right to put the arguments of the noble Viscount in my own language. This is the real amount of what the noble Viscount says—he tells us it is necessary to reconcile the state of things in Ireland to "common sense and reason;" "that to enable us to defend it with decency and good faith, we must lop off a large portion of the Establishment;" and, therefore, I contend, that I am justifiable in using the word "exuberant." We have been further told, that the condition of the clergy in Ireland under the new Establishment, will be far better than that of the clergy in England. I have taken the trouble to ascertain how this stands from the figures of the noble Viscount; and from this calculation it appears, that the income allotted to the clergy will be 368,350 l. per annum, to be distributed amongst 1,250 parishes, giving an average income of 300 l. a-year. I beg your Lordships to look, however, at the real result. The noble Viscount has assumed, that in all cases the Commissioners will grant to the incumbent the full amount the Act permits; but that would truly be a violation of the instructions contained in the Bill, and, therefore, is not to be expected from them. Where the power of graduation is permitted, they will surely not feel justified in taking either the highest or the lowest scale; and it is also not to be over-looked that, in taking 300 l. a-year as the income of the clergy, we cannot expect that the tax-gatherer should forget his claims—that the two-and-a-half per cent, deduction will be abandoned—that the payment to curates will be dispensed with, or any of the other charges inseparable from the existence of those incomes. Of the 1,250 benefices the Commissioners will be at liberty to fix the incomes of the clergy below 100 l. I may assume that they will fix them somewhere about 75 l.; this will be about the average. Forty-five pounds' worth of glebe is the highest amount that can be granted; and to small livings I do not suppose the Commissioners will assign more than 25/.; their incomes then will be, after the necessary deductions, somewhere about 98 l. 2s. 6d.: that will be the liberal allowance to 123 livings! Then there will be 675 in which the population ranges between 50 and 500 Protestants; there the incomes of the incumbents will not be less than 150 l. a-year nor more than 200 l., with probably

503
30 l. worth of glebe, from which, as from the rest, the necessary deductions are to be made. The next class will bring us to livings, of which the incomes vary from 250 l. to 300 l. a-year. Here I calculate that the incomes will be about 321 l. 10 s. I next proceed to a higher scale of livings, where the population ranges between 1,000 and 3,000, and where the Commissioners assign between 300 l. and 400 l. a-year, and in this class I calculate that the incomes will be about 385 l. 10 s. Lastly, I would call your Lordships' attention to the highest class, namely—that where the population exceeds 3,000, and where the income cannot, under the Bill, exceed 500 l. a-year, with 45 l. for glebe. The net income of this class of livings I would fix at 445 l. 10 s. Then there will be payment provided for 241 curates; these will, of course, be chiefly assigned to the larger livings, but the average income of all the livings cannot, as I have now demonstrated, exceed 240 l. 10 s. 6d. the largest being but 445 l. 10 s. Now, clearly, that would be placing the Irish clergy in a worse situation than the Scottish clergy, for in Scotland the Manse must always be kept in repair for the clergyman, whereas, by the Bill, all the glebes will at once vest in the Crown, and not one of them can be obtained by a clergyman, without the special order of the Lord-Lieutenant; and all this his Majesty's present Government are pleased to describe as a most liberal Church Establishment. In further confirmation of the grounds which I am laying before your Lordships for the vote I intend to give, I will call your attention to the state of the diocese of Tuam. In that diocese there are—

34

benefices, containing a superficies of more than 40 square miles each, on the average.

£.

s.

d.

2

will be suppressed, having fewer than 25 inhabitants of the Church of England.

32

remain, having a superficies of 43 square miles each; of these—

2

are in Class I., the annual income of each at the utmost

142

10

0

24

in Class II., between 50 and 500 churchmen; (of these eight will have no glebe-houses)

240

0

0

in Class III., between 500 and 1,000 (one has no glebe-house)

224

10

0

504

3

in Class IV., between 1,000 and 3,000 (two have no glebe-houses)

385

0

0

32

At present there are forty-six working clergymen resident on these thirty-two benefices. By the Bill there will be only thirty-five. At present, one benefice, and one only, has an income exceeding 1,000 l. per annum, namely, the wardenship of Galway, an union of seven parishes, having an income of 1,127 l. per annum; a population of 1064 members of the Church among 56,503 Roman Catholics, and maintaining five clergymen (the warden and four vicars). By the Bill, these five will be reduced to two vicars—one living in the city of Galway, to sustain the interests and character of the Church, amidst 50,000 Roman Catholics, with an income, being (in Class III.) at the utmost of 324 l. 10 s. per annum, and without a glebe-house. The other will be in the rural part of the union (Class II.) having 240 l. per annum, and no house. In the diocese, there are at present five other benefices, having an income exceeding 500 l. per annum, each; of these, one having only forty-three churchmen, (the number increasing) will be in Class I.; the other four in Class II. At present these four maintain six resident clergymen. These, by the Bill, will be reduced to four. Such, then, will be the working of the Bill. Then it will deal extensively with patrons—it has much to do with patronage; for the buying up of which, at twelve years purchase, it proposes to make provision. A noble Duke, whom I do not now see in his place, is impropriator of nearly thirty parishes, and is patron of many of the vicarages. In the diocese of Lismore, alone, he presents to thirteen vicarages, having his portion in all the parishes as impropriate rector. His share in the compositions of these thirteen benefices amounts to about 6,000 l. per annum. The vicars have somewhat more than 4,300 l. per annum among them, besides glebes. Now, in dealing with these vicarages according to the Bill, it will be necessary to compensate the patron. Taking 4,316 l. as the amount of the compositions, and deducting 30 per cent., according to the Bill, in order to reduce these compositions to rent-charges, (which 30 per cent, is allowed to the landlord on account of imposing this liability upon him,) the compositions are lowered to 3,021 l. per annum; and then, taking two-and-a-half per cent, for collecting the rent-charges, the result is, that these com-

505
positions are reduced to 2,946 l. per annum. Add to this the value of the glebes (which according to Erck, would average about 236 l. per annum, upon thirteen benefices in the province of Cashel), the sum is 3,182 l., being the amount of the annual value of the thirteen livings. These are to be compensated to the patron at the rate of twelve years' purchase; therefore 38,184 l. will be paid to the Duke of Devonshire as patron. Of the thirteen benefices, three will be suppressed, not having twenty-five churchmen each; three will be in Class I., entitled, according to the noble Lord's statement, to 142 l. 10 s. each; seven in Class II., entitled to 240 l. each. Thus, the amount paid to all the clergymen will be only 2,106 l. 10 s. per annum. The Consolidated Fund will have to pay the Duke's compensation, (38,184 l.,) which, in three per cent. consols at ninety, will amount to a perpetual annuity of 1,280 l. But as this fund will receive the difference between the present and the future value of the livings, amounting to 1,076 l. per annum, its loss will be only 204 l. per annum. The result of the whole operation may be thus briefly expressed:—The Duke of Devonshire as patron, receives 38,184 l. in exchange for patronage; the minister gets the patronage of ten livings: the Consolidated Fund loses 204 l. per annum; the Church loses 1,076 l. per annum. Such are the results of this Bill with respect to patronage; and then with respect to vicarages only, they are enormous, indeed, when we come to the better class of livings. To say, therefore, that the scheme is one for the benefit of the Established Church, is ridiculous; to say that it will promote peace, is not only ridiculous, but glaringly false. If it be adopted with the view of pacifying those persons who would extort enormous concessions from the weakness of Parliament, it is a mistake; for it will only encourage these persons to make a vast increase in their demands. We have not heard one single noble Lord affect to say, that the scheme is a final settlement. It would be an insult to common sense to suggest such an idea. All that the scheme can do is, to carry the Administration over another year; after which they must trust to the chapter of accidents for something else; but let us, in the mean time, recollect what we are doing—we are encouraging a Bill which is opposed to the law of the land; we are encouraging a scheme of perjury and perfidy, as gigantic as ever stained the pages of history; and I have been greatly dis-
506
appointed, in observing the cautious abstinence of noble Lords on this ground of objection, which I consider to be the most essential of the whole—I mean the tremendous crime of which the Roman Catholic agitators are guilty—the burden of which is quite appalling to the imagination. To think that the British House of Parliament should even consult on a measure based upon such perfidy as this, without ever alluding to it, makes one think that one has not, indeed, fallen upon the happiest of times. But I must pause, and apologise to one Noble Earl who has alluded to the point with his usual eloquence; and I would do it in the most ample manner possible. That noble Lord is never backward in asserting the rights of the Church. Is there one noble Lord who has spoken, or is about to speak, who will rise up in his place, and say, that he considers that those who are driving on this measure, have not been guilty of treachery or perjury of the grossest kind? I defy any one to contradict me, when I say, that not a single agitator of Ireland has been free from the guilt of the most tremendous perjury. It is the condition on which they have received their civil privileges, to take an oath which I say they have most unscrupulously violated; and if there be any doubt on this subject, I will mention one or two circumstances to show the construction which is put upon that oath by the Roman Catholics themselves. All Catholic public functionaries are required to take this oath. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta was nominated by his Majesty one of the Council of that Island. The oath was tendered to him, accordingly; but when he saw the tenor of it, he felt that, as an honest Catholic, he could not observe it, and therefore he did what became him as an honest man—he refused to take the oath, and he is not a member of the Council. If I am wrong, the noble Viscount can correct me, as could the noble Secretary of the Colonies, if he were here; therefore we have, in this instance, the testimony of a Roman Catholic, as to the stringent nature of the oath. But I will cite another authority—it is that of a Roman Catholic Member of the other House (Mr. Wyse, the representative of Waterford), who has published a history of the Catholic Association. At the end of this history he gives a digest of various events which had happened previous to the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Speaking of the 5th of March, 1829, he says—

507
"A Bill was introduced to abolish the civil disabilities of the Roman Catholics by repealing the oaths of supremacy and abjuration, substituting for them an oath of allegiance to the Protestant succession in the House of Brunswick, and binding the Catholics to defend the settlement of property as established by law, and not to injure nor suppress the present Church Establishment."
Such is the sense in which this Roman Catholic also views the oath. And let me ask those noble Lords particularly, who were parties to the passing of the Relief Bill, whether they would not, at that time, have scouted the idea of attaching any other meaning to it? And would any one, then, have dared to say, without exposing himself to the taunt of illiberality from all present, that within seven years this oath would be set at naught, and that every Irish Roman Catholic Member of the House of Commons would join in an attempt to subvert the Established Church; or, still more, that an officer of his Majesty's Government, a Roman Catholic Gentleman, the Attorney-General of Ireland, should be one who would join in bringing in a Bill for that very purpose—for the Bill bears his name upon the back of it as one of those who brought it in—the name of the Attorney-General for Ireland; a Roman Catholic who has sworn to do nothing either to subvert or to injure the Protestant Establishment in Ireland; and yet the very Bill which so bears his name proposes to cut up that Establishment root and branch—[Oh, oh!]—noble Lords may jeer me, but I repeat it; the Bill makes the Establishment dependent upon the will of a Committee of the Privy Council, which is, of course, to be nominated by the Secretary for Ireland—a Nobleman who, unless he be grievously slandered, is in the habit of taking recommendations of persons to fill all sorts of stations from those very gentlemen to whom I have alluded. I need not say, that they must consider themselves bound by this oath; others have said so. The noble Baron near me (Lord Holland) has said so, in a letter addresed to a friend of his. Dr. Shuttle worth asks him whether there will be any security, and whether they, the Catholics, are to be believed on their oaths, and will be considered to have abandoned all designs to subvert the Protestant Church, if they distinctly say so? I take this from a letter addressed to the warden of New College, Oxford, written by Lord Holland, and printed in 1827. The answer of the noble Baron is as follows:—
508
"I can only say, that for the last twenty years, they have been saying so distinctly, repeatedly, solemnly, and I believe sincerely, in all their petitions, declarations, and in their evidence upon oath; whether they will now say, they will continue to do so, is somewhat more problematical."
The noble Baron says, that the oath has been uniformly taken, believing it to be binding. I call upon him, then, to assent to my assertion, that all those who have set forward the agitation which has been kept up against the Protestant Church have grossly violated their oath. All those who have been concerned in concocting this Bill cannot have lost sight of the injury they are doing the Church,—it is intended for the purpose of weakening it at least; the noble Viscount has declared this openly, for he said, it is a great discouragement to Protestantism. Will any one venture to maintain, after this, that the measure is innoxious to the Church? Does not common sense declare that those who have taken this oath have been guilty of perjury in forwarding if? And are not your Lordships bound to refuse to make yourselves parties to perjury and perfidy like this? Has there not been a solemn engagement entered into by the Ministers, as far as they are concerned, to preserve the rights of the Church inviolate? I have again the authority of the noble Baron near me on this point, for he says,—
"The Union does give a claim to the security of the Church of Ireland, and as long as there is a prospect of effecting, not a nominal, but a real Union, by which the Irish people shall be admitted to the full enjoyment of our constitutional privileges, so long on the ground of scruples, and in consideration of the article of Union though not from a sense of its usefulness, I am ready to maintain the Protestant Church with herenormous revenues." [Lord Holland, Hear! hear!"] I am glad the noble Baron, Lord Holland, cheers. I call upon him to fulfil his promise, now, in the presence of his Peers; by his honour as a Peer—by his integrity as a man—and by his faith as a Christian—to redeem the pledge which he has given; a pledge given—not in the heat of debate—but calmly and deliberately. And as a reason for making concession, he has thus pledged himself that if those concessions were made, he would, in consideration of the Articles of Union, "maintain the Protestant Church, with her enormous revenues." And does he think that he is doing so, by

509
joining in the concocting of this measure, and by maintaining it? It is extraordinary to me if he do. I am anxious to hear how he can do so. My Lords, the noble Baron (Lord Hatherton), seems to consider the Established Church as useless or idle, and that, therefore, it must not be kept up, but that its revenues must be equally distributed among all classes; and this, coupled with the declaration of the noble Viscount, that it is right the establishment should be that of the majority of the country, would lead us to suppose he means, that because the majority is Roman Catholic in Ireland, the Established Church ought to be so too.—[Viscount Melbourne "No"] Such, however, is the effect of the noble Viscount's argument, and it is quite a relief to my mind to be told he did not mean to say so; in the same speech I understood him to speak of the Bill as a discouragement to the Protestant Religion. So I understood the noble Viscount; but I will not press that construction, as the noble Viscount's disclaims it. In fact, I should have supposed that such could not have been his meaning, if his words had not conveyed the idea so plainly to my mind; because he used to be one of those who spoke of the necessity of maintaining the Protestant religion in Ireland. He would not, he said, consent to the passing of the Relief Bill, as it would check the spread of Protestantism in Ireland;—that is a declaration of sentiment which is ascribed to him, at least. He said it was "a consummation devoutly to be wished" to extend the interests of true religion in Ireland—that he was even ready to forego his hopes of the Catholic relief bill if he could be made to see that the consequence of it would be to check the spread of true religion.
I will not trespass longer on your Lordships' time on this occasion. I feel it to be an occasion of awful importance, for our conduct on which we shall have to answer. Your Lordships are this night called upon to declare whether you will adhere to the faith of your forefathers, or whether you will abandon it on the grounds of mere expediency? I am quite sure that you will reject this measure; I have no doubt of it; I never have had any. My only hope is, that you will not be thwarted in that quarter where it is of the utmost importance that sound principles should prevail. My only wish is, that your faithful adherence to the cause of true religion,
510
as well as to the constitution of this realm, will make converts of his Majesty's Ministers.
Lord Hollandsaid, after the allusions that had been made to his conduct by the right rev. Prelate, he thought it necessary, in his own vindication, to say a few words. He rose for the purpose of redeeming that pledge which the noble and rev. Lord said he had made. He gave their Lordships his assurance that he should vote for this Bill, and he should vote for it for the purpose which the noble and rev. lord said he was pledged to fulfil—to take his chance of maintaining the Irish Church; and he considered he maintained that Church, though it might be in some small degree curtailed by this Bill of its enormous revenues. Enormous revenues, perhaps, the noble and rev. Lord did not consider them, who held such notions of Church reformation, glebe-houses, and agistment tithes: whose understanding seemed to be that a revenue of 600,000 l. was not an enormous revenue for the Church. It might not be in the view of the noble and rev. Lord a matter of any importance, for large was the amount of the revenue in comparison with the number of the flock, their wants, and the duties to be performed. The noble and rev. Lord talked of the flourishing state of the Church and of the Protestant religion in Ireland; he told them of a great many churches that had been built, of a great many glebe lands that had been improved, and this was the evidence he brought of the progress of the Church. But the right rev. Prelate did not tell them of any increase in the number of the Protestants. He did not understand these abstract notions of the Church. What he understood a church to consist of was a great number of laymen and clergymen professing the same religion. He did not understand the Church to be flourishing because there were more churches and a less number of people to go to them than there were formerly. He did not think the noble and rev. Lord had adopted a decent or decorous manner of answering questions in the House. It was neither decent nor decorous to quote pamphlets, as his had been quoted on the present occasion; but the right rev. Father in God had set the example, and it was not impossible that he might yet some day find the inconvenience of having set such an example. If the right rev. prelate had done him the honour to investigate that pamphlet fully, he would

511
confidently say that no opinion would have been found in it at variance with any opinion that he had before expressed in that House. It was some years since he wrote that pamphlet, and the opinion he expressed in it was, that by granting Catholic emancipation, they had a chance of saving the Protestant Church; for the more concession they made the more likely they were to preserve it; but on the other hand, its preservation was impossible if they acted in a spirit of exclusion and distrust. The opinion he had expressed in the pamphlet on the subject of the Union was a little stronger than the opinion he should express now if he were to revise it. The article of the Union to which he referred said, that the discipline and government of the Church of Ireland should be the same as the Church of England. Not one word was contained in it relative to the Church temporalities. It was well known at the time of the Union, that Mr. Pitt contemplated two measures for the complete separation of the churches. It was impossible to look at the proceedings of that period and to contend that the Union was any bar to the present Bill. The Union reminded him of a man of whom he could not speak without respect, the father of his noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne. In a speech which he delivered, after much consultation with the government of the day, he stated—(in that forcible way in which he always stated everything—for his speeches contained much wisdom and thought) as one of the reasons for which he should rejoice in the Union, "that it would get rid of that curse and bane of Ireland—the tithes." The speech of Lord Minto, upon that occasion, was one of the most elaborate ever delivered in Parliament; "the advantages of the Union, he thought, were not only the removal of civil disabilities from the Catholics, but the settlement of those religious differences which prevailed in that country—Ireland." Perhaps, however, he was attaching more importance to the subject of the Union than a mere casual reference to it on the part of the learned and rev. Lord deserved. Let him ask their Lordships, were they sitting here in the character of the Parliament of a Supreme Government, or not? were there either here, or in the other House, men fettered in their votes, or not? The learned and rev. Lord talked of peace. Was it consistent with peace, or charity, for one man to set himself up
512
as the judge of another man's conscience?—were Members of that House to stand up, and arraign Members of the other House, on no less a crime than that of perjury—perjury, and for what? To what did the imputation amount, after all, but that the persons accused by the learned and rev. Lord did not apply the same construction to an Act of Parliament as the right rev. Prelate. A more religious, charitable, pious, and acute man, perhaps, did not exist than the Attorney-General for Ireland; and he was sure that, in proposing this Bill, that learned person believed it to be quite consistent with the oath he had taken. The rev. Lord had no right to put his own construction upon the Bill, and then charge that learned individual with a violation of his oath, because he did not take a similar view. A noble Earl opposite, in a speech which appeared to have made much impression upon the House, spoke of the conditions sought to be imposed upon the clergy by the House of Commons; but was it anything new in this country for the representatives of the people, when called upon either to grant money, or to remit that which was due to the State, to annex certain conditions to the grant, having for their object the security of their rights and property? Had they entirely forgotten the constitutional maxim of this country—"grant and grievance go together?"—and how did the case stand? The clergy on one side came to Parliament and said,—"such is the peculiar situation of our property, owing to the difference in matters of religion which prevails, that we cannot enforce our rights, we cannot recover our just debts, and therefore we call upon you, the Legislature, to grant us relief." To which, in the true spirit of the House of Commons of old, and of the Constitution, they reply—"You call upon us to pass laws for your relief, but we must have a grievance redressed, and until this is done we will not agree to your request." If Edward 1st, who was called the English Justinian, said to an able sophister like the noble Duke, or to a man of so distinguished a mind as the noble Earl, "I want my eighths or my tenths to carry on my wars in Scotland," they would say—"O, but we want our charters confirmed." "Your charters!" says the King, "what have they to do with my eighths, my tenths, or my fifteenths? Give me them first, and I will talk to you about your charters afterwards."

513
But if this system had been assented to, the country would never have had its Petition of Rights. When Charles 1st came for his subsidy, he said—"You must vote me the money, or I cannot go on." "True," said the House of Commons, "but we cannot vote you the subsidy until you grant us our Petition of Rights." If the thing were right, and the House of Commons were determined to have it, that was the right way to obtain it. He believed the measure was good for every part of the country, and he would put it again to the learned and rev. Lord, to consider whether it was not the only one which was likely to preserve such an anomaly as the Irish Church was; an anomaly, of which there was no example in the history of surrounding nations. If they would have an Established Church in the midst of a people not of its communion, the only way to preserve it was to court the affections of those who were naturally hostile to it.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he must maintain, that the oath alluded to, had been intended by Parliament as a security for the Protestant Church, which he thought no man, in or out of the House, could deny. He agreed with the noble Prelate in believing that individuals had obtained power by taking that oath, which they had afterwards used in violation of it. If he would look for a proof of the correctness of the view which he took of that oath, he would look around that House, and he would say, that he saw not one member of another church taking any part in the present discussion. It proved that those noble Lords did regard the oath as intended to be a security to the Protestant Church, and that they considered the present measure to be one which aimed a fatal blow at the very existence of that Church. He admired their conscientious conduct, and would to God that all the Members of the other House, who were Roman Catholics, had paid the same regard to the oath as the Roman Catholic Peers of that House. The simple question before the House was, whether they were to have an Established Church or not? If any part of the property of the Irish Church were taken away, and given to any other purposes than those of the Church, from that moment the maintenance of the Church-establishment would be virtually given up. It was argued, that the majority of the people of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and that, therefore, the
514
Church could not be maintained. There were spots in the country where the Dissenters were predominant, and if the Establishment was to be given up in one case, he maintained that the Dissenters,—not the whole body of Dissenters, for he believed there were many of them who were in favour of the Establishment, believing that religion would not long be maintained in the country without it—but he believed that there was a portion of the Dissenters who had joined the revolutionary party in this country, and who wished to have similar concessions made to them with regard to the Established Church in England. The question was, whether they as Protestants, valuing the blessings which the Reformation had conferred upon them, by giving and securing to them a sound scriptural religion, would give up their rights and privileges? If they did so, they would be guilty of gross dereliction of duty to themselves, and to the country. If they gave up the Establishment, they would give up that true and enlightening religion which had conferred so many blessings on this country. The Protestant Reformation had been incontrovertibly proved to be the foundation of those liberties, civil and religious, which, as a nation, we enjoyed beyond any other country on earth. If they gave up that, they would give up the foundation of all their greatness. From the moment they surrendered any part of the established religion in one part of the empire, upon no principle could they support it in any other part, and therefore he felt bound to support the amendment of his learned Friend.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought, that if there was any foundation for so grave a charge as that of perjury, it ought to be brought forward in a solemn, distinct, and substantive form. He also thought it unfair to infer, that because a Peer happened to be absent from that Committee, he did not therefore take any interest in the question. He knew that a Catholic Peer was present during the discussion the other night, but though he did not vote, on a division having taken place, he might be fairly supposed to have been ready to vote. He knew of two Catholic Peers, of the highest rank, having distinctly paired off, and of another who had placed his proxy in the hands of one of his noble friends, to be used with respect to this very Bill. He distinctly recollected that Sir R, Peel, on one occasion, declared

515
that every Roman Catholic Member of Parliament was fully entitled to all the rights, powers, and authority of a Member of Parliament. Was it fair then to talk of the votes of Members of the other House as founded in perjury? A noble Lord who had spoken early in the debate, had declared that the decision of the majority of the other House was not satisfactory to the people. Was that, right? And then again to talk of Roman Catholic Members of Parliament not being allowed to interfere in questions affecting the Established Church, he would ask, why call upon them to pay tithes, if they were to take no interest in the Church? The argument used by a right rev. Prelate, that the Church was increasing, because new churches had been built, and others repaired, was most extraordinary, because all knew that when architects were sent out, they would be sure to find something to do. No one but the right rev. Prelate would have taken such an architectural view of the subject. The right rev. Prelate also took a view of the question, in respect to the number of acres under tillage. But he thought that was a most clerical and Irish view of the question. He would not go into the question of appropriation, but merely add, that if they wished to make the Irish Church efficient, they must make its duties commensurate with the revenues it received.
The Archbishop of Armaghprotested against the measure, which, professing to be a measure for the settlement of the Church, provided for the transfer of the property of the Church to other uses. It gave to the Privy Council the power of suppressing parishes by uniting them to others. The surplus revenues were to be employed, not for the uses of the Church, but to provide that education for the people which the State was bound to provide; an education, moreover, conducted on principles in which the Clergy could neither participate in nor sanction. He could not do otherwise than express the strongest condemnation of the measure.
The Committee divided on the original motion: Contents 47; Not-contents 138—Majority 91.
Amendment carried.
On the 77th Clause the Committee again divided: Contents 47; Not-contents 135—Majority 88.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Argyll

Falkland

Grafton

Melbourne

Leinster

Torrington.

Sutherland.

BARONS.

MARQUESSES.

Cottingham

Clanricarde

Dinorben

Conyngham

Ducie

Headfort

Duncannon

Lansdowne

Foley

Queensberry

Gardner

Tavistock

Glenlyon

Westminster.

Hatherton

EARLS.

Holland

Albemarle

Langdale

Burlington

Mostyn

Carlisle

Plunket

Charlemont

Saye and Sele

Craven

Seaford

Granville

Seagrave

Ilchester

Strafford

Leitrim

Suffield

Minto

Templemore

Radnor

Thanet.

Scarborough

BISHOPS.

Sefton.

Bristol.

Durham

The Dukes of Norfolk, Devonshire, and Cleveland, together with 32 other Peers, paired off.
Clause rejected.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were disposed of; the House resumed; the report to be received.