Sitting of 3 June 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Municipal Corporations (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Attornies of Sunderland for Repeal of Duty Certificates.—By several HON. MEMBERS from various places for Amendment of Factories Regulation Act.—By several MEMBERS from various places against Turnpike Trusts Consolidation Bill.—By Mr. LUCAS, from Monaghan, for Excise Licenses (Ireland) Bill.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various places, that the House do adhere to the Provisions of Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, as originally passed by the House.—By several How. MEMBERS, from various places for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland). —By Mr. GROTE, from the Stationers of London for a Drawback of the Duty on the Stocks in hand.—By Mr. BOLLING, from Bolton-le-Moors, for equalization of Duty on East and West-India Sugars.—By Mr. PARROTT, from the Dissenters of Totness for Abolition of Church Rates— By Mr. HOLLAND and SIR E. CODRINGTON, from several places for extension of time of repayment of Money borrowed for Building Workhouses—By Mr. SCARLETT, from Lewes, against Vote by Ballot.—By Dr. BOWRINO, from Fenwick, for Alteration of Law relating to Statute Labour (Scotland).—By Dr. BOWRING, from Fenwick, for Abolition of Flogging and Naval Impressment.—By SIR R. VIVIAN, from Medical Profession (Bristol), for remuneration for attending Coroner's Inquests, and from the Legislative Council of Lower Canada, against alteration of Timber Duties.—By Mr. LOCH, from Spirit Dealers of Kilmaud, in favour of Spirituous Liquors Bill; and from the Hand-Loom Weavers of Saltcoats and St. Quirose, for Regulation of Wages, and from Cature, against Salmon Fisheries Bill.

TITHES AND CHURCH (IRELAND)—ADJOURNED DEBATE—THIRD DAY.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonin rising to address the House said, he had offered himself at an earlier period of the debate for that purpose, but had not succeeded in catching the Speaker's eye. He was rather pleased than otherwise at that circumstance, because, since he had before risen, the

9
important question which now awaited the decision of the House had been placed upon its true grounds. The question now-resolved itself into this—"are we to have an Established Church in Ireland, or are we not? He, perhaps, might be thought to have stated the question within too narrow a compass, and he certainly did believe it was a question affecting the welfare and dearest interests, not merely of Ireland, but of this great and extensive empire. He believed the question to be this, and no less than this—"are we to have an Established Church within this empire at all?" He believed that if it were not now distinctly avowed to that extent, sooner or later the question must come to that. Nay, he believed that if they went on in the downward course proposed to them, they would at no distant day have to decide whether they were to have preserved to them and their posterity the blessings of the British monarchy and constitution. It had been stated again and again, even within these walls, that this nuisance, as the Protestant Church was termed, must be abated. Delenda est Carthago was the cry now used. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) had no later than last night uttered this striking exclamation—"Down with the institution which cannot be sustained save by Old Sarum and Gatton." Therefore, it was now, within these walls and outside of them, boldly stated that the Established Church in Ireland must be destroyed. He was quite aware that the hon. and learned Member, finding from the loud cheers from this side of the House that he had spoken too plainly, afterwards sought to correct his expressions and spoke of the abuses of the Church —but there was no doubt as to the language he had really used, and it was evident from the quarter where the cheers proceeded that his real meaning was perfectly well understood. But even supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman had applied himself to the abuses of the Church, he would ask what were the abuses which he had established or even alleged against the Irish Church? And if the House would coolly and dispassionately consider the subject, he would venture to say, that they would find no ground of complaint, which would justify them in plundering it of its revenues, and signing its death-warrant. He had taken notes of the topics which the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged in his speech last night; and his first charge
10
against the Established Church in Ireland was, that the Clergy of that Church, forsooth, had had the audacity to assert their claim to a legal and incontrovertible right. He begged to know whether they had already arrived at the time when it was to be made a charge against a body or an individual, that they appealed to the laws of the land in the defence, or for the assertion of their own rights, that the clergy were to be maligned and persecuted because they had dared to appeal to the laws for the recovery of their undoubted right? This property had belonged to the Church for centuries; but it rested not merely upon the possession of centuries; it rested upon one of the most solemn national compacts that ever had been entered into. The House would readily conjecture that he referred to the legislative Union between the two countries. By that solemn compact it was made an indispensable and fundamental provision, that the branch of the united Church of England and Ireland, established in Ireland, should be maintained inviolable. And it was not to be forgotten, that this Act of Union was passed subsequently to the period when Roman Catholics obtained political power, as the House was aware that the elective franchise was conferred on the Roman Catholics in 1793, and the Act of Union was not passed till the year 1800. The next charge made against the clergy of the Church of Ire-laud by the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that they had been aided in enforcing their legal rights by a body called the Lay Association. Upon a former occasion he had not hesitated to avow that he was a Member of that Lay Association. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had given notice of a motion, that he would move for a Committee to inquire into the nature of a certain illegal Association in Ireland, called the Lay Association. He had attended in his place on the day for which the notice stood upon the books of the House, but it was withdrawn sub silentio. The hon. and learned Gentleman had renewed his notice, and had fixed it for a day in which it was quite impossible he could have attended. He had mentioned the circumstance to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had fixed it for another day, but from that time to this nothing more had been heard of it. He would only observe, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman should think proper to bring it forward, he should be ready to meet him. But all the time this notice had been on

11
the books, stigmatising the Association as an illegal Association, and that he supposed was the object of that learned Gentleman, What was the next topic to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) had adverted? He had ventured to say in the face of the Commons House of Parliament, that the Court of Exchequer in Ireland had arrayed itself against the king's Government. Some hon. Members opposite cried hear, hear, but did they think it would be useful to Ireland—did they think it would tend to produce peace and subordination in that country to hear charges of this description brought against those high and respectable characters who administered the law in that country? And he must own that upon this, as upon other occasions. he had been disgusted and shocked that his Majesty's Ministers should have sat silent and heard such charges preferred, and have suffered them to pass unrebuked. He could conceive nothing more destructive to the peace and well-being of society, than that such false charges should be allowed to be brought with impunity against the constituted authorities of the land. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to see those authorities treated with respect, at least with common justice; and he thought they had failed in their duty by permitting servants of their own to join in vilifying the judges of the land. But he would go further and say, that the charge would have been much more correctly stated if it had been inverted, and if it were stated that the Government in Ireland had arrayed itself against the Court of Exchequer. The revered Judges of that high Court, than whom there were not more learned, more honourable, or more highly respected individuals in the land, had pronounced a solemn judgment upon the important question which had come before them. The law-officers of the Crown were seen to enter that Court and argue in favour of those charges with contempt of that Court. The law-officers were replied to by his respected friends, Mr. Pennefather and Mr. Smith, and after a patient hearing and a full debate, the Court had come to a decision, of the correctness of which he believed no lawyer could entertain a doubt. He was rejoiced to hear that an appeal had been lodged against that decision, and he had no doubt whatever upon his mind that the court of dernier resort would affirm the decision of the court below. Insinuations were also thrown out against one of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer—
12
namely, Baron Smith—than whom there was not living a man of a higher sense of honour, and more spotless integrity; that he had "conveniently" come down to court after a long absence, for the special purpose of deciding that motion. He would never, please God, hazard an assertion on a matter of fact, in that House or elsewhere, of which he had not satisfactory evidence; and, therefore, he had abstained, when that vile insinuation had been thrown out, from stating that of which he then entertained no doubt from his recollection, namely, that it was utterly destitute of foundation; but now he was able to state with absolute certainty, having ascertained the facts whilst in Ireland during the recess, that the learned Baron, whose absence from the bench had been occasioned by a severe indisposition, in his anxiety to discharge his public duty, though by no means recovered, had come down to court on the Monday preceding, and had sat on the Tuesday, the Wednesday, and the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday on which the motion in question came on; and he could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, or rather he would tell the House, upon the authority of that eminent and independent Judge, that he had no more idea that such a motion was depending, or likely to come on, than he had of what was to be moved in Westminster-hall on that day; and as the motion lay upon his Majesty's Attorney-General, it is obvious that it could only have been known by communication from him, whether he intended to bring it forward, or at what time; and yet this insult was offered to one of the King's Judges in the presence of his Majesty's Ministers and his Attorney-General for Ireland, who neither rebuked nor repelled it. The next topic to which the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had referred, was one to which no man of humanity could advert without pain—namely, the collision at Rathcormac, in which human life had been sacrificed. But he begged to know who were the persons responsible for the collisions which had taken place? A tremendous responsibility it was [cheer s]. Did the hon. Gentlemen opposite by their cheers mean to charge it against the Irish Church? [cheers]. Did they charge it against the clergy of that Church? [cheers]. He supposed he was to conclude from these cheers that they did—but he begged leave with great respect for those who cheered, to deny the charge as applicable to the Church or her ministers. He thought

13
it capable of demonstration, that the persons who agitated Ireland, both lay and clerical, were responsible for these tremendous results. He was quite aware that the dreadful affair of Rathcormac was charged upon the Irish Church. There never was, in his opinion, a charge more devoid of truth—and as he had the means of referring to the depositions taken before the Coroner, and to the affidavits which had been brought before the Court of King's Bench, in the motion to quash the inquisition of the Coroner's Jury, he would beg leave to state to the House the real facts of the case: Archdeacon Ryder was rector of a parish in which the premises of the Widow Ryan were situated, from whom a large arrear of tithe composition was due to him. He was desirous of obtaining it, but was told by her that she dare not pay it—that she was perfectly willing to do so, but that were she to pay it without compulsion, her life would not be worth a week's purchase; but she said that if Archdeacon Ryder would apply to the proper authorities, and would bring a party of the military into her neighbourhood, she and her neighbours would cheerfully pay. He (the Archdeacon) accordingly obtained the assistance of the military, and they went to the spot under the direction of a justice of the peace. Let it be remembered that this did not occur under the administration of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, but under the one which preceded it. He did not state this for the purpose of casting any imputation upon that Government. It was the duty of every Government to enforce obedience to the law, and therefore they did nothing more than their duty in granting the aid of the military on this occasion. The military party assembled and marched towards the place. The peasantry, not of the neighbourhood, but brought from a distance, strangers, to the number of several hundreds, as it appeared in evidence at the inquest, collected together, armed with bludgeons and deadly weapons, also proceeded towards the place, yelling "no tithes," "down with tithes," and other exclamations of that sort. The mob took another route, and arrived before the military at the house of the widow Ryan. Archdeacon Ryder went to the house of this woman, and asked her for her tithe: she was actually about to pay it, but was prevented, and the military were attacked; and a similar scene to that which occurred at Carrickshock was likely to result. The
14
military refrained as long as possible from using their fire-arms, but, in the last extremity, to prevent themselves from being destroyed on the spot, they were compelled in self-defence to fire, and unfortunately lives were sacrificed. He did not hesitate as a lawyer to say, and he spoke in the presence of lawyers, that if a lawless and riotous mob armed themselves for the purpose of altering by force that which is established by the law of the land, such an assembly is of a treasonable character. It amounts to a levying of war against the King, and no man could doubt that the military and police were fully justified in resisting such a mob, especially in defence of their own lives. Unfortunately death had ensued, and no man in the House or out of it had more deeply deplored that calamity than the clergyman and magistrates unhappily concerned in that affair. He knew one of them, and he never witnessed mental agony which could be compared to that which that gentleman appeared to suffer in consequence of that melancholy transaction. Nothing could be more scandalous than the scene which occurred at the inquest. The Jury, in place of being returned by constables, were absolutely nominated by bye-standers and partizans, and several of them had but a partial view, and heard part only of the evidence; and could it be wondered at, under such circumstances, and amidst all the excitement and ferment which utterly prevented them from forming a calm and dispassionate judgment, that the Jury found a verdict of wilful murder against the parties concerned? This was not to be submitted to, and the magistrates applied to the Court of King's Bench to quash that inquisition, and the Court did quash it, and thereby frustrated the obvious intention of that most unjust and irregular finding, which was to put the accused upon their trial, without the constitutional intervention of a Grand Jury. A Bill was afterwards sent up to the county Grand Jury, and he was happy to say the three-and-twenty Grand Jurors of the county of Cork unanimously ignored it. These were the simple premises upon which the charges to which he had adverted were brought against the Irish Church, and he thought, that if the House would do him the honour to give him credit for the accuracy of the facts which he had stated, they would be satisfied that there never were charges more unfounded. It was his duty to set this matter in its true

15
light—for it was continually brought forward, both within this House and out of it. It had become the war-cry of the opposite party; it was used at all the elections in Ireland—and nothing was left undone to excite the popular mind; placards were posted, and paintings, or rather daubs, of the scene at Rathcormac, were exhibited in the city of Cork, at the election, on the walls of the Committee-room of the popular candidates, the effect of which virtually was, greatly to endanger the public peace and the safety of electors in the opposite interest. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had next alluded to what occurred at Inniscarra, another of those unfortunate transactions; and he (Mr. Jackson) would confidently submit to the House, after laying before them a simple statement of the facts of that case, whether it was just to stigmatise the clergyman connected with that transaction as a murderer. The hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn a most touching picture, in his powerful language, by which the hon. Member had, no doubt, carried away the feelings of many hon. Gentlemen; and he had represented this clergyman as wiping away his tears with fingers dripping with the blood of his victim. But the misfortune of this and many other of the representations of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that there was not a particle of truth in them. Mr. H. Grattan: It is fact.] What, Sir, exclaimed Mr. Sergeant Jackson, a matter of fact! Does the hon. Gentleman know that the rev. clergyman was not present upon the unhappy occasion? [Mr. Grattan: I mean it is matter of fact that he shed tears.] It was true he had shed tears while narrating the circumstances of the case before the inquest, and it was no disgrace to him to have done so; but did the hon. Member for Meath mean to say that it was literally true that the clergyman wiped away his tears with his bloody hands? [He loaded the pistols for the bailiffs] He was sure that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary could not mean to make any such representation as being literally true; but unhappily it did too often occur that his imagination and fancy supplied him with pictures which were a very bad substitute indeed for matters of fact. He had already stated to the House, that the reverend gentleman alluded to was not present at the conflict at all. It had, however, been said that he had loaded the pistols. But the House should know the real facts of the case as regarded
16
that. This gentleman had tithes due to him for three or four years in the parish of Inniscarra. He was a gentleman who had conciliated the love and respect of those around him, even of his Roman Catholic parishioners. He applied to the Government for assistance to make effectual the service of his processes—the Government told him, he should have the requisite assistance; but it afterwards turned out that the Government refused the aid, being informed, he knew not by whom, that as the proceedings were by virtue of subpoenas into one of the superior courts of Dublin, the clergyman need not ask the assistance of Government, for he would obtain a substitution of service, and the benefit of the writ of assistance which would be issued by that Court. The clergyman consulted counsel, and they told him what no lawyer would dispute, that the Court of Exchequer, would not substitute service, nor grant a writ of assistance, until service had been endeavoured to be effected, and resisted or frustrated by force. He then, upon the advice of counsel, resolved to attempt the service. The country was in a most excited state in consequence of tithe agitation, and he knew that the lives of those who went out to assist in the service of his processes would be in the greatest danger, if they had not, in the absence of any military or police, at least arms to defend themselves in case of need. That gentleman had not a single pistol in his house; he never kept them. For a long period before this occurred he had lived in the greatest danger; it was impossible for him to leave the house even for a short time, but the hills were lighted up, he heard signals by whistles and horns wherever he showed himself, so as plainly to indicate the hazard he ran in venturing out; and even the females of his family (his wife was an English lady, unaccustomed to scenes now but too familiar in the unhappy sister country) were miserable when it became necessary for him to leave his house for a moment. While the neighbourhood was in this state, he found it absolutely necessary to give his men firearms, to enable them to defend themselves, if attacked, in serving his processes; and he sent to the city of Cork for pistols for that purpose. One party went out to attempt service; they were hunted through the country for their lives, and were unable to effect their object. Another party was sent out with the same intention; and they had succeeded in serving one man, when, upon their return, the country was

17
raised; they were pursued, and after retreating for some time with their faces turned towards their foes, they were compelled to turn and run for their lives; an old man, less swift than others, was left behind—he was closed upon by the mob—they beat him into a dyke with stones, and they succeeded in depriving the poor old man of his life; the murderer who was slain on that occasion, was in the very act of striking him, whilst down, when the old man fired his pistol, and so close was the man to him that his clothes were actually discoloured by the gunpowder; to say, therefore, that it was a wanton firing upon the people was a most grievous perversion of the truth. And was it just, he would put it to any hon. Member, to charge upon the clergy of the Irish Church the scenes of Rathcormac and Inniscarra? There was one fact he had omitted with respect to the Rathcormac affair; upon the motion in the King's Bench, to quash the finding of the coroner's inquest, the coroner had stated, on his oath, in one of the affidavits filed on that occasion, that he believed the publications which had gone forth, particularly certain letters addressed to the people of Ireland, telling them that the military had no right to enter upon the premises to distrain or seize tithes, and telling them how far they might go in resisting the persons engaged in levying tithes, had influenced the Jury in coming to the monstrous decision— charging wilful murder against the magistrates and other parties concerned. Such were the real facts of those cases which the hon. and learned Gentleman had pictured in such glowing language last night—language which it was impossible to hear without it producing a very considerable effect; but he put it to the House whether, when the speech of that hon. and learned Gentleman was taken to pieces, analyzed part by part, it did not all fritter away into utter nothingness? What was the next topic to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had adverted? Why, forsooth, the clergyman of his parish had had the audacity to sue him for that which he had a right to demand, and which, as a gentleman of rank and large fortune, he was fully able to pay. What was the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman? Why, he wrote a letter to the clergyman, stating that he had his option between losing his seal for Tipperary and paying his tithes. Was that a fitting answer from one gentleman to another, in reply to a demand of a legal
18
right. He knew it had been made a charge against him of breach of faith for reading that letter in the House; but it had been published in the newspapers long before he had read it—not only that particular one, but others which the hon. and learned Gentleman had written, of a similar nature, to the clergymen of different parishes in which he owned land; and they had been advised, rightly advised, to set those letters first in the bills in the Court of Exchequer, which they had done accordingly. He trusted he had, therefore, done nothing derogatory to his character as a Member of that House, or as a gentleman, in reading that letter—which had not only been previously published in widely circulating newspapers, but were placed upon the public files of a court of justice. Had it been a document of a private nature, or had it been obtained in any sinister or unbecoming manner, all who knew him would, he was confident, believe him to be incapable of bringing it before that House. But being a document of a public nature, and of great importance, and bearing so strongly upon the matter in issue in that House, as well as in the Court of Exchequer, he was not merely justified, but bound to make use of it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, that ever since that letter had been published, the clergyman in question had been unable ever to go to church on a Sunday without the protection of a guard of police. He believed there were Englishmen in his hearing who loved and revered the laws of the land—who would willingly lay down their lives in defence of these laws. He would ask, then, was such a state of things to be endured? Was it to be endured that the country was to be brought into such a state, that a clergyman dare not go to the house of God without the protection of a police force? Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply by their cheers, that all this might be justly charged upon the clergy themselves. [No!] He was glad he had mistaken the hon. Member. But he again put it to the House, if the clergy were not chargeable with these things, who were? There must be some cause; it did not happen by chance. He would tell the House the cause. It was the prolonged, the reiterated agitation that was kept up— the exaggerated and highly-coloured statements that were addressed to an inflammable people. For with all the good qualities which belonged to his countrymen, any body acquainted with them knew well that

19
they had one defect in their character, that they were easily led either for good or for evil. The Protestant clergy and the King's troops were designated as murderers and blood-stained men, and with such excitement as this, was it to be wondered at that the people were urged to excesses. At the last election for Tipperary, placards were circulated calling upon the people, by their hatred of tithes and by the blood that was shed at Rathcormac, to vote in a particular way. The word blood in those placards was printed in large red letters, and the rest of it in black type. Now, he put it to the House, when such means were used to excite the feelings of so irritable and warm-tempered people as the Irish, was it to be wondered at, that the lives of that persecuted and maligned body of men, the Irish clergy, were put in the most imminent jeopardy? He would read some extracts from two letters received from two clergymen in Ireland. He should not for obvious reasons mention names; in the present state of Ireland it would probably endanger their lives. The writer of one of the letters said—"My feelings will not allow me to give a particular statement of the privations and sufferings to which my family and I have been exposed since the conspiracy has been formed against us; but you can form a fair estimate of these, when I state, I have a standing family of thirteen individuals, subsisting for the most part on the produce of my glebe of twelve acres, cultivated principally by my sons. As for money I can get none: and the Government loan was by no means adequate to the liquidation of my debts, which accumulated in consequence of my being obliged to deal on credit. Since October last I have had but 5l. in my house, and that borrowed; all my resources are now exhausted; I have been unable to release my letters from the office; my servant has given me notice, and demands his wages; I have no prospect of making a tillage to the supply of such a long family with the common necessaries of life for the ensuing season." The writer of the second letter stated, that the Roman Catholic priest of the parish had publicly affirmed to his flock, that the writer would probably send him to gaol for the non-payment of his tithes, and that he would rather go to gaol than pay them. Would the House believe, continued the hon. Member, that the clergyman to whom he alluded had, according to the uniform custom of his brethren, and long before the slightest
20
resistance to tithes commenced, written to the priest to say, that during the period of his incumbency he would exact no tithes from him? The very priest who had made this public statement, with the inhuman purpose of exciting his parishioners against the Protestant clergyman, had returned the following answer: —"I have again to thank you for your kind, generous, and gentlemanly conduct, and I beg to assure you of my sincere and deep and lasting gratitude?" The clergyman also stated, that in consequence of the violent speeches of the priest, he could not stir from his House without being hooted and insulted, and that indecent and disgusting language was used to his children. On one occasion, the gentleman to whom he alluded had been waylaid by six persons, on his return from church, and was only rescued by the merciful interposition of Providence; and, on the same day, he was attacked by three persons, who detained him until he had consented to levy no tithe from them. Was it possible to imagine anything more affecting than the picture presented by this letter? Yet, notwithstanding all, "that clergyman continued to go and preach affectionately and earnestly to those who thus persecuted him. And he thought that nothing but a high and noble Christian principle could ever have enabled him to persevere, under such circumstances, in the discharge of his duty. Yet the cry was raised, that the number of these clergymen should be reduced as much as possible, that they were to be numbered only in proportion to their Protestant parishioners. But no one could maintain that ministers of the Established Church had no duties, no religious duties, to perform towards those who were out of the pale of their communion. He thought it was a mischievous fallacy to assert that the duties of clergymen of the Established Church, especially in Ireland, were to be confined solely to their own flocks. The clergyman obviously was bound to administer to the temporal wants of such of his flock as required assistance; and, though there might be some exception, it could not be denied this was a duty which the clergy of the Irish Protestant Church were ever ready to perform. He would not hesitate to say, that the greatest misfortune the poor of Ireland could sustain would be, in being deprived of the superintendence

21
and affectionate rare of the Protestant clergy. They would then be left without assistance in the absence of their natural protectors, the proprietors of the soil, who resided out of the country, and who abstracted from it annually large incomes. He wished from the bottom of his heart, that some plan could be devised (and nothing could be more patriotic), by which the residence of the landed gentry of Ireland could be secured in that country. Before he arrived at the matter more immediately under discussion, he must be permitted to refer to some remarks uttered in the course of the debate yesterday, by the hon. Member for Lincoln. No sooner had the destitute condition of the persecuted clergymen of Ireland become known in this country, than one of the most munificent contributions ever raised was entered into for their relief. And how had the hon. Gentleman talked of it in that House, in the presence of many who subscribed to it? He had mentioned the collection as "an ostentatious display of piety." He could conceive of nothing more unjust to the individuals concerned in these subscriptions, than to stigmatise them thus. He (Mr. Jackson) would remind the hon. Member also, in passing, that four of the Cabinet Ministers (to their honour be it spoken) had joined in this "ostentatious display of piety." And here let him (Mr. Jackson) observe, in defence of the Lay Association, that they would have been more or less than men had they not come forward to aid their own clergy, in their deplorable condition, in the legal assertion of their rights. Would the House believe that the distresses of the Irish clergy, instead of meeting with sympathy from their brethren of another Church, had been absolutely made the subject of ridicule and sarcastic allusion, by an eminent dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church. —Dr. Mac Hale, who, in a letter addressed to the Bishop of London, used the following expressions;—"There is something in the very soil and atmosphere of Ireland uncongenial to the growth of error; its people are too quick and intellectual in their conceptions, too lofty in their hopes, ever to bend their necks to the ignominious yoke of an Establishment. He (Mr. Sergeant Jackson) supposed the right rev. Prelate was opposed to all establishments: he, however, was a friend to Establishments—he considered it the
22
duty of every Christian state to establish the Christian religion, and he hoped the country would never be deprived of the blessings which flowed from a Protestant Establishment. However, the right rev. Prelate considered it as an "ignominious yoke," and taught the people to consider it so. But the next part of the letter was far more reprehensible:—"The Parsons, whose deeds united with the decrees of the Lords, have doomed the Establishment to destruction, are already commencing the practices of the Catholic Church. Fasting is becoming a favourite observance. Nay, hateful as celibacy appeared to the Protestant churchmen, they are beginning to agree with Malthus, that it would be unjust to be burdening society with an unprovided offspring." Was it credible that a man calling himself a minister of the Gospel should use such language as this? He would put it to the noble Lord on the other side, whether he would lend his great influence, his powerful aid, to advance the desperate and wicked purposes of men capable of such abomination as this—if he would lend them the weight of his talents and character, which he could assure him was highly estimated, not only in this country, but in Ireland? He put it to the noble Lord, as an attached member of the Established Church, as, he verily believed, a sincere Christian, if he would throw his weight into the scale, for the purpose of advancing the iniquitous pratices of such a man—a man who had the hardihood to address such a letter to a Prelate of the Established Church, and declare that the Church was doomed to destruction? He would not trouble the House by reading again what he had read last year—the letter of this same Prelate, in reference to the mission to the Island of Achil, in which he stated that the Establishment was to be destroyed, and represented it as taking its last refuge in that desolate spot. He would not detain the House by going farther into the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. He always heard that hon. and learned Gentleman with admiration, though not always with pleasure, and there was always a great deal in his speeches to which he could not agree. But he must be permitted to say, that he had put into his address last night, a variety of topics which had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. He had, for instance, adverted to the case of Prussia,

23
and stated that there Roman Catholics and Protestants lived together in eace and harmony. But did the hon. and learned Gentleman desire to be ruled with a rod of iron? Would he rather be the subject of a despotic, than a free state? for such was the state of things in Prussia; but in Ireland they enjoyed, at least to some extent, liberty; and therefore he (Mr. Jackson) could not admit that there was any analogy between the two cases. The case of Scotland had been referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien), who spoke as if there were as much difference between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, as between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He was surprised that any Gentleman could make such an assertion. There must, it was true, be some difference between the forms of the two Churches, but there was none in the great articles of our faith. The Churches of Scotland, England, and Ireland, were, in fact, one and the same branch of the Christian Church, differing in not one of the essentials of doctrine. But the hon. Gentleman called upon the House to deal with Ireland, as it had dealt with Scotland, and told us that such a course of policy would be followed by the same results in the one case as in the other. He asked the House to reduce the incomes of the Irish clergy to the level of the very modest stipends of the ministers of the Scotch Church, and he told them, that if they did so, all the grievances of the Roman Catholic population would be removed, and all would be tranquil. He however could inform the House (and he spoke under the correction of many hon. Gentlemen from North Britain) that, notwithstanding the economical provision made for the clergy in Scotland, a most embittered persecution had been raised against the Established Church—not, indeed, by the Roman Catholics, but by those who dignified themselves with the title of voluntaries. Surely the hon. Gentleman knew that it was vain to expect that the same line of policy, if followed in Ireland, would satisfy all parties. The hon. Gentleman had proceeded to bring a charge against the Irish Protestant Church, which he entreated the House to consider. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Irish Church was a remnant of the penal code. What! was the Established Church to be
24
treated as a remnant of the penal code which the wisdom of Parliament had abolished? If the hon. Member was correct in saying that it did form part of that code, then, of course, it should be swept away at once; for the wisdom of the imperial Legislature had already decided that all penal laws should be for ever extinguished. But he denied that in any sense it was part of the penal code. Mr. Ward: It is.] Would the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Alban's, tell him what made it a part of the penal code? Would the hon. Gentleman lay his hand on the Statute which enacted that the English Church should be established in Ireland? Was not the penal code enacted in Ireland long after the Protestant Church had been established there? Did the hon. Member know the dates of the penal laws, that they were not enacted till the reigns of William 3rd. and Queen Anne? Was not the Established Church of Ireland recognized by ancient and modern Statutes by the legislatures of both countries, while Ireland had an independent legislature? Did not the Act of Union recognise and confirm it? Was not the Established Church declared to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union, and was it not even recognised by that great Charter of the liberties of the Irish Roman Catholics, passed in the year 1829? Were not the greatest pains taken in framing that Act, to preserve from peril the Protestant Established Church in Ireland? and after all this was it to be termed a "remnant of a penal code?" It was false to say that the tithes, or the composition which the wisdom of the Legislature had substituted for tithes, by one of the most beneficial Acts that ever passed the Legislature, were borne by the Roman Catholic occupiers of land in Ireland. They were paid by the proprietors of the soil. He did not mean merely the owners of the fee-simple, for it was well known that most noblemen and gentry in Ireland, in former times, let their lands on leases renewable for ever; and it was to that class of persons which thus stood between the owner of the fee-simple and the occupying tenant which paid the tithes or composition. It should never be lost sight of that the great body of the property of Ireland was in the hands of Protestants, and that it was they, therefore, and not the Roman Catholics, who chiefly bore the burthen of tithes; and if tithes were to be abolished to-mor-

25
row they would go into the pockets of the proprietors, and not into those of the occupiers. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary had spoken of the conduct of Russia towards Poland, and affirmed that Russia endeavoured to maintain its influence in the latter country by forcing the Greek Church on its inhabitants. And so the hon. Member argued, that there was a perfect parallel, and that the mode in which British interests were maintained in Ireland, was by upholding the Established Church. Whether the example cited by the hon. Member bore on the subject or not, he thought there was some truth in his conclusion. Establish the Church of England in Ireland, and we have a strong bond of connexion between the two countries; abolish it, and you sever, at once and for ever, the strongest link which unites them. One of the objects of the establishment of the Protestant religion in Ireland certainly was, to preserve the Union between the two countries, and to advance civilisation in Ireland. It was well known, that previous to the introduction of Protestantism into Ireland, the people of that country were in a state of utter darkness, uneducated, ignorant, and barbarous; and he (Mr. Jackson) would observe, that one of the greatest obstacles to the advance of the Protestant religion in Ireland was, a want of a knowledge of the Irish language on the part of the Irish clergy. And this must go a great way towards solving a problem which the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton) seemed very anxious to have solved, viz., how it was, that although the Church of Ireland had existed for 300 years, it had literally done nothing? He begged leave to inform the hon. Member, that though stagnant for too long a period, of later years it had made great progress. It was remarkable that no outcry was raised against it, no turmoil or disturbances took place, while its clergy were negligent and regardless of their duty, and did nothing in return for the income they received; but as soon as the body of the clergy became earnest, zealous, indefatigable in the discharge of their duty, then agitation commenced, and the passions of the people were roused into hostility against them. Before he sat down he would show the House that the Returns of the Commissioners of Public Instruction did great injustice to the Church, and were not to be relied on as to the progress of Protestantism in Ireland. One
26
great reason for the Protestant Church not advancing in Ireland in former times had been, that the Ministers appointed were not men capable or willing to instruct the people, but men who were ignorant of their native language; and it would have been a miracle had such men much assisted the progress of Protestantism in that country. But he rejoiced that the day had arrived, when the Bishops and clergy of the Established Church had felt it their duty to surmount the labour and toil of acquiring the Irish tongue, and the consequence was that the people flocked to hear those ministers who addressed them in their native language, and, please God, would continue to do so. He rejoiced to know, that in the place of the lazy, indolent, unlettered men, who were formerly sent out, as it might be said, and he was willing to admit, that in many instances this might be true, to fatten on the spoils of the country, the Protestants of Ireland possessed, at the present moment, as learned, as able, as exemplary, as devoted, and as indefatigable, a body of clergymen as adorned any church in the Christian world. This rested not on the testimony of Protestants alone; it was a fact to which many Roman Catholic ecclesiastics had borne testimony. The necessity of a Protestant Establishment in Ireland had been acknowledged at a period so early as the reign of Charles 1st. In 1641, the Lord Deputy Wentworth, dissuading his royal master from entering into a foreign war, wrote to that monarch in these terms:—" His Majesty must defer the great, excellent, and necessary work of bringing this people to a conformity in religion, till which be effected, the Crown of England may not trust, nay, indeed, ought not to hold itself secure of this nation, which, however peaceable and still soever we may think them, are in an instant to be blown up by the Romish clergy into a tempest, not only to the disquietude, but great hazard of the state." It would almost appear as if the Lord Deputy had looked two centuries in advance of his age; and certainly this was too much the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy at the present day, as the Irish Tithe Question and the Municipal Reform Bill fully proved. The Lord Deputy added, in another place—" I see plainly, that so long as this kingdom continues Popish, they are not people for the Crown of England to be confident of; whereas,

27
if they were not still distempered by the infusion of Friars and Jesuits, I am of belief they would be as good and loyal to their King as any other subjects." Such was the opinion of Lord Deputy Wentworth. But to return—The real grievance was this, that the revenues of the Protestant Church were continued to it, and were not disappropriated from it to secular purposes. And he must say, that the noble Lord, he Secretary for the Home Department had laid down a doctrine which would seem to justify the complaint. He had uttered an observation to this effect—that the established religion of a state ought to be the religion of a majority of the people. If that were so, then the Roman Catholics of Ireland must think it a grievance that the Established Church of Ireland was the religion of the minority of the people of that country. If it were a grievance, then its property should be taken away from it altogether; and where was the consistency of those who stopped short in their work of appropriation at this paltry pittance of 50,000 l., or it might be, 90,000 l.? To act consistently, ought not his Majesty's Government to give up to the hon. Member for Kilkenny the entire Church property? [Mr. O'Connell: Not the entire.] No, not the entire! Well, then, what part did the hon. and learned Member intend to take? Would he stand still at 50,000 l., and be content with the sop for ever? He would answer that question for the hon. and learned Member, and say that he would not, He had before said, and be would repeat, that the real object of a large party of those who supported the Bill was to put down the E tablished Church in Ireland. He said, that the object of asserting this barren principle of a surplus which he believed would never be realised, and which at present was a mere shadow, and would never in future become a substance, was to obtain a fulcrum, on which certain parties might erect their machinery to overthrow the Protestant Establishment. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would never be contented with the mere assertion of an abstract principle. He would one day follow it up; the hon. Member had said that he would do so, and he did the hop, Member the justice to believe, that in this instance he would be a man of his word. He would prove the hon. Member's intentions by reading to the House a passage from a
28
letter addressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny to another hon. Member of that House, the Member for Dundalk, whose sentiments on this subject he anticipated that he should hear before the conclusion of the debate. He expected that that hon. Member would inform the House that he, and others who thought with him, would never be satisfied with anything else than the absolute demolition of the Church of Ireland. He was sorry that the noble Secretary of State was not present to hear the honest cheer of the candid Member for Dundalk. He was sorry that none of that noble Lord's colleagues were present to hear it. He. was well aware that anything he could say would have but little weight with Ministers; and, indeed, there was not one of them present. If they were, they might learn a lesson as to the views and opinions of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, from their looks, and their manner, and their cheers upon this occasion. To return, however, to the letter written by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, in September, 1834. That hon. Member was apologising to the hon. Member for Dundalk, for not having conformed to his particular views on the tithe question; and in apologising to him for not having gone as far as the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. S. Crawford) had wished him to go, was informing the people of Ireland of the full length he intended to go at some convenient opportunity. "It is true," said he, "that I demanded for the present but a partial reduction of tithe; it was three-fifths I asked for. Why did I not ask for more? Because I had no chance of getting the entire amount abolished at present, and I was refused even the extent I asked for. I asked for three-fifths, —I only got two-fifths. I had not the least chance of destroying the entire amount of tithe." It appeared from this that the hon. and learned Member had excellent intentions at that time, and that the hon. Member cherished them up to this hour he was ready to warrant. The letter then proceeded:—" I am one of those who are always ready to accept of any instalment, however small, of the debt of justice due to the people, that real national debt." [Cheering from Mr. O'Connell and the Ministerial Members.] Yes —it is well known that the hon. and learned Member is always ready to accept any instalment, however small; that is

29
notorious. Aye, and "that debt of justice to the people" is a useful word too. Justice to the people!—justice to Ireland! That meant for this turn the entire demolition of the property of the Protestant Church of Ireland. But the hon. and learned Member, to make his meaning clear, added, "I am determined to go on and look for the remainder as soon as the first instalment is realised." This was language, as to the meaning of which it was impossible that there could be any doubt. It was a pledge that, though he might accept the first instalment, he would have the rest; and he was sure that the hon. Member, if he could, would have the rest. He hoped that some of the noble Lord's friends would apprise him of what he had to expect in future from his ally in name, but from his master in reality—the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. The noble Lord must not deceive himself by supposing that this Bill would be a final, healing, conciliatory measure, which would put an end to all turmoil and agitation in Ireland. Quite the contrary, it would only lead to fresh turmoil and to fresh agitation. Unless the noble Lord was prepared to surrender the entire Protestant Church in Ireland, with concession, agitation would be renewed, toties quoties, till all was gone. He had heard with extreme surprise another observation which fell from the noble Lord in the course of his speech the other evening. The noble Lord had said, that an Established Church was not intended for the propagation of a doctrine, but for the instruction of a people. Fine words these! But what, in the name of common sense, was their meaning? Was it not the duty of a Church Establishment to propagate a doctrine? If it was not, for what purpose was it instituted? Was it not to teach religion? And what did religion consist in? Did not religion teach doctrines? Or did it confine itself to the teaching of reading, writing, arithmetic, and, if you will, barren morality? He was at a loss to conceive what could have induced the noble Lord (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) to use such language. It was a timely, but true maxim, that in all things "honesty is the best policy." As soon as ever a man allowed himself to desert the high and given ground of principle, that moment he involved himself in inconsistencies, and absurdities, and mischief. The definition of the noble Lord
30
was not the true definition of a Church Establishment, and was in point of principle as indefensible as his position, that the established religion of a state should be the religion of the majority of a people. Did his Lordship mean that it was the province and duty of the Protestant Established Church to teach the Roman Catholic religion to the people? What were the Protestants of Ireland told at the Union? They were told to amalgamate with the people of England—that their religion would then be secure, because it would be the religion of a majority of the empire. The language of the Act of Union was, that the United Church of England and Ireland, as established, should be maintained and preserved, and such maintenance and preservation were declared to be fundamental and essential parts of the Union. It was also true that the noble Lord said, that he was not prepared at present to carry out to their full extent in Ireland the principles which his favourite authors had avowed on these points; but he would recommend the noble Lord to be prepared in no very great length of time to carry them out to the utmost. The noble Lord had the pledge of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, that those principles should be so carried out; and this time, at least, the hon. and learned Member would redeem his pledge, and not violate the faith he had plighted. He would remind the noble Lord and his colleagues in office, that the power which had put them in could also remove them from their present places, and that, if they did not perform the high behests which might issue from that power, they would not be permitted to occupy long the benches on which they were then seated. They might rely upon it, that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would tell them that, if they did not do "justice to Ireland," their tenure of office would be short indeed. But would the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny tell either his Majesty's Ministers, or the House in general, what he meant by "justice to Ireland?" He should like much to hear a definition of that phrase— he should like much to know what it meant. To-day it was—" Take only a little from the property of the Church of Ireland, establish for me the principle of appropriation, give me the place where I can set my foot and establish my machinery, and that is justice to Ireland."

31
that was the meaning of the phrase now; but what would it be on Thursday next? —Then it would be, "Do justice to Ireland—give us Municipal Corporations— let us have normal schools of peaceful agitation—all over Ireland, from Antrim to Kerry—from Galway to Dublin—yes, from Cork too—aye, and from Bandon also. He liked to hear those names—yes, from one end of the island to the other, along its whole length and its whole breadth, there would be normal schools of peaceful agitation, and if they would not give that, let them mark the consequence of refusing to do justice to Ireland. That would be the demand on Thursday next—what would it be the week afterwards? Then they would indeed have a great question before them; then they would have the conduct of the right rev. Prelates, and of the other Peers of Parliament, canvassed for refusing their assent to the proposed measures for reforming the Corporations, and for spoliating the Church. Then they would hear of the unconstitutional conduct of the other House of Parliament in presuming to differ from the most wise and potent Commons of England. Then they would be told, that unless they consented to correct the errors of that besotted body, and unless they set it right, by making an organic change in its construction, they would not be doing justice to Ireland. But what next? The learned Gentleman would say, "You wont demolish the hereditary branch of Legislature for us, why, then, you deny justice to Ireland, and I will agitate for a Repeal of the Union; that alone will do justice to Ireland." His hon. Friends near him suggested that there were other topics in which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny also felt great interest, and that each of these would suggest a different meaning for his celebrated watchword of "justice to Ireland." He defied any man living to say what was the ultimatum of "justice to Ireland," or what would satisfy the cravings of certain individuals whom he would not further name. What was the justice to Ireland which the noble Lord claimed now? The noble Lord said it was, that the surplus revenue of the Irish Church should be set apart for "the moral and religious instruction of the people of Ireland." Now, he wished to know whether it was intended to place this surplus of 50,000 l., supposing it to
32
be realised, in the hands of the Commissioners for Education in Ireland, or in the hands of some other body? If it went into the hands of those Commissioners, it would be employed in propagating a doctrine—it would be expended in teaching the Roman Catholic religion. He believed that many of the schools under the direction of that Board were even now publicly teaching the tenets of that religion. In one of them he had himself seen in the hands of children, during school hours, the Roman Catholic Catechism, and had asked, but in vain, for a copy of the Scripture extracts, which was ordered to be read there. There was not a single copy, either of those extracts or of the Scriptures, or any version of the Scriptures there. Now, he would ask this question—was it the business of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland to teach the Roman Catholic religion? Was that the noble Lord's notion of the duties of a Church Establishment? He had heard from the noble Secretary for Ireland, an observation which, though it did credit to his feelings, was neither a sound nor a statesmanlike doctrine. The noble Lord had said, that he would not employ the military force in the collection of tithe, if it were required to collect it at the risk of shedding blood. "That was a sacrifice which, great as it was," the noble Lord had said, "he should not deem too much for truth and religion, but infinitely too much for an Establishment; not too much for the spirit, but for the form of worship." Now, in commenting upon this observation, he must ask, first of all, why was a military force maintained in Ireland? Was it not to preserve the peace, protect the property, and enforce the law of the country? If the people, misled by agitators, would array themselves in bodies against the law, to the disturbance of peace and to the endangering of property, must not the civil force, in the first instance, and, if that be insufficient, the military force in the next, be of necessity employed against them? If the noble Lord would not employ the military force for the protection of the property which the Church had in tithe, how would he draw the line between that and any other species of property? Surely, the noble Lord, with his good sense and sound judgment, must perceive that he was bound to protect every kind of property, and that if he excluded any

33
kind from it, he was holding out a premium to agitation and spoliation, and laying the axe to the root of all property and of all subordination. He had not heard the whole of the speech made last night by the hon. Member for Waterford; but he admired the frankness with which that hon. Member had expounded his views on this question in that part of it which he had the good fortune to hear. He entered the House whilst the hon. Member was laying down propositions which were quite incontrovertible, and which were intimately connected with the topic which he was now discussing. The hon. Member had said, that if property of one kind could be borne down by popular feeling and popular agitation, no other property would long be safe after it. He repeated that proposition over and over again; and that at last he came to the conclusion, of which no man could deny the justice, that the property of no man would be safe in Ireland, if the property of the Church were allowed to be borne down by popular clamour and popular agitation. If the noble Lord would not listen to his (Mr. Sergeant Jackson's) advice, let him at any rate attend to the warning voice of his Friend and supporter, the hon. Member for Waterford. Let him remember, that if he permitted the property of the Church to be spoliated, under the popular clamour and agitation which distracted Ireland, his hon. Friend, (the Member for Waterford), and every other Gentleman connected with Ireland, must bid farewell, a long farewell, to all their property in that country. For his own part, he had not the slightest doubt, that if the laws were fairly, firmly, and impartially administered, and not as now made instruments of coercion one day, and of favouritism the next, they would be willingly obeyed by the people of Ireland, for the people of Ireland, when they were not misled, were fond of, and obedient to the law, when it was fairly, firmly, and impartially administered. He could say, that from some experience of his own in Ireland, for he had himself, occasionally, filled a judicial office there, and could bear testimony to the satisfaction with which the people witnessed the equal administration of justice. He was sorry to say, that he could not approve of all that had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford in his speech of last night. He had heard, with no less
34
pain than surprise, the very uncalled for attack which the hon. Member had made upon the political conduct of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The hon. Member for Waterford declared, that it was his opinion, that that noble Lord did not intend by his proposition to settle this question, but that his object was to undermine the present Ministry, to occupy their place, and to exalt himself upon their ruin. Had the noble Lord been present when the attack was made upon him, he certainly should not have attempted to vindicate the noble Lord from it; for he knew, and the House knew also, that the noble Lord was well able to vindicate himself without any extraneous aid; and he had no doubt that the noble Lord would soon either find or make an opportunity for replying to the attacks which had been made upon him from several quarters in the course of this debate. As the noble Lord, however, was not present when this taunt was directed against him, he hoped that the House would permit him to vindicate the noble Lord from it, and to say, that never was a charge more completely without foundation. Could the hon. Member for Waterford be ignorant of this fact—that the point, on which the noble Lord severed himself from the Cabinet of which he was a Member, and on which he abandoned power and place, was a principle which he would not surrender? Could he be ignorant that the cause of the noble Lord's resignation was his determination not to suffer the property of the Protestant Church of Ireland to be disappropriated to secular purposes? It was not fair, then, to attach to the noble Member for North Lancashire, a charge so discreditable to his honour and character, and so totally destitute of all foundation. For his own part, he thought that the noble Lord deserved the gratitude of the country for the arduous duty which he had imposed upon himself in framing his measure, and the able and masterly manner in which he had introduced it to the notice of the House. It contained all that was valuable, and avoided all that was vicious in the Bill of the noble Secretary for Ireland. He had originally intended to go through that Bill clause by clause; but he had trespassed too long upon the attention of the House already, to think of fulfilling his original intention. He had been prepared to show, by a com-

35
parison of the funds belonging to the Church of Ireland, and of the population of that country, that such a clergy as was necessary to supply the spiritual wants of such a population could not be more than moderately provided for out of those funds. He would, however, abstain from that comparison now, for he had received the kindest attention from the House, and would not trespass unnecessarily upon it. He should, therefore, content himself with adverting to what appeared to him to be the most important observations that had been made in the course of the debate. He objected not only to the appropriation clause, but also to some other arrangements which the noble Secretary for Ireland had made in this Bill. By the Bill of last year he proposed to extinguish 860 parishes. Now, though that provision was professedly abandoned in this Bill, yet the very same object was accomplished in it, by means, if possible, still more objectionable. This was accomplished by the 51st Clause, which, in conferring the power of dividing districts into benefices, and of altering the boundaries of parishes, conferred upon the Government the power of extinguishing in effect whatever parishes they chose. That clause was a covert, roundabout way of effecting that which the Government said that it had abandoned the intention of effecting, and was objectionable also upon other grounds; for it destroyed the landmarks, and obliterated the boundaries of the Protestant division of the country, which had at present prescription in their favour, whilst all the boundaries of Roman Catholic parishes would be preserved as before, thus enabling the priests to step easily into possession of the property of the Protestant Church, when its ruin was completed. The basis, too, of all this legislation was the returns received from the Commissioners of Public Instruction. Now, if time and opportunity permitted, he could prove (as he had said before), that those returns were not accurate enough to justify the House in legislating upon them. That was a grave charge to make; but he made it upon good grounds, and a serious weight of evidence. One of the two objects for which that Commission had been appointed, was, to ascertain what were the present means of giving education to the people of Ireland. Now, he had been connected with the Kildare-place Society.
36
He had never been afraid or ashamed to avow it. He was proud to say, that he had been its secretary for twenty years; he was still one of its secretaries, and he was happy to think that he had, as one of the members of that society, been the means of accomplishing some good for his country. He was satisfied that great and permanent good had been effected by it for Ireland. It had educated respectable teachers, to the number of from 2,000 to 3,000. It had, on the day on which the Commissioners made their Report, 1,050 schools. Here he must return, on the part of the society, her grateful thanks to the liberal gentlemen of England who came forward, and generously contributed to the funds for the advancement of its objects in Ireland, at a time when the sunshine of Government approbation was withdrawn, and the grant of the public money no longer made. As he had just said, there were, belonging to this society in Ireland, no less than 1,050 schools. Would it be believed, that in the return of these Commissioners of Public Instruction, the number of schools under the Kildare-place Society was stated at only 235? There were three dioceses in which the Commissioners returned that the Kildare-place society had no schools;—it so happened, that in those three dioceses they had nearly 300 schools. He could prove, too, that out of that number of schools, returns were sent into the Commissioners by the managers in no less than 150 cases. He believed that they were sent in to the Commissioners in every case, but he was not in a situation to prove it with regard to 150 instances. He had been altogether astonished when he saw in the report of the Commissioners 235 given as the number of schools belonging to the society. The Committee, when they saw the Report, said there must have been some strange and unaccountable mistake somewhere; and in order that there might be none on their side, they sent inspectors into those three dioceses, viz., Down, Connor, and Dromore, in which they were returned as having no schools. Those inspectors visited each of the schools, and found every one of the schools in the same localities in which they had been represented by the Committee, to the number which he had stated. He was also in a situation to prove that the returns given by the same Commissioners

37
respecting the comparative number of Protestants of the Church of England, Protestant Dissenters, and Roman Catholics in the different parishes of Ireland, were most inaccurate. He could state, that as soon as it was understood that all benefices were to be extinguished, which did not contain fifty Protestants of the Church of England, every method of intimidation was practised to drive the Protestants out of those parishes where the number slightly exceeded that amount. He would mention one instance. In the parish of Dromod, there were fifty-six Protestants at the time of the Report; it was returned to the Commissioners by the Protestant minister of the parish as containing that number, and yet it appeared in the printed Report of the Commissioners as containing forty-nine! just one under the required number to entitle it to a Protestant minister, under the noble Lord's Bill of last year. In another case, the parish of Desertseges, not far from Bandon, the number returned by the Commissioners was fifty, under the actual number of Protestants of the Established Church resident in the parish. He was enabled to state this from having seen the list of the names of the heads of all the families, and the number belonging to each, taken down by the excellent clergyman who was doing duty in that parish—a list not made for the purpose of checking the return of the Commissioners, but by that rev. gentleman, as minister, to enable him fully and effectually to discharge his pastoral duties to every member of his flock. He had received a letter, stating that there was a priest in the county of Cork, who said that he would take good care one way or another that there should not be found fifty Protestants in his parish. [Loud cries of name, name, from the Ministerial benches.] He would not name him. If the House would authorise an inquiry into the subject, he would undertake to prove the way in which the priest had made the threat, and also the way in which he had followed it up. He would not name the priest or the parish, but he had his information from a clergyman of the Church of England, on whose accuracy he could implicitly rely. Yes, he had been informed that the priest said that he would take care that there should not be fifty Protestants found in his parish. It appeared from the evidence of an individual who had been the victim of that threat, that he ordered every Ca-
38
tholic of his flock to turn away any and all of their servants who were Protestants, and who would not turn, as it was called. Several were accordingly discharged, and left the parish. There were four Protestant children who had been sent to the parish from a charitable institution in Cork, to serve as servants in families there. To reduce the number of Protestants the order was issued, and these four children were turned out of the families in which they had been placed. One of them was found by a dignitary of the Church, the informant, on whose accuracy he most implicitly relied. That child found an asylum in the House of Industry at Cork, and whilst in that asylum was examined by the dignitary to whom he had already alluded, and by the superintendent of that institution. The child said, that the priest had given the order to his flock, and she had been in consequence turned out, because she would not conform to the Roman Catholic religion. There was another case to which he would refer, and he was, in this instance, at liberty to mention names for the satisfaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Hudson, of Spring Farm, in the county of Wicklow, had been requested by the Roman Catholic clergyman of the parish in which he resided to make a return of all the Protestants and Catholics he employed, and he gave a return of fifty-six Protestants in his house and employment, and ten Roman Catholics. He received a letter from the Roman Catholic clergyman thanking him for the return; but when the Commissioner appeared, in the month of December, a list was handed to him by the Roman Catholic clergyman of only thirteen out of the fifty-six Protestants. He asked again, was it fair, was it safe, to act upon such returns? And yet they had been made the very foundation of this Bill, were recited in its preamble, and would form the only data to guide the Committee of the Privy Council, in their dealings with the population and localities of the different parishes in Ireland. The noble Secretary of State for the Home Department, without affecting to answer the able statements made by the noble Lord (Stanley) in introducing the present debate, had thought it expedient, for the purpose of withdrawing the attention of the House from the real question before them, to refer to a variety of topics altogether extraneous and foreign to the occasion, and

39
among others, to the improvements, as he called them, which had been effected by the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland, in the administration of the law in that part of the country. The noble Lord laid peculiar stress on the advantage which had been found to result from the discontinuance of the practice which hitherto prevailed of setting aside or challenging juries on the part of the Crown. That was a matter of the greatest importance; but in his opinion the alteration introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was by no means calculated to produce the happy results which had been ascribed to it. He had received several communications on the subject, particularly from the Queen's County; and he could state to the House, that the impression among professional men there was, and he fully concurred in the opinion, that it tended materially to frustrate the administration of justice. Substantially, it gave the accused party the nomination of the jury; and the danger of such a provision, in the present unfortunate state of things in Ireland, must at once be manifest to every one. He would just give the following instance as a proof of what he had stated. In the Queen's County a man named Carter, a tenant of Lord Maryborough, was murdered at noon day, for enclosing a piece of land which belonged to him, and for which he paid rent. Three persons were tried at the summer assizes at Maryborough in 1835. No verdict was found. The case was tried again in the spring assizes of 1836. What was the result of the "improvement" to which he had referred? Why, as the Crown had given up its former right of challenge while the prisoner retained it in full force, there was actually suffered to remain on that jury, an individual who had himself been tried for a riot at which a homicide was committed, had been convicted and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, which he had suffered. It might well be conjectured under such circumstances, what followed. Even supposing the other eleven had been inclined to bring in the prisoner guilty, it could not be expected that this man would have assented to such a verdict, and the jury could not agree. They were carted to the bounds of the county and discharged. It was well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, that cases must occur frequently in the present condition of Ire-
40
land, in which it was desirable to set aside men from serving on juries, even though there might be no moral stain upon their characters. It was obvious, for instance, that timid men and men living in thatched houses, exposed to popular indignation, ought not to be put to the danger and hazard which they might incur in exercising their duty, by convicting a criminal. He heard similar complaints of like results from Longford and other places. He had also heard great complaints made of the solicitors who had been appointed on the part of the Crown to conduct prosecutions at the different quarter sessions in Ireland; but as that was a part which, although first alluded to by the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department, was altogether foreign to the subject under discussion, he would not, having already trespassed so long on the indulgence of the House, more particularly refer to it. He should be sorry if in the course of his speech he had said anything calculated to wound the feelings of any hon. Gentleman in the House. But he felt that he had a solemn duty to discharge, and one from which he would not shrink. He would endeavour to the best of his humble ability to place the Protestant Church of Ireland upon its true footing. He would only refer, in conclusion, to the Act of 1829. He was not going to make any remarks as to the obligation of the oath which Roman Catholics were then to take in order to obtain a seat in the House. He would only say, that in his opinion, if it had been proposed to make the oath more stringent, it would have been acceded to by Roman Catholics, [No.] Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, he believed he had staled nothing but the truth; and he could state that a Peer of the Roman Catholic persuasion had said that, as a man of honour, putting the oath out of the question, he could not prevail upon himself to enter into any legislation affecting the property of the Established Church. That was noble —that was generous—that was honorable in the highest degree; and he (Mr. Jackson) did put it with all sincerity and tenderness to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen—his Roman Catholic friends (for many of that faith, and he was proud to say it, were his friends)—if, having been admitted into the Protestant legislature of this empire, on the confidence that they would not enter into any measure affecting the properly of the Esta-

41
blished Church of England and Ireland, they could reconcile it to their feeling; as Gentlemen and men of honour, to vote away any portion of that Protestant property which they have sworn to maintain. The hon. and learned Sergeant concluded by expressing his intention of voting for the Bill of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire.
Mr. Wardhad no intention to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through a variety of details, many of which would be explained and others contradicted by hon. Gentlemen who would follow him, but perhaps the House would permit him to apply himself for a short time to the principles by which alone its decision ought to be guided. He had listened to the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, with great attention, in the hope of discovering some alteration in the spirit of his legislation for Ireland. He found the noble Lord, however, at the very point at which he started in the year 1830, utterly regardless of the mighty changes which had been going on around him, and standing as a solitary landmark to show how far public opinion had shot beyond him. The noble Lord accused hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House with a bigoted adherence to an abstract principle. But at all events that abstract principle had never been tried. They might entertain hopes of its healing effects, but they had never tested them. The noble Lord had forgotten that he was a no less obstinate and bigoted adherent to an opposite abstract principle which had been tried and proved to be fraught with the worst consequences, not merely to Ireland, but to the welfare and religious institutions of the empire at large. Experience had shown that the Established Church in Ireland could not be maintained to its present extent, or on its present footing, without so violent an outrage being done to the feelings of the Catholics, as to render it impossible that it could ever be productive of any good effects. What said the noble Lord opposite? That the Protestant Establishment should be maintained in its full integrity, that from the tithe fund in Ireland not one farthing should be deducted for the benefit of the Catholic population, but that it should be distributed, in its locality, among the ministers of the Establishment; and that as to the Roman Catholics, in so far as they might have placed any reliance on the
42
justice of the noble Lord, or any confidence in his influence with the Legislature— which, thank God, was not now what it had been many years ago—they had nothing to look forward to but a perpetual submission to that yoke which the noble Lord opposite had endeavoured, and unsuccessfully endeavoured, to force upon them. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, repudiated (he thanked him. for the word)—repudiated the principle to which the House was pledged: and the noble Lord, to induce the House to accede to his plan entered into a variety of details. Some of those details were good undoubtedly; but it was singular enough that they formed the only points on which the noble Lord coincided with his Majesty's Government. On the reduction of salaries and the abolition of pluralities there was no difference of opinion between the noble Lord and his Majesty's Ministers. But here all similarity ceased. The noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, strove to show, that by a different distribution of the tithe fund in Ireland, it was possible so to parcel it out among the different ministers of the Church Establishment, as to prevent the existence of any surplus at all; and in the event of any surplus arising after all, the noble Lord proposed that sooner than the Catholics should derive any benefit from it, it should be applied to the building of churches and glebe-houses, until the ramifications of the Established religion extended to the remotest corner of Ireland. Certainly it was hardly possible to conceive the existence of a surplus which might not be swallowed up by such demands as these. But he would ask the House whether this, after all, was not an attempt to perpetuate a system which for 300 years had been productive of the worst results, which had cost England l,000,000 l. annually for her standing army, 200,000 l. for police, 1,000,000 l. sterling for glebe-houses and churches since the Union, and 1,500,000 l. for Protestant education, which might fairly be considered as a branch of the Establishment. He would put it to the noble Lord as a reasonable man, and a Christian, whether he could look without shame and concern to the results of this system, as now testified in Ireland? He would ask him, whether there was to be found in the whole civilized world such another instance as Ireland presented of the maintenance of what he was pleased to term a national

43
Church in that country? He would ask him, whether, in any other country on the face of the earth, the clergy of the national Church were compelled to wring their legal dues from the people, by the revival of an obsolete process in the Court of Exchequer, by tithe suits, by the help of the army, and the assistance of the police, and by the actual effusion of human blood. There were 7,000,000 of Catholics in Ireland, and only 750,000 Episcopalians; for of the 850,000 Protestants at least 100,000 are Wesleyan Methodists, who defray the expense of erecting and maintaining their places of worship, and who pay their own ministers. He would ask whether the people of England were not now paying for the way in which they had treated Ireland since the days of Elizabeth? They had exerted themselves to impose a large Protestant Establishment on the Irish nation, without taking a single step to prepare the minds of the people to receive the Protestant religion. They had not attempted to promote that great moral change in the people which took place in this country at the time of the Reformation; and therefore all their attempts to spread the Protestant religion there had been unsuccessful. The hon. and learned Member for Bandon had called the Established Church the bond of union between England and Ireland, but he would say that it rather was the cause that the union had never been effectual; it continually prevented tranquillity in the country. It had prevented Protestantism from attaining due ascendancy in Ireland, and had prevented that religion from effecting the practical good which otherwise would have resulted from it. It might be inferred from the amendment of the noble Lord that they were not to take into consideration that there were any Catholics in Ireland, but were merely to look to the number of acres and Protestants. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) very happily said last night that the noble Lord seemed to think that the Irish Church should look to the cure of acres not to the cure of souls. He agreed in the propriety of this observation, and would add that the noble Lord and those who acted with him rather looked to the number of acres and Protestants than to the interests and moral and religious instruction of the great body of the people. He did not mean to say, that they should not give liberal incomes to such Protestant clergy
44
as were wanted, but he protested against the unnecessary number of them, and the enormous stipends some of them received. He cordially concurred in the opinion that every Protestant clergyman should have the education of a gentleman, and should have an ample allowance to live like a gentleman. When, however, hon. Gentlemen dwelt so strongly on this point, he would beg them to recollect the small allowance made to the Protestant ministers in the north of Ireland. There was allowed by Parliament the sum of 15,000 l. a year to be distributed among the Dissenting clergy of the north of Ireland. This body of persons was divided into three classes. The first class had 150 l. a year each; the second,75 l.; and the third, 50 l.; and no pluralities were allowed. This, of course, was in addition to the stipend they received from their respective flocks. The whole of the income of a clergyman of the first class, according to Mr. Pope, the Moderator of the Synod of Ulster (including the Regium Donum) seldom or never exceeded 300 l., and most of this class resided in the large towns; and the income of the second class seldom exceeded 150 l. a year. Was the noble Lord prepared to say, that he would have Ireland mapped out into districts in his wish to have what he called a new Ecclesiastical arrangement? Were there no Catholics on those acres, which the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet had so carefully distributed. The noble Lord seemed to think that the feelings and interests of the Catholics ought not to be taken into consideration on this subject. He rejoiced in the extreme that such was not the opinion of that House. The Catholics of Ireland were 7,000,000 of people who could not be subjected to a military despotism like the inhabitants of Poland; they possessed the elective franchise, which they would use in a way to prevent their being oppressed. This point was one that it would be an act of absurdity to exclude from the consideration of this question. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget altogether the relative proportion of Protestants to Catholics in the different parts of Ireland. In the province of Armagh, to every ten Protestants there were seventeen Catholics; in the province of Dublin, to every ten Protestants there were fifty-eight Catholies; in the province of Cashel, to every ten Protestants there were 188 Catholics; and in the province of Tuam, to every ten

45
Protestants, there were 259 Catholics. Throughout the whole of Ireland, for the 7,000,000 Catholics, there were 850,000 Protestants, including 100,000 Wesleyan Methodists who pay their own clergy. If the Church property in Ireland was distributed as in other parts of the world, there would be a sufficiency for the religious instruction of all classes of the community. The principle which ran through the whole of the measure introduced by his noble Friend, was conciliation to the Catholic population of Ireland, and this was attempted to be effected by a very small concession indeed. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, said, that the 50,000 l. for the moral and religious instruction of all classes might be drawn from any other source, as well as from the revenues of the Irish Church. There was no Member on the Ministerial side of the House (not even the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, or the honourable Member for Middlesex) who would object to vote a sum of money from any fund, for the purpose of the general education of the people, if it was not to be procured from another source. He had never known his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, with all his love for economy, refuse a vote of money, when he believed that the interests of the great body of the people would be served by it. But, he would ask, whether the money to be devoted to the purposes of education, if taken from any other source, would be attended with the same healing effect as it would be if drawn from the quarter now proposed? He replied — certainly not; because the great object was to show the people of Ireland, that provision was made for the general education of all classes, out of the exorbitant revenues of the Church. As for supposing that any bill on this subject could be a final measure, he begged to observe, that he would not be guilty of the hypocrisy of saying so. He did not believe that it would be so. He did not believe that it was possible that, with respect to a country situated like Ireland, that that House, or any Legislature, could adopt what could be considered a final measure. He should feel, that he was attempting to deceive himself and others, if he asserted that he supposed this to be the case. He contended that the Church Establishment, as reduced by the Church Temporalities Act, was much too large for the spiritual
46
wants of the Protestants of Ireland. He was satisfied that one Archbishop and five Bishops would be amply sufficient to supply all the spiritual wants of the Irish Church, and thus a reduction might be made in the payment of the hierarchy from 150,000 l. to 300,000 l. He did not see why the House should not proceed on the same principle as the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, when he brought in the Church Temporalities Bill. The noble Lord, when he introduced that Bill, said, that twenty-two Bishops and four Archbishops was too large an ecclesiastical establishment for the spiritual wants of the Protestants of Ireland, and he, therefore, proposed to reduce it to two Archbishops and ten Bishops, which he said he considered would be amply sufficient. Now he was of opinion that one Archbishop and four Bishops would be found fully adequate to all purposes that were required. Were hon. Gentlemen aware that in one diocese in England, namely Chester, there were 1,500,000 members of the Establishment? Now in Ireland there were only 750,000 episcopal Protestants, and if one Bishop was found sufficient to superintend the spiritual wants of 1,500,000 in this country, surely two Archbishops and ten Bishops were too many for 750,000 persons. Again, look to the Church of Scotland as to the model of what a Church Establishment should be. There the clergy faithfully discharged their duty, and yet were satisfied with a small income. In that country there were 1,600,000 Protestant members of the Establishment, and the income of the Church was about 200,000 l. a-year. In Ireland there were about 750,000 members of the Established Church. The expense of the Establishment at the present time was about 800,000 l. a-year, and after all the proposed reductions were made, there would remain to it 500,000 l. a-year. He found that the average expense in Scotland for the pay of the clergy was 3s. 4d. for each member of the Establishment, while in Ireland the average annual expense for each member of the Church was 1l. 1s. This, then, was the average that the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, would not alter, because he would devote the present revenue to the Establishment, and he was unable to increase the number of Protestants in Ireland. For his part he saw no reason why the same principle should not be acted upon in Ireland as in

47
Scotland, and if a parallel was drawn between the clergy of the two countries, he had no doubt as to the side on which the balance of advantage would be found. The truth was, that the great body of the Irish people had been as much excluded from that religious instruction which the Church was founded for the purpose of imparting to the people, as the slave population of South Carolina, or any other slave state of America, were from the advantages of general education. The object, then, which the Government had in view, was to devote the surplus revenue of the Church to the moral and religious instruction of the great body of the Irish people, and thus make the Establishment really useful to the bulk of the community. Some observations had been made as to the schools being seminaries for teaching the Catholic religion. He held, that any system of proselytism in connexion with these schools, was an infraction of the very principle on which they were founded. He did not know whether his hon. Friend, the Member for Weymouth, was in his place, but he could not help observing that he could not find words to express the admiration he felt at the speech made by his hon. Friend. The language he then used was that of an honest and conscientious man and a sincere Christian, and reflected the greatest credit on him. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that if there should appear to be any thing like proselytism in the system, steps should instantly be taken to put a stop to it. Many assertions had been made as to this being the case; but, on investigation, they had turned out to be groundless. He would, however, ask his hon. Friend whether his attention had ever been called to the different Reports on the system which had been published by the Commissioners? If he looked into them, he would find that the principle of neutrality was most strictly acted upon by the Commissioners. They had used every exertion to promote neutrality, and if any case occurred in which a complaint was made on this point, it was instantly attended to. The truth was, that the system hitherto was imperfect in its operation, and many of the complaints had arisen from the circumstance that the Commissioners had not the means of carrying out the system. There were some observations on the subject in a pamphlet lately written by the rev. J. Carlisle, a respectable Presbyterian
48
minister, and one of the Commissioners, which were well deserving attention. Mr. Carlisle said,
"That many of the accusations which have been made against the system, arise from the prejudice created against it by the members of the Established Church, seventeen out of twenty-two Bishops having pronounced against it when it was first introduced under the auspices of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The Orange body, too, taking up the subject hastily, unequivocally reprobated the system, calling it a mutilation of the Word of God. This declaration affected the opinions of the Dissenting ministers, and has also given rise to many of the complaints which are urged against it."
In a pamphlet published by Mr. Frank Sadlier, also one of the Commissioners, the principle of neutrality was also maintained. He asked whether it was likely that the Protestant children, by being taught the principles of general morality, would be prevented from imbibing the principles of the Protestant religion; at the same time he observed, "that this was more likely to be done if the clergy set themselves in opposition to the rules of the Commissioners, and from an apprehension that the Protestants will be prevented by association with the Catholics, will neither teach themselves, nor permit the Board of Education to do it for them." With regard to the education given to the Roman Catholics, he said:—
"I fearlessly appeal to an inspection of the school-books; and I ask whether boys instructed out of them will not receive a good moral education—that nine-tenths of the children would not have received education any where if not in these schools, and would have become miserably mischievous, and ready for the commission of crime?"
Speaking of the general result of the system, he said: —
"It may naturally be asked what have the Commissioners of National Education done? Our answer must be gratifying to every friend of Ireland. The Board has been less than four years in existence; the first was employed in preparation, and yet more than 1,300 school-houses have been established, and more than 200,000 children of the poor have been educated. Therefore, in this respect, they have done more in three years than the Kildare-place Society in nineteen years!
This testimony was satisfactory, as far as it went, but he had evidence derived from a still higher quarter—from the publication of a member of the Church of England,—the reverend Mr. E. Stanley,

49
who, having inspected the schools, and ascertained the progress made under the Government system, confirmed every one of the statements made by the Commissioners. He said—
"The result of the system is highly favourable; a new light has been thrown upon the Irish character. Ignorant, I know the people were—bigoted they might be—but I have ever found them accessible by kindness and sympathy."
The system, then, had succeeded to a certain extent. Speaking of the wilder parts of the country, he said, "I asked them, what will good education do for you, what makes you so desirous for the establishment of schools," and was answered, "It will put us in the way of reading the Word of God, it will teach us how to behave ourselves; what is a man or a woman without it?—they are like blind men and women walking through the wilderness." The hon. Member for Newark had adverted to the danger arising from placing the Protestant schools under the control of Catholics; he said, that some of them were under the superintendence of the Catholic nunneries; and one of these in the county of Galway certainly was visited by Mr. Stanley, who says,—
"The girls' school is under Catholic management, but, with this exception, it is faultless; the children are clean and orderly, and the books used are some of the late publications of the Board, and those who know the benevolence and zeal of the persons by whom the children are in this way educated, can only regret when they see Protestants who are not equally devoted to God's service and the best interests of their fellow-subjects."
He then referred to the Christian spirit manifested by the Catholics in desiring to meet the Protestants with liberality on some doctrinal points; and he said—
"Let the Protestant take a leaf out of the Catholic book and say ' amen;' let both parties bind such sentiments for a sign upon their hands, and as frontlets between their eyes; let them write them on the posts of their houses and on their gates, that the people of Ireland may dwell together, in future, as brethren in peaceful habitations."
These quotations were quite decisive as to the effect of the system of education approved by the Government in Ireland; and he apprehended no danger to the Protestant religion from it. Paley had been spoken of, but he said that a religious establishment should be that of the majority of a country; indeed he stated distinctly, that when the religion of the majority changed, the Established Church
50
must change with it. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Maclean) said last night, and he believed it had been said before, that there was on]y one source from which truth could flow, the Bible; but he must not forget that from that source the most opposite conclusions had been drawn by men whose names were an honour to religion— Fenelon and Bossuet were men of high integrity, who discharged the duties of the Christian ministry in an exemplary manner, but their ideas of truth differed in many respects from ours. The duty of the Legislature was to provide religious instruction for the people. He considered that the claim of the Church to legislative protection, was put upon its proper footing by the Archbishop of Dublin, in his last charge, when he said, "it should be set forth as a claim on behalf of the people, rather than as one on behalf of the ministry." He would not enter further, however, into the discussion, but only say, that no other religion could be adopted for an established religion than that which is the religion of the majority of the people; for any other must be supported by penal laws, and might as well be forced upon the natives of Hindostan as upon the Irish, if it were to be supported by funds derived from a people who would net receive it. He rejoiced to see, that many of the objections to a measure of this sort, which had been formerly advanced by hon. Members on the opposite side, were now entirely abandoned; but he could not but be a little surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, who said that the Bill had been produced at the instigation of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. But the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire had conferred upon the Established Church the name of the monster church. In a speech delivered by the hon. Member in 1832, he said, "there is not in Europe such a monster as the Protestant Church." The conversion of the hon. Member, therefore, was not only recent, but extraordinary. He worked out the whole principle, for he maintained that the ministers of the national religion were, in justice, as much entitled to have a provision made for them as the Protestant clergy; he understanding, by the "national religion" that of the majority of the people, which alone could constitute it national. Now that was the appropriation clause with a vengeance; and how the hon. Member, who advocated

51
such doctrines as those, in 1832, could come forward now and oppose the Government —when, with a singular moderation, they merely proposed to apply a small portion of the revenues of the Established Church to the purposes of general education; and accompanied his opposition with the observation that the Bill must have been framed at the suggesstion of the "arch enemy of mankind,"—he was at a loss to imagine. How could the hon. Member reconcile those declarations with his opposition to the simple and moderate proposition of his Majesty's Government, to apply to national purposes that part of the Church property only which might fairly be considered superfluous, after providing for the spiritual wants of the Church. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had brought forward another grand objection to this Bill; he said there was great danger in placing so much discretionary power in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There might be some force in this objection, and he was inclined to entertain it, to a certain extent; but really it was one which came with singularly bad effect from a party on that side of the House, which was willing to invest, not merely a discretionary power, but the whole municipal powers and privileges of Ireland in the hands of an individual. But what necessity was there for investing this power in the hands of any authority where the popular control could be fairly and effectively exercised? There was another objection stated by the right hon. Baronet; he said, that the compositions must be re-opened. They were only to be re-opened in certain cases; and the question, therefore, was—whether, because injustice might have been once committed, they ought to perpetuate it? Then, again, it had been objected that all the concessions which had been made for the relief of Ireland, had been made in vain. But did they consider the immense debt which was due to Ireland, and the unjust effects of the bad policy which had been pursued towards her? Would the House be satisfied with the concessions already made, and refuse anything further? It was just as vain to think of withholding from the people what they felt themselves justified in seeking for, and entitled to receive, as it would be to think of retracting the concessions already made. The right hon. Baronet put an interpretation on the words "justice to Ireland,"
52
on which the people of Ireland would differ with him; because he said it should mean only the claims of the Protestant Church. The whole system of Irish policy, from first to last, had been such that, until now, some hon. Members had not known what the wants of Ireland were. There was an objection, which had been urged with singular perseverance, to the principle of appropriation—namely, that it constituted a bond of political union for its support amongst the prevailing political party in the House which seemed rather a strange sort of objection, considering that it was professedly the opposition to that principle which constituted a bond of political union amongst the other party in the House. He would ask what great measure had ever been discussed in the House which had not been made the bond of political union of its supporters or opponents? Every question must carry with it that consequence. Were not the questions of Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the Test Act, and the Reform Bill, all of them bonds of a Political Union for some political party, at one time or another, as well that which resisted as that which supported them? The bond of union between the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, and the Irish Members, with whom on every other question he was at issue, was the Reform Bill; but he never saw any inconsistency in securing their support at that time. What bond of union was there, at this moment, between the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) but resistance to this principle? And yet he objected to others being united with the Ministry on this Bill! Was the anomaly greater than the union on that side of the House? He would wish to call to the noble Lord's recollection two events. In 1834, the noble Lord, who was then a Minister of the Crown, with a large majority on his side, knew that there were divisions in the Cabinet on this very subject, but they were not made known to the public. The 147th Clause of the Church Temporalities Act had been discussed, but it had not broken up the Cabinet. The noble Lord did not think proper to combat with the shadow, however ready he might have shown himself since to combat with the substance. A quarrel ensued between himself and his colleagues. What followed? As an individual Member, unknown and unassisted, he (Mr. Ward) took up the question, confident of the justice of the case; and what

53
was the result? On the very first night fixed for the discussion, the noble Lord and his Friends conscientiously resigned their seats in the Cabinet. No doubt every Member, who was in the House at that time, would recollect that the noble Lord, after leaving the Treasury benches in the adjourned debate, made a solemn appeal to the House, in terms which made a deep impression upon it; and in that address he stated the principle which induced him to take that course. He said —
"Now, I tell the House, boldly and distinctly, that the people of England are not ripe for that; and when I say that the people of England are not ripe for that, let me call upon you to pause before you assent to a resolution which you cannot, which you ought not, which the people of England will not let you, carry into effect. I did not think that I should ever live to hear a Minister of the Crown propose such a resolution—I do not think, that I yet see the Legislature that will pass it—and I am not certain that I know the Sovereign who will assent to it."*
That solemn appeal was made to the sense of the country, on one of the most important principles which ever engaged their attention. What was the result? How were those anticipations answered? The House did assent to the principle—the Sovereign did assent to it—and the people did ratify it by their full and unequivocal approbation. The noble Lord, in 1835, in his speech on the Address to the Throne, when he voted for the motion of the right hon. Baronet, said—
"I speak, not only my own sentiments, but the sentiments of a body of gentlemen, not insignificant either in rank or standing, or unimportant in point of numbers, in this House."†
What had become of them? They had melted away before their very principal; they had not stood by the noble Lord in his objections; one by one they had shrunk from him;—and, with the exception of the right hon. Baronet, and one or two other supporters, his party had almost disappeared. That was the effect of the first appeal. What was the second? It was an appeal made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. Every one must recollect the circumstances Under which he came into power. He was absent from England, and he was recalled by his Sovereign to take the highest station. He returned to this country;—the eyes of the world even were
* Hansard (Third Series) vol. xxiv. p. 38.
† Ibid, vol. xxvi. p. 257.
54
directed towards him. When he returned to England, his declaration of principles was anxiously looked for, and he published the Tamworth manifesto. It was the first test by which the public could judge of the rules he had laid down for his future government. When that declaration was published, so much was conceded in the way of a rational course of reform, that he said, "if that be the policy of the Conservatives there is little difference henceforth amongst us as political parties," the difference is only in detail, and not in principle, and we shall henceforward be more united. But the right hon. Baronet declared that he never could consent to the alienation of Church property; and it was upon that point that a dissolution of Parliament took place. It was upon the Church question that the whole of the elections turned; it was mooted at every hustings—upon it the present Ministry took their stand—and upon it the right hon. Baronet went out of office, after a struggle, sustained with ability, which excited general admiration. It left him seated on the opposite benches, and power in the hands of those who advocated this very principle. That was the second appeal to the people. And the vote which the House returned upon the appropriation clause was the solemn and irrevocable answer to the appeal which the Sovereign had made to the sense of his people. The right hon. Baronet had tried to frighten the House from its propriety, by exciting fears of a revolution. He had warned it of the danger of a collision. He referred to the words of an hon. and gallant Officer on the other side of the House, about the party on this side having selected a Joshua, who rushed on where the Moses of the other side would fear to tread. But a revolution would never proceed from the popular party, or from its leaders. The Reform Bill gave them the means of obtaining, in a constitutional manner, whatever justice demanded. There was no occasion for violence. No, if a revolution were to come, it would come from another quarter. It would come from those who were infatuated enough to believe that the people of England, armed by the Reform Bill, that new charter of their rights, would seek the settlement of their political affairs, through any other medium than that of the Government, and would wish to be governed upon principles to which the great majority of them were opposed. As to the words which the

55
hon. Baronet bad quoted, were they applicable to all parties—to those who opposed this Bill, as well as to those who supported it? Had not the Conservatives made choice of a Joshua, who had rushed in where Moses feared to tread? Had not the organs of the Conservative party pointed out the adjuncts which a Conservative leader ought to possess? Were they not told, the other day, in a Conservative publication, that the Conservative leader ought to be a man not encumbered with property or a stake in the country;—that he should have a sovereign contempt for all parties, having tried all, and been faithful to none? It might, no doubt, be very natural for a leader so situated, to exert his talents in keeping the sources of discontent and agitation in full operation. It was from such politicians that he should anticipate the most disastrous consequences. He did not court a collision; he wished for peace; but, though he wished for peace, he would not pay for peace the price which was required for it by the party in Opposition. To obtain peace he would not sacrifice principle, nor the rights and happiness of 7,000,000 of his countrymen. He would not in this or in any other instance, consent to purchase peace, however desirable, by any ignominious concessions. He could have no doubt as to the course which he ought to pursue, and he should give h s cordial support to the Bill of the Ministers. The division this evening was to be taken under the same circumstances as the division of last year; and the same feeling, therefore, which induced the House then to reject the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, should prevail with it now to repudiate that of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. They were called to vote upon a subject on which they were already pledged, and had repeatedly divided. He never would believe that, on a point where the interests of Ireland were at stake, the House of Commons would shrink from those pledges which it had given, to ensure justice to Ireland.
Mr. Daniel WhittleHarvey said, that he was by no means prepared to participate in either of the proposals before the House, and if he could have suffered his own inclinations to be the interpreters of his duty, he should have most willingly abstained from taking part in this discussion; but, as the representative of a large constituency, he felt it due to them, he felt it due to himself, as well as to that portion
56
of his fellow-citizens who took an interest in the conduct of the representatives of the people, to state briefly, but distinctly, his sentiments upon the measures now brought before the House. The House had before them, in fact, two distinct Bills; because, although the Bill of the noble Lord opposite, the Ministerial Bill, was the only one on the Table of the House, yet the noble Lord near him (Lord Stanley), in bringing forward his motion, had so amply unfolded his views, that every sentence of his address might be deemed a provision and an enactment. The House had, therefore, before them two rival Bills, brought forward by two rival parties, and it was for the House to decide upon the respective merits of those rival Bills; and he trusted, that before they came to a conclusion, the fullest and most detailed statements on each side would be given, and go forth to the country, in order that the whole nation might be put in possession of the merits or demerits of the respective measures, in accordance with the clear statement of both the noble Lords of their desire to appeal to the country, as to the relative importance and merits of their several Bills. It was quite fitting and necessary that the public, to whom this appeal was thus made, should clearly understand the character and scope of both measures. As to himself, he could not but feel greatly surprised that such difference had been made where there was so little distinction. Both parties had set out by admitting, and deprecated any suggestion at variance with the declaration, that they were sincere and eager champions of the Protestant Church, and that they proposed their respective measures with every desire to enlarge the boundaries of its importance by removing all those sources of corruption which were too manifest to be denied. It was, therefore, for the country to consider which of these measures was best calculated to work out the object so congenial to the wishes of both noble Lords. He should, in a very few words, dismiss the proposition of the noble Member for North Lancashire, because, although he differed from him, as well as from the Ministry, upon this subject, this much he would fairly say, that if he were an advocate of the Establishment, if he sincerely believed in its importance, its essentiality, its Christian obligation, as binding upon civil institutions, he should not pause one moment in selecting the Bill which was proposed by

57
the noble Member for North Lancashire. [Cheering from both sides of the House.] He was well aware how ironical were the cheers with which he was honoured by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but in considering the measures before them, and the course which he thought it his duty to pursue, he should not shrink from repeating opinions which he had ever avowed, in and out of the House. He was not one of those individuals who took up opinions one day, and dropped them the next; he was not apprehensive lest some hon. Gentleman should go into the library, and rake up passages from any speech he had made, for the purpose of confuting his speech of one day by his own declarations on some former day. He had never concealed his sincere conviction, that Christianity was a spiritual principle, which not only had nothing to do with civil institutions, but that the whole alliance of Church and State was opposed to its profession, impeded its efficiency, and impaired its power. That his view of this subject was the correct one, was proved by the evidence of all history. Believing this to be the doctrine of that simple and substantial system of religion which breathed through the whole nature of Christian economy, he had always declared it to be his firm conviction that the unhallowed connexion which subsisted not only in England, but in all Christian countries with one single exception, between Church and State, was most injurious to the Church as well as to the State. But they were not now discussing that point. The hon. Member for St. Alban's had told them in terms not to be discredited, that he did not regard this as a final measure. Now, he should like to know if that hon. Gentleman was to be considered as the organ of the Government in making that declaration, for, if so, it was directly at variance with the preamble of the Bill. This measure had been propounded to the House with the expressed view of its being just and necessary for the establishing of peace and good order in Ireland. A greater object than that it was impossible for great minds to be ambitious of entertaining. There was no purpose to which a statesman could direct his intellect more deserving of his attention, more likely to secure to him a permanent renown, to obtain for him the respect of living men, and perpetuate his name for ages to come, than such a purpose as that. In fact, there was no sacri-
58
fice too great to secure this advantage; but would this Bill secure it? He thought he should be able to show, not only that it was not calculated to produce that result, but that if there was any sincerity, which he did not doubt, in the minds of those most prominent amongst the present supporters of the Bill, it was utterly impossible they could expect any such result to flow from it. Nothing was more remote from his intention or disposition to introduce a question of controversy on matters of spiritual faith; but he could not avoid saying, that as the Catholic religion was a religion ancient in history, the doctrines of which, however erroneous they might now be deemed, had been, from the commencement to the present day (and it was the boast of those who professed them) invariably the same—it was, he contended, utterly impossible, considering these points, to suppose that the Catholics could be satisfied with a measure which had for its avowed object the perpetuation of the Protestant. This measure had been propounded by Government as a measure which they said was likely, and was intended, to tranquillize Ireland, and he, as a Member of that House, had a right to investigate the accuracy of that pretension; and should he in doing so, find it likely to lead to that result, then he should say, there was no sacrifice he would not be prepared to make to accomplish that all-desirable object. But when the hon. Member for St Alban's treated it as a final measure—and by the word "final" he did not mean invariable and perpetual, but as final as any measure, legislative in its origin and destiny, could be—and viewing the question not only as regarded the Catholic religion, but as regarded Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, it was utterly impossible for the Protestant Dissenters, of whom he avowed himself one, to hope for any thing like a permanent or final settlement in the present measure. [Cheers]. If he were Catholic, and were to avow an opinion in favour of the Protestant Establishment, he should fully conceive himself chargeable either with a dereliction of religious principle or with no slight decree of hypocrisy. Hon. Members on the other side of the House cheered him, but why should not truth be cheered. He did not care, however, for the charity of their sneers; all he required was the charity of their silence. The measure was proposed by the Government as a measure to tranquillize Ireland. It

59
was therefore his duty, as a Member of the legislature, to see how far the provisions of the Bill accorded with its professed object. If he had found that it was likely to lead to that result, then he would have been prepared to say, that there was no sacrifice which they ought not to make to accomplish such an object, but he did not find that such was the case. They had only the statement of the hon. Member for St. Alban's, made in the integrity of his mind, that this was not a final measure, meaning by the word final, not, of course, an unvarying perpetuity, but final, as within the legislative acceptation of the word. This being the case, how, he would repeat, could any Roman Catholic give his support to such a measure? He would not confine this question to Roman Catholics, but extend it to Protestant Dissenters; not including therein Presbyterians, who were not Dissenters, but Non-conformists; and he would say that it was impossible for them, and for the Dissenters of England, who looked for the downfal of the Irish Church as the precursor of the downfal of the Church here — to support a measure which was to strengthen the Establishment—both propositions were to commute tithe into a rent-charge; but the real question was, whether supposing the commutation effected, although the name were changed, the substantial injustice would not be continued; and, further, whether the same powerful remonstrance would not be made to the payment of tithe as a rent-charge, that was now made to the payment of tithe under its own name. The declaration had over and over again been made in that House b y many distinguished Gentlemen prominently connected with Ireland—accompanied, too, with threats—for threats might be used one day, though substituted by the extreme of mildness the next—the declaration had been frequently made, that such a measure as this was only to be considered as an instalment. Now, in his opinion, nothing could be a worse system for a Legislature to adopt than this system of doing justice by instalments, and the system was particularly objectionable in a reformed Parliament. It was due to their character to pay the full amount justly required of them, and not to sacrifice a great principle by attempting to put off their creditors by a series of beggarly instalments. If tithes ought to be abolished, and that undoubtedly they
60
ought, in his opinion, why was the question sought to be got rid of, or frittered down by this system of tardy huckstering, of mean contrivance, and miserable evasion? Why not come forward and at once boldly declare, that looking at the state of things in Ireland, the Catholics and Dissenters of that country should no longer be compelled to contribute to the support of a Church from which they conscientiously dissent? He was about to stale that not only was it his own impression, arising from the consideration he had given the subject, and strengthened by the various statements which had been uttered by hon. Gentlemen in that House, that any arrangement such as was proposed was only viewed as temporary, and as leading to greater advantages; but he found that members of the Established Church in Ireland entertained precisely the same opinion. The hon. Member for St. Alban's had quoted a passage from a pamphlet on a report of a clergyman of the Established Church, and he should pursue the same course. What said Dr. Hincks, speaking on this subject? He said, "Let none lay the flattering unction to their souls that it is against tithes—as tithes—that the hatred of the Romanists has been excited; and that by changing tithes to some other property the hatred will be dispelled. They hate them, not for anything in themselves, but inasmuch as they are the endowment of a clergy that they hate. If they are exchanged for some other property their hatred will be transferred; it will still exist without any diminution, if they are only appropriated to the same odious purpose to which tithes are appropriated now. The writer was further of opinion, that the tithe commutation would, on the one hand, not secure the clergy in the possession of this income, that it would not tranquillize Ireland; and on the other hand, that it would have the effect of endangering the payment of the landlord's rent." Now, as a Protestant Dissenter, he would say that the Catholics and Dissenters of Ireland would act on the same sentiments with regard to the tithes when they were converted in to a rent-charge, as induced them to act against the tithes in their present form. Was that made a matter of regret? None at all; quite the reverse. But what would be the effect of this measure of the Government? It was because he saw that it would transfer the tithes of Ireland which were public pro-

61
perty and ought to be devoted to the real interests of Ireland, to the moral improvement and social happiness of the people, to educate the children of the poor, to administer comfort to the aged—it was because he saw, that this system would transfer the property which ought to be so applied to the worldly coffers of the landlords of that country, that he entered his protest against this measure. He was not a little surprised to see, that the noble Member for North Lancashire and those who acted with him should be so eager to enter their protest against the doctrine of appropriation; and he was certainly not less surprised that the members of the Government were so tenacious of their own principle. The measure of the noble Lord, as well as the measure of the Government, afforded abundant evidence of appropriation. One of the measures took thirty per cent from the tithe-owner; the other took only twenty-five per cent, and both of them gave the amount they took to the landlords of Ireland. Now he knew—and therefore let it not be said they were cheering him—what he was about to observe would produce no cheers on either side. The truth was, there was too much of good cheer in it. He knew very well that the proposal would have the sanction of all the landlords, not of Ireland only, but of England also. There were many of the English landowners who were weary of expressing their opposition of the Irish Tithe Bill, but who, nevertheless, chuckled within themselves when they heard of its provisions, and who were not without a hope that the example in the case of Ireland would be contagious, and that, at no very distant time, they should have a Bill for England engrafted on the Irish Bill, which would place in the hands of the English landlords some twenty-five or thirty per cent. Yet there were both the noble Lords protesting against the principle of spoliation. Both were standing up for the rights of the Church, while both agreed in this, that they would take as much as they could to apply to the worst of all secular purposes. On the one side the House heard it said, "There is a great principle running between us, deep, and dark, and fathomless, over which it is impossible to pass, and here we take our stand." On the other side it was declared, "It is inconsistent with our principles, which assert the inviolability of Church property, to
62
allow one shilling of that property to be perverted from or to be directed to any other source." Why, greater hypocrisy than this was never exhibited in Parliament? Yet, upon this both parties were ready to go to the country. He was here reminded of the fable of the monkey and the cats, having found a piece of cheese, and not agreeing as to its division, they determined to refer the matter to a court of justice, over which a monkey presided. The monkey divided the cheese into two portions, and under the pretence of making them equal, bit a piece first off one lump and then off the other. Having considerably diminished them both, they appeared to be tolerably equalized, and the cats declared they were content, upon which the monkey said, "Though you are satisfied, Justice is not; and now I must take what remains for my pains." But the act of appropriation and spoliation did not rest here. He found, on looking over the clauses of this Bill, a provision to which he wished particularly to allude. Two or three years ago, when the Irish clergy were in difficulties—when they could not collect their tithes—that was to say, when Protestants as well as Catholics refused to pay them—for in all their love for the Protestant Establishment, and in their great desire that the Catholics should pay the Protestant Clergy, the Protestants themselves were prepared to take advantage of the storm, when the millions of Ireland were agitated in order to place them in hostility to tithes, the Protestants having availed themselves of the protection afforded them, and having declined to pay the clergy, came here in tearful sympathy, and wrung from the people a million of money for the express purpose of its being applied to the fulfilment of their own engagements. The provisions proposed in the Bill were objected to; but those who ventured to object to it were sneered at as economists, and an assurance was given by the Government, that the amount was to be advanced only as a loan, which would be paid by instalments. Those instalments had never been paid. But he would say, that as long as tithes existed, the payment of them ought to be enforced. Some of the money, however, had been obtained, and more might, no doubt, be found; but in their richness and abundance the Government now proposed not only to forego what was due—they even in this Bill engaged to return what had been paid.

63
So suppose 700,000 l. had been advanced out of that million, and one-half of it had been repaid out of the pockets of the Irish Protestant landlords, that amount was to go back to the pockets of these very individuals, some of whom had countenanced the non-payment of the tithes. So much for the hostility to spoliation; so much for the attachment to the principle of appropriation. But let him see how this Bill would work, because he wished the country to know what was the nature of the appeal that was to be made to them. He considered that one of two things would happen, or both. In his opinion, at no distant time, the Consolidated Fund of England would be charged with and have to pay the entire tithe, the stipend due from the Protestants of Ireland. Just let them see how this happened; and the Bill of the noble Lord and the Bill of the Government were similar here. He was not going to enter into any theoretical details. In a published speech of the right hon. Baronet, which came to him peculiarly recommended, coming as it did in the form of a Church publication—in that speech, which he had bought for a penny, and which he had read in that form, not having heard it—in that penny speech, the right hon. Baronet stated that the full amount of the tithes applicable to the support of the clergy was 507,000 l.; allowing for the reduction of three parts in ten, also for the per cent age amounting to 152,000 l. there would remain 354,000 l. applicable to the support of the clergy. Now, what was the proposition of these two Bills?—because they were equal in their merits in this particular. It was proposed that tithes should be abolished in Ireland; that for every 100 l. in tithes 70 l. should be charged as a rent-charge on the land now subject to the tithes; that the seven-tenths should be paid to the officer of the Woods and Forests; that the parties entitled to this money, or to any portion of it, on the first of January in every year, should receive a certificate or draft on the Bank of Ireland for the payment of that money, and if it was not paid to him on the 1st of January it was to bear interest. Now what would be the effect of that system? The Government was to receive the money—the Government took on itself the payment of the money—it was to give drafts for the money. They had led the clergy into an arrangement by which they would forego
64
30 l. in every 100 l., and they consented to pay 2l. 10 s. for the trouble of receiving the money and its payment. Suppose, after this, the Catholic and the Dissenter coalesced, and that there was the same hostility—as a Dissenter he hoped there would be to the payment of this rent-charge, for the charge was nothing more than a delusion—that there had been to the payment of tithes? Could they imagine, that when a man came to them and asked for a rent-charge to be applied for the support of the Protestant Church, it would be more acceptable to the Catholic and the Dissenter to pay it in that name than as tithe? It was likely that those who possessed great influence would be able to soothe the troubled mind of Dissent for a year or two, and that state of affairs might be appealed to as evidence of the people's content; but he would say, that if Ireland were content under such circumstances, then all that they had heard about the wrongs and miseries, about the seven centuries of suffering of the Roman Catholic population, was a gross perversion of the fact. Would not Ireland have a right to say that there had been a fraud committed on her, that you insulted her understanding in calling on her to support a Church from which she dissented, by paying money the same in amount, but supposed to be rendered more acceptable to her, because the application came to her under a different title? Ought they not to be ashamed to treat a nation as they would a child when they wanted it to take physic. Such a proceeding was like saying to the child, "Come here, my little dear, take this dose, and if you do not like it in this form, let us try some other." Could it be supposed that the people of Ireland, whom the hon. Sergeant had so justly eulogised as an intelligent and highly-spirited people, jealous of all insult—could it be supposed that the people of Ireland would say otherwise than that they could not submit to such an arrangement. Could it be supposed that the people of Ireland, comprising Catholics and Dissenters, who, on principle, object to a Protestant Church, and who pronounced its doctrines heresies—could it be conceived that they who objected to pay the money as tithes would ever submit to pay it in its more fashionable form of a rent-charge? Would not the effect be that there would be the same agitation, the same public meetings, the same organized force — would not

65
every species of opposition against the payment of this rent-charge be as rife then as now? It might be said, however, —"Oh, yes, but look at the remedy we provide. We are now going to lay this rent-charge only on the land; its payment is to have precedence of all other obligations, and there is to be the same facility for its recovery." He was not aware that the law was to be made more stringent than at present for the recovery of tithes; but if so, that same law which was to be proposed to enforce the recovery of the rent-charge might be effective for the recovery of tithes. The Composition Act gave at this moment to the owner of tithes the power of distraining on the land. The effect, then, might be that this rent-charge would be paid in some instances and withheld in others; but what would be going on all this while? Why, the clergyman had got the certificate—the engagement to pay; the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would be bound to pay, and by every obligation of law the payment would be enforced till the year 1843. Surely it was no straining of the facts to say they warranted the conclusion, that at no distant time agitation would be revived; no doubt for a short time it would be subdued, but it would rise again to all its former power, and there would be the same resistance to this rent-charge that there had been exerted against the payment of tithes. Was not this a subject with respect to which all the constituents of the empire—all the people of England —all those who had to pay into the Consolidated Fund, ought to be apprised? He called on the hon. Member for Middlesex, who was truly regardful of the public purse, whom they might taunt for his economy, but who had gained a more honourable reputation by his unceasing labours to that end, than any other man—he called upon his hon. Friend, though he knew what would be his reluctance to entertain an opinion adverse to the party to which he gave his powerful and steady countenance, to follow him in this to which he gave his feeble powers, and assist him in contending that they were not warranted in putting the whole of the tithes of Ireland, when converted into a rent-charge, on the Consolidated Fund of England. They were told that the amount was to be repaid; but he could imagine that when, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down one of these days with his financial
66
statement, he would refer to the condition of Ireland—he would speak of the appalling circumstances of the clergy— the House would hear of their distress, and that such was the hostility against them, that they dared not go to the Post-office to obtain their letters. Such facts would be narrated to the House, and upon hearing such an appeal, he would ask could they resist the applications of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? On that ground, and on the other grounds he had mentioned, he objected to this Bill. He thought the effect of such a measure would not be to ensure the greatest and most desirable object set forth in the preamble, he thought it would not be the means of establishing permanent peace and good order in Ireland. He would say that one of two things would occur in Ireland; he thought it not at all unlikely that both would, and thereupon he deprecated the whole principle of this Bill. He found that while on the one hand England would have to maintain the Protestant clergy of Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund, on the other hand the power of the Catholics would so increase that the Catholic Church itself would be put in possession of the rent-charge. His apprehension was, that though England would have to maintain the Protestant clergy of Ireland, the revenues belonging to the Church would be at the disposal of the Catholics. He trusted he should never live to see the day when the Catholic religion would be anything more than a sect. He knew the workings of these systems. It was true the Catholics called themselves the advocates of the voluntary system, but he as a Protestant Dissenter opposed to all establishments, repudiated such succour as the Catholic religion would afford. The Catholic religion was essentially an establishment universal in its pretensions, and tolerating no other: There was not, then, he must be allowed to say, half the ground of complaint from a Catholic against the Established Church that there was for a Protestant Dissenter; nor had the Presbyterians a right to complain of the Established Church in the same degree and on the same grounds that a Protestant Dissenter had. The Catholic and the Presbyterian complained inasmuch as they did not happen to be the Established Church themselves. The Catholics were aspiring to that position from which they had been hurled; they desired to recover that which they had lost in the scramble, and if they regained it they would hold it

67
with a firm grasp. It was not so with the Dissenter; he was meek and lowly in his pursuits. He had no altar but his own heart. He acknowledged no head but his spiritual head. The Protestant Church had its pope in St. James's; the Catholic had its pope at Rome—these were earthly masters; the Protestant Dissenters knew none. The House might look more to a party triumph than to the establishment of a great principle; but he told them that the time was not distant, if they passed this measure, when the Consolidated Fund would be charged with the Protestant clergy of Ireland. He did not say it was equally certain, but it was possible that the growing power of the Catholics of Ireland would enable them to resume the possession of the property they had lost. He had no doubt a statement of the grounds on which he was compelled to withhold his assent from this Bill was not acceptable to many in that House, but he thought he had said enough to justify an individual holding the principles he professed, in refusing to give the measure his sanction. He might be asked would he then leave things as they were? Would he allow Ireland to continue the scene of ceaseless and growing agitation? Would he prevent her improvement by allowing her to be the object, of dark design—would he never give peace to that industriously disposed, but oppressed people! Did he mean to say that nothing ought to be done to remedy the existing evils? Quite the reverse. Would the Government go to the people on an intelligible and intelligent principle,—on a principle which would invite all hearts to crowd around their standard, which would make their measure more popular, and deservedly more popular, than reform itself, they would do this; while they respected every living interest in Ireland, while they determined to allow every person in receipt of a stipend from ecclesiastical revenues to continue in the enjoyment of such a stipend as long as he lived, they would extinguish tithes for ever from this day, commuting it into a land-tax, not giving up thirty per cent, to the landlord, but taking the whole; and having got the whole and made it subservient in the first instance to such claims as he had mentioned, they would apply the whole of what remained of this princely revenue to ameliorate the condition of the people of Ireland, to raise the starving millions from their distress to give bread and comfort to the aged, to give protection to all. He confessed his blood ran cold when
68
he heard the impassioned statements made in that House last night by the most splendid orator of our time. That hon. and learned Gentleman informed them that at this moment there was the greatest suffering in Ireland. What could the starving millions get by this Bill. They were told that there were two millions of people in that fair land actually stretched on the earth, struggling in the agonies of death. Well, and was there any proposition made to relieve them? Formerly they heard that Ireland was unrepresented; there was now no part of the British Empire so ably represented as was Ireland. She was represented, indeed, by the energy of one man, and forty heads were ready to assist him; yet no plan was brought forward which seemed founded on the deep sympathy they professed for the suffering distresses of the Irish people. He would say— let them go to the Irish nation on his plan. He had no objection to go to Ireland; he had no objection at all to be shown up there on College Green; and if he were, he would tell the people of Ireland that his proposition was this. He would say, when he was told that they were afflicted by the payment of tithes, and he was asked to relieve them by putting thirty per cent. into the pockets of the landlords—many of whom were absentees—and by charging the remainder on the Consolidated Fund of the British empire, he moved a proposition in which, after respecting the existing interests, he suggested that the whole money should be hereafter appropriated to the advancement of their comforts, to the education of their children, and to give succour and support to the aged and afflicted. Would not this be worthy of their humanity? This, then, was his plan; and he was as satisfied as he was of his own being that his plan would be popular with the people; that it would confer a great benefit on Ireland, and strengthen the hands of the Government, by securing the affections of that country [cries of "Oh!" and symptoms of impatience.] He must beg to be heard. He had listened with no inconsiderable attention to hon. Gentlemen, who had said the same thing over and over again, and he might say to the hon. Gentleman, who cried "Hear!" that he had never in his life been listened to for so many minutes, as he himself had spoken for hours. He knew that his sentiments were not acceptable to many in the House, and he should have been well pleased if he could have withheld them; but he felt that it would have been unbecoming in him to

69
take the part he was compelled to take without as simply, frankly, and briefly as he could, recording his reasons. Having so done, he would say it was impossible for him to give his consent to this measure, inasmuch as he considered it a delusion, and believed that it could not be otherwise than productive of great disappointment.
Mr. O'Connell: The plan laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman is, above all things, practicable. The great merit of his scheme is to lay hold of the tithes of Ireland, and apply them to the use of the poor. That scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman has for its great recommendation that it is certain of being carried into effect. He has only to propose it, and everybody will vote for it—he is sure of it himself—he who has boasted of his candour and sincerity. It is really nothing hut the milk of human kindness flowing over which makes him imagine he could carry such a scheme. For my own part, I am deeply indebted for the kindness he has shown me in saying that with all the interest I have taken in Ireland, I have never once thought of anything for the benefit of Ireland. I respect that cheer—there is sincerity in it—it is like the hon. and learned Gentleman, perfectly sincere. He did certainly, in his benevolence, tell us one thing which cannot be denied—he spoke of the merits of my hon. Friend who is by me, and I will tell him in return, that one of my hon. Friend's merits is, that he never sacrificed his principles or his party to his miserable resentments or disappointments—when a great national question is being discussed, not thinking of the merits of that question, or its practical results, but thinking how he should exhibit a little miserable, spiteful resentment. I wish the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet joy of their new ally. I will say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I say it firmly to him, that I do not think he has spoken the sentiments of his constituents, and I, humble individual as I am, am thoroughly convinced that he has not earned success tonight—let him sneer as much as he pleases at me. I give him leave to sneer as much as he pleases. If he thought he could embody this question in his own little passions and petty resentments he is deceived. No, Sir, he cannot do it. I will now come to the question that is really before us;— the episode was not of my introduction. I confess that the time is not remote when this debate would have delighted me exceedingly, as encouraging the hope of a
70
darling and long-cherished prospect of mine. I long did cherish the hope of the repeal of the Union, and but a short time ago the manner in which this important measure for Ireland has been discussed— the paltry, miserable, political cant, and political hypocrisy that have marked the debate on the part of those who resist any concession, as it is called, to Ireland, would have delighted me as furnishing another topic to show that this Parliament is not disposed—that there was a party in it too powerful to allow the portion of it that might be disposed—yes, I will use the repudiated word—to do justice to Ireland, I am bound, however, to acknowledge that these are no longer my feelings. I say candidly, that I no longer desire an argument for repeal. I have seen too much of the English people. I have seen the chief magistrate of the first city in the world at that bar, and I have heard him speaking in the language of freemen, that which you cannot conceal from yourselves, and which I tell you ultimately you dare not resist. I, with the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will "blot out the channel, and proclaim myself a West Briton." I have spoken with the sentiment which I entertain, with unaffected disgust of what I have heard in this debate; but I have been consoled; I have heard the speech, which stuck me with great admiration, of a Christian and a gentleman; I heard that speech in which my hon. and revered Friend (Mr. F. Buxton), and I am proud to call him my friend, asserted his own conscientious convictions, and asserted them without offence. I wish the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) would take a lesson from him. Convinced as that hon. Member is of the errors, he being so conscientiously convinced, he a Protestant, appeals to, he relies upon, Protestant truth and upon Protestant justice that neither shall be tarnished by Protestant persecution. That speech I do trust will meet the public eye. I hope he will not leave it to any reporter, but I do conjure him in the name of our common Christianity to give to the public the benefit of the sentiments he uttered, and that they will go with the weight of his name before the world. And is not, I ask, that name connected with—is it not to be found in the first and brightest page in the history of humanity? Agitation? Why, if he had not agitated, where would the negro be now? And yet you taunt, you ridicule, agitation. Eight hundred thousand human

71
beings pour blessings upon his name for his agitation. I trust they will plead for him to the mercy of that God who will judge him. Eight hundred thousand human beings will be his advocates. And when he stands, as he certainly will, before the throne of God, eight hundred thousand beings will raise their voices and claim mercy for him. They will say for him "We were naked and you clothed us, we were hungry and you fed us, we were in prison and you visited us." He would, indeed, be a formidable Protestant against us. But who is it that is now arguing in favour of the claims of Ireland? It is not the angry Christian—it is not the ill-tempered Christian—it is not one who when he finds a kindness intended towards Ireland, endeavours to mar it—it is not one who will cast a stain upon friends—it is not one who when he finds there is a chance of another doing mischief, is sure to be ready to aid in it. We have heard a great deal to-night from one hon. and learned Member, and yet I must say this, that I never was so much obliged as I have been to-night by the hon. and learned Member for Bandon. He spoke for three hours by that clock. Certainly, considering the kind of materials and figures of which the speech was composed, he could have spoken, I am certain, for three hours more, and I am excessively indebted to him that he has spared us that infliction. He might have been misled by the cheers; for he had those who could applaud him in excellent style. I honour him, then, for resisting the temptation, but my gratitude can go no further. There was a horrible practice in Ireland of packing Juries. He himself has called it "nominating the Juries." In criminal cases, the Counsel for the Crown nominated the Juries! According to the old English law, passed in the reign of Edward, the power of challenging Juries was taken from the Crown. But my Lords (the Judges), who have always ruled that the Statute shall not prevail against the Crown in its operation, took care that the same thing as challenging a Juror should continue, by leaving to the Crown the power of "setting by Jurors." In England the practice is almost unknown. An English Counsel does not understand it; but it prevails to such an extent in Ireland, that I have seen fifty-two gentlemen bid to "stand by" by the Crown in the ease of a murder, which had nothing to do with politics. Eighteen of these were Magistrates, and yet they were all set aside, because they were suspected of being impartial. I could
72
mention cases of the most frightful enormity upon this point. There was no man ever yet saw this practice who did not deplore it. It has been such, that it was actually a misfortune to have to prosecute in that country. I say this, that the practice prevailing, I could not avoid doing that which was required for the benefit of my clients. I never have shrunk from any duty so much as that of being compelled for the sake of my clients to adopt it. I never thought, however, that any man could complain of the practice being discontinued. I certainly never thought I should hear an Irish Member stand up and arraign the Attorney-General for Ireland for having for the first time introduced the English practice of impartiality, and scorning to select Juries. But there is another passage in that hon. and learned Member's speech to which I must advert. Will it be believed that this packing-Protestant of Ireland— that this Kildare-place (I will not give him any other name) hero, has not only arraigned the Government of Ireland, but he has expressed his horror of them. Why? Because they would not involve Ireland in civil war—because they would not stain her with blood to maintain tithes. For twenty long minutes he railed at the Government, because they did not do that which he thought they ought to do—shed blood in order to collect tithes. Here, then, are your odious—[The remainder of the sentence was lost in loud groans from the Opposition Members, followed by cheers from the Ministerial Members]. Oh! that I had an enemy! Assuredly, I should wish him to act as that hon. and learned Member has acted. Remember that when the right hon. Baronet was Secretary for Ireland, he selected for the Privy Council those men the most odious, the most adverse to the people of Ireland. And now here is the advocate for packing Juries, who was placed within one step of the Bench. If the right hon. Baronet had continued in office, he would be now on the Bench—he, who takes upon himself to taunt my right hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, for introducing into Ireland the English practice with respect to Juries. There is only another Irish Member to whom it is necessary to advert—that is the Representative for the University; but then he is so good-humoured that I really do not like to say anything which may disturb that good-humour. The only thing that amused me was his bonhommie, as the French call it, in designating the Established Church in Ireland, the Irish Church—it is the

73
Church not Irish. That is the distinction. He must go back to the University, if it were only to correct the Dictionary, by putting that which is said to be "Irish" as "Not Irish." But then we have heard a good deal from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. He says that Ireland has got too much justice. He has ridiculed the idea of justice for Ireland. Why, is Ireland so fallen that any man will presume to ridicule her appeal for justice? Are we so degraded that any man can imagine that he can with impunity taunt us, because we ask for justice? But then he comes on to say, what is justice to Ireland? At one time it meant toleration, and "we conceded it." "We," he says, "made that concession." Next, it was a claim to the franchise, "and we conceded it." I may not follow him correctly, for he is a most admirable arithmetician, and a most excellent orator? Next it was a demand for the Representation, and "we conceded it." Conceded it! A robber takes my purse, and being compelled to restore it, he calls that concession, and says, "we conceded it." You robbed, you injured us in the name of religion; you did so, having the name of religion on your lips, and having none of it in your hearts. But your Protestantism, your political Protestantism, did this; and then you come out upon me with this. I do not care for your sneers, I do not care for your taunting me with your concessions, because you know that those concessions we forced you to grant. You regret them, because we are here to display your insincerity when you conceded, and your still more vain regret now that you cannot retract. The real question here is, not the shifting of the statesmen who are one day on this side of the House, and are not here to-morrow; it is not whether Lords or Baronets are now in the drag-chain, or rather in "the tail" of Toryism. The Dilly is swallowed up or swamped, its followers of thirty-six are gone away, while the masters of the band are toilers on the side of Toryism. If we look to this question, and its real bearings—if we do so as statesmen, and not do so as partisans—if we allow common sense and justice to prevail, and leave aside that piety which asserts only individual superiority, and which is somewhat like what an hon. Baronet has called "the filthy aristocracy of the American steam-boat;" if we leave aside that filthy aristocracy which is now assumed in religion, we can come to decide this question— to decide it as statesmen. But first you
74
must understand it. That certainly ought to be some ingredient in the consideration of a question, that you understand it; and now let me see if I can make you understand it. The task is, I am aware, a difficult one; yet I do not despair. The agitation of the tithe question has been attributed to me. I have not that honour. It began before I was born. It was visited by penal Acts of Parliament so long back as 1763. There has been a legal anachronism on this point by the hon. Member for Ban-don, and he is deservedly the representative of Bandon. Why, even in my own time there was written upon the gates of Bandon—
"Here enter Turk, Jew, or Atheist
Anything but a Papist."
And underneath these lines were at one time inscribed—
"Whoever wrote the above, wrote it well,
For the same is written on the gates of hell."
Let me see, then, if I can make you understand it. It was in the year 1760 that the first offences against the collection of tithes were legally noticed. The hon. Member for Oxford has shown himself exceedingly ignorant of the Christian religion, at least of its temporalities. The ignorance of that hon. Member proves the truth of the adage, "the nearer the church, the farther from the altar." He lives close to learning, and it passes unheeded by him. In Ireland, the great body of the tithes, the enormous territorial possessions, were all the donations, the pious donations, of the Catholics. For years before the English went to Ireland, there were the Pope's legates here— they were in the four archbishoprics of Ireland with legatine powers. The tithe system was not in Ireland until the reign of Henry 2nd. It was the English Catholic priests who imported them. The year 1173 is the date at which they commenced. A synod at Cashel announced to the faithful that it behoved them to give tithes to the Church. The faithful responded to that cry; they bestowed those tithes, and so they continued until the 28th of Henry 8th. until the year 1537. Three hundred years ago, for the first time, an Act of Parliament transferred those tithes to Protestants —to that species of Protestantism that Henry 8th avowed. It was the Act of Parliament that declared it to be high treason to deny his supremacy, that handed over to you the temporalities. That is your title to tithes. The Act was divided into two parts—first, there was the pious spoliation, and next the pious supre-

75
macy. It was the Christian prince who bestowed those tithes, that attempted to convince the Irish, by making it capital felony to deny his supremacy. Your title is the law—an excellent title, certainly; but if there be not that title, then there has been spoliation; for those tithes were given for the saying of mass, for the invocation of saints, for the prayers for the dead. The saints you disregard, except it be, indeed, the living saints. You pray not for the dead, but you curse the living; you have suppressed the mass, and you declare it to be impious and idolatrous; but you have taken the tithes, and you keep the glebe lands; and yet you come out upon me, and say, that tithes are not the creatures of the law. The law has given it. If it be not the creature of the law, then I really come to the proposition of the hon. Member for Southwark, and I say— give me back the tithes! I affirm that the title to the tithes is a good one, because it is legal. I affirm that title to be legal; but I then draw the inevitable consequence, that being the creature of the law, it is subject to its enactments. The Irish felt the injustice—the gross, the glaring injustice—of taking the tenth potato from the starving peasant. Hence the tithe war. In 1760, fifteen years before I was born, that war had begun. Parliament enacted the severest laws. Bloody statute after bloody statute was passed. Seventy-four capital felonies, on account of tithes, were added to the criminal code, There were, too, 140 transportable felonies on account of tithes. There was a lull and a cessation for a time. The law, by its severity, created a new kind of tranquillity; but the cancer continued—the evil was unmitigated—and it was certain to break out with increased virulence in a short time. You went on with your enactments, and your tribunals enforced them. The jail was crowded with prisoners, the vessel was laden with convicts, the scaffold bent beneath its victims; there remained not the memory of those who fell in the deadly struggle, except the green grass that waved over their graves. All then went on in your own way. You had convictions enough; you had with you the executioner, the sheriff, the constable, the jailer, and the judge; and of these, the latter was the more harsh. Thus you have been going on for sixty years. The contest has so long continued, and every hour it does so makes it worse. The people did not at first fight against you. Carrick-shock was then unknown to them; hut such as Mooncoin, Rathcormac, and Inis-
76
carra, which are now familiar to us, because they arc so recent, have occurred a hundred and a thousand times, and stained the soil of Ireland with the blood of her people. The battle still continues; but there is a lull now—a cessation. Why? Because the people have a government and a governor, Lord Mulgrave, who is disposed to do them justice. He is the first man in that country who has made no distinction between sect and sect, or between parties; who has had the courage to reject partisans, however highly patronised; and the manliness to approve of honest men however lowly recommended. What! have we not had clergymen enough quite ready, in the name of the Lord, to go to war for tithes? Have we not had attorneys, too, to aid them? Have we not had swearing bailiffs in abundance; and, blessings on him, have we not a Chief Baron, who has invented a writ of rebellion—who has found it, where it was sleeping—for it was dead—and awoke it into life and activity on account of tithes! There has not been much blood shed of late; but it was hoped for. There was the expectation of it; there was the confidence that the parties who desire it would have succeeded with this Government as with others. In spite of the parties who thus struggled for collision—in spite of them, the Government has succeeded in proving to the people its anxiety to do justice to Ireland, and thus peace has been secured for a time. But will any man tell me that next winter can pass over in peace, if you do not do something? I put it, then, to English Members, who may vote against this Bill. Indeed, some of them have voted both ways. These are the persons who belong to every party, as it suits their purpose. No man has a better right to say than I have, that there are gentlemen amongst our adversaries. I boast of it. I then put it to those humane and honourable gentlemen to reflect, that next winter there must be blood, there must be ruin, there must be devastation — that those wives and children who are now lamented for as starving, that from them must come the widow's cry and the orphan's wail, if you allow this Session to go over without settling this question. I conjure you by your pity, I beseech you by your love of humanity, I adjure you in the name of the living God, to prevent the shedding of blood. I have heard some people call the Irish savages; but never yet amongst savages were taunt and ridicule adopted, were men called on not to shed blood Am I to be blamed when I adjure you to

77
prevent the shedding of blood. Men of blood, as you are, then call for blood, [cries of "Order" and cheers.]
Sir Stratford Canningrose to order. He protested against the use of such language to those who sat on that side of the House.
The Speakerconsidered, that if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny meant to apply the terra "men of blood" to those who had interrupted him, he had used a disorderly expression.
Mr. O'Connell: I stand corrected, as far as ray expression may be used in that sense, and I shall not use it again; but if those were men whom I conjured, deliberately conjured, to stop the effusion of blood, and I found any man capable of meeting with a taunt that most humane proposition—a proposition that would, I think, be listened to, were we on the very verge of the Seraglio; if, out of this House, I met men who could meet such a call upon them with a taunt, I should have no hesitation in designating them as men of blood. I am not surprised that the same party who have inflicted so much misery upon Ireland, who have been the shedders of so much blood there, should not now, in the last scene, only regret this, that they could not possibly accomplish the shedding of more blood. Why, I ask, did not the right hon. Baronet, who quoted so much, not also quote from Wentworth, Lord Strafford? Oh! what a quotation he could have made from such an authority! Let him look to the summary manner in which Wentworth acted, when he insisted on having for the Crown two provinces in Ireland. The people had then charters and their titles; but of what avail were they? He sent down a Lord Chief Baron—for they had Chief Barons then also; and, as a letter of his states, to secure the services of the Chief Baron, five shillings in the pound were to be given to him out of each pound's-worth of property that he could persuade the juries to give to the Crown. "It is astonishing," said Wentworth, "how attentive the Lord Chief Baron had become." There, then, you perceive, they had Lord Chief Barons also. Wentworth also sent down two troops of horse, as "good lookers-on." The system that was then acted upon still exists. Is there any humane man in this House, any man who has not religion on his lips, and harshness in his heart, who would desire it to continue? It is for humane men, however, to
78
consider, whether some measure ought not to be adopted to put an end to it. It is not a dream, like that of the hon. Member's for Southwark, but a practical plan that is required, to put an end to those calamities. Look around you, and see the situation in which the country is placed? Is there a man that will tell me that he will not agree with me in saying, that something ought to be done for the pacification of Ireland. While in this situation, let us see what are the plans proposed? There are five schemes on this subject. The first of these is a favourite of mine, I shall be quite candid on the subject, I should like to have an absolute extinction of the tithes—call it extirpation if you will. But if you have the courage, if you were in the situation to do it, and the public mind were prepared for it, I should wish you to make a present to the land of the tithes, and to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the corn-laws; and let the clergymen be paid out of the Treasury. Thus you would put an end to the contest. I do not expect you to do this. I have not, upon this subject, the ardent expectations of the hon. Member for Southwark. My opinion is, that the first thing you have to do for Ireland is to make conscience perfectly free, and this by not calling upon one man to pay for the clergyman of another. I am for the voluntary principle. I repeat it, in order that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) may have full time to take a note of it—I am for the voluntary principle. The right hon. Member for Tamworth pays me the compliment of saying that I am not. I reject—I deny his position. He has said, that my religion is intolerant. I do not know what his religion may be; I do not inquire into it. He says that I must be favourable to a Church Establishment: I deny it. The last state that has fought its way to liberty is one in which there is a Catholic population. I ask him, then, what Church establishment there is in Belgium? What Church establishment is there in France, unless the payment of all clergymen by the State be called an establishment? What Church establishment is there in Hungary? But I come back to the last and best example: What Church establishment is there in Catholic Belgium? I deny, I utterly repudiate its necessity. Let him not tell me then of my religion. I answer, I know it better than he knows it. I am, however, of opinion that there was a period in history when Church esta-

79
blishments were useful. When the Church was not under the State, but above the State. It was then the refuge of democracy, the shield of the people. That period is long since gone by. My conscientious conviction is, that a Church establishment is no longer necessary. I do not see any practical good it could effect. I do not wish for it. If I could hope to have a reasonable minority, I should divide the House upon this proposition; but I know that Ireland is suffering and in danger. I do not, then, pause at such a time upon abstract theories. The house is on fire, and I want the aid of good hands to extinguish the conflagration. Well, then, as this principle cannot be carried, is there any other? The next principle is this: I now put this to you, and I hope the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) will condescend to take a note of it. I say, that upon your own principle you ought to give an establishment to the seven-eighths of the people—to the Catholics of Ireland. If we had a Union such as it ought to be, that should be your duty. The Union, the parchment Union, has provided otherwise—that the Protestant Church Establishment shall continue. Were the people parties to that Union? No: a Parliament that was bought, made the Union, and one of the grounds for consenting to it was, that its mischiefs might be repaired, and its crimes obliterated. Your Establishment depends, according to your principle, upon the greater number of people. That is the principle of your Establishment—it is not a proselytizing Establishment. The people of England have a Protestant Established Church, as they ought to have it, there being eight millions of them—the Dissenters are coming near to them; I am told they amount to six millions, but the majority here have an Established Church. In Scotland, you endeavoured to force upon them your own Establishment. You tried it there, and for one hundred years there was the greatest turbulence, war, and crime. Scotland was your Ireland at that period. Scotland determined upon resisting you —her people took to the mountains—they drew their broad claymores—they gathered on the hills;—they encountered you at the bridges, — they stopped you at the rivers;—they Stained the stones with your blood and their own—you often conquered; but they never abandoned the strife, until they secured for themselves not merely liberty of con-
80
science, but an Establishment. And now I ask you why is not Ireland to be treated in the same way? You give us the reason, the superiority of Protestantism! The treaty of the Union, which you have violated yourselves five hundred times, and properly too, for it ought not to be a treaty to prevent any scheme of amelioration. But the reason that you will not, I shall give. The people of Ireland repudiate an Establishment; and, as a Catholic, as sincere in my belief as my respected Friend is in his, tell you, with as much solemnity, as without profaneness one can speak for himself, I absolutely repudiate an establishment for my religion, because I know that it would lose its expansive power within the trammels of the State. It would lose that force of argument, which you know in your own country is bringing so many to worship at its altars. It would lose that force which it has over the human mind, although it might win to Catholicism some whose Protestantism is like that of the right hon. Member for Cumberland. It might win advocates of that kind. For my religion I wish to employ argument, and I wish it not to be stifled in the pride of an establishment. I therefore repudiate it—I leave to you your Establishment, I require it not. But if it be so left to you, what ought your Establishment to be? You have rectors and curates in every parish in Ireland. Why is there to be this enormous staff for only 800,000 persons? Does not this alone sufficiently demonstrate that there is a surplus? Oh! no, says the right hon. Baronet; and I now come to an admirable specimen of his candour. I will take the return from the diocese of Kilmore, says he, and show you that Protestant property is triumphantly the greater in Ireland, and that it is that property pays the tithes. The return upon which he relies is by whom? To whom? Is it a return by any legal officer? Oh no, unless it be an officer of the grand lodge. It is a return to Mr. Mortimer O'Sullivan's Conservative parliament in Dublin. This then is his splendid document. But then this is to be supposed fair, as showing an average of the Protestants and Roman Catholics! Now there are thirty-two dioceses in Ireland. Many of them were united before the Reformation. Kilmore stands the fifth in the list of Protestant dioceses. There are 47,000 Protestants in Kilmore. If I were to take Kerry, one-fourth of which belongs to Roman Catho-

81
lics, and said here are 297,000 Roman Catholics and but 7,000 Protestants, this is a specimen of the average of Protestants and Catholics of Ireland, how I should be hooted at by hon. Members opposite. This then is a specimen of the candour of the right hon. Baronet in selecting Kilmore! It is, too, a specimen of the accuracy of the Conservative Association, whose standing rule was, to admit no reporter, except one from The Evening Mail. This, then, is the document upon which he relies! But, then, shall I be told that tithe does not consist of three quantities, of labour, capital, and land? Is the labour not Catholic, and is not a great deal of land the property of Catholics? What are you quarrelling with us for, if there is no surplus? If you ask us what we are asserting? I answer, a principle. Ours is the conciliatory principle; yours, the repulsive principle. Is it the Catholic Church—is it the Catholic religion that wants the surplus? No. It is wanted for instruction. I, like the hon. Member for Weymouth, believe that the more instruction is given to the people, the more will my religion be promoted by it. I show that by my anxiety to give. You tell me that instruction is only wanted to induce the people to abandon my religion and embrace yours. I, at any rate, am desirous that the people should be instructed. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, that the people of Ireland will not believe that tithes are at an end by calling them rent-charge. The noble Lord, who thinks wisely except upon this subject, entertains a different opinion. I know well that the people of Ireland can well distinguish upon points more difficult to be determined than this. Mark the history of this transaction. The noble Lord who has shown himself such a friend to the Establishment, brought in his Bill in 1834— that was called my Bill. A resolution that I moved in the Committee gave to the Protestant clergyman 77 l. 10 s. in every 100 l. If that Bill had passed the House of Lords, there would be an end to the strife that now exists. If that Bill had passed, the people would have been relieved to the extent of forty per cent., and the difference would have been made up out of the consolidated fund. If you will insist upon forcing the Protestant religion in Ireland, it is right you should pay for it; and the Protestant clergyman would not have been at all dissatisfied at
82
the arrangement, because the money came from the consolidated fund; he would have taken his 77 l. 10 s. and pocketed the affront, even though he had the trouble of going to the Treasury for it. But that Bill was thrown out, the collision was commenced, not by us, and let the shock fall on their shoulders who provoked it. The House of Lords threw out that Bill. Persons may suppose, perhaps, that they threw it out because it contained an appropriation clause; but the case was not so, that Bill contained no appropriation clause at all. But the history of their absurdity is not yet complete. Could any human imagination conceive any thing more ridiculous, more arbitrarily absurd, than this proceeding on the part of the House of Lords? My Bill gave the Protestant clergy 77 l. 10 s. per cent. I call it my bill for shortness; calumny attributed it to me at the time, and I certainly had a hand in it; and this Bill, which gave the Protestant clergyman 77 l. 10 s. per cent., was rejected by the Lords. Well, what took place afterwards? Next session the Bill of the Government of the right hon. Member for Tamworth came before the House, and this Bill proposed to give the Protestant clergyman only 75 l. per cent., underbidding me, the Popish agitator, by 2l. 10 s. The example being thus set by the right hon. Baronet was followed by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, when he came into office. He proposed to take off 2l. 10 s. more, being 72 l. 10 s. for the clergyman, and so the Bill went up to the Lords. What did the House of Lords do with it? The House of Lords, who refused my Bill which gave 77 l. 10 s. to the clergyman, accepted as much of the noble Lord's Bill as gave him 72 l. 10 s., and struck out the appropriation clauses of the Bill, which then was lost altogether. What has been the consequence of this? There has been another Dutch bidding, and the clergyman's share is to be reduced to 67 l. per cent. The noble Lord opposite opposes the Bill of the Government, and what is his objection and what his object? He wants to obtain, not piety and knowledge, but gentility for his clergymen; he must have nothing but gentlemen, and of course in his estimate he has calculated the expenses of the dancing master. Oh! Sir, is it not too bad that Ireland should be subject to this protracted cruelty, this ingenious torturing, emana-

83
ting from those who pretend to be her guardians? There sits the doctor, [pointing to the Opposition bench on which sat Lord Stanley]—there he sits—look at him —he has prepared a dose for Ireland—she must swallow it—it may not do her much good perhaps—true, she may die under the infliction of it, but swallow it she must. Now what is the noble Lord's plan? Let us go over his plan. He proposes to give the clergyman seventy-five per cent. of their tithes, thus at the outset, by-the-by, underbidding me by 2l. 10 s. But I put it to the House and to the good sense of the people of England, whether that is not too much? I put it to them whether 6,000,500 men shall be made to pay for the religion of 700,000? Is it fair that the agricultural industry of the whole nation should be oppressed for the advantage of a few? Let us look to Paley on this subject— Paley says, that of "all incumbrances adverse to cultivation none is so noxious as tithes, not only was it a tax upon industry, but upon that industry which feeds mankind." After reading this, is it to be wondered at that the people of Ireland are now starving, in a land which produces food in abundance, which still tempts their lips, but which they never dare to taste? Such is the melancholy state of things in Ireland; and I tell you this to warn you, that what would be accepted as a remedy this year might not be taken next year, and that that which would have been received as an act of conciliation last year would be but an experiment now. I would not venture so far as to express a hope that the experiment would be a successful one; but of this I am certain, that what would have been accepted before, would not be accepted now if it came from adverse hands, with power to crowd the King's council and the Bench with partisans hostile to the liberties of the people—in such hands the benefit would be nothing, and I should advise the people of Ireland with one voice, to reject it. And I tell you rejection there will be. There are those who have influence, who are determined to make use of it to preserve in their places the present Ministers, who have honestly undertaken the cause of Ireland, and to defend them from the insidious attacks of those who seek to displace them. What will you do then? You may make war on Ireland; but I tell you this, Ireland will not make war on you in return—and further, I tell you this,
84
that if you do wage war on Ireland, you will not have the people of England to back you. What is more, you will have the people of England, almost to a man, against you. The fact is this—there have been normal schools of political knowledge established throughout the country, and in all the cities and towns of the kingdom. I have been to visit them; I have shaken hands with the pupils, who crowded round me as if I were a beast in the Zoological Gardens. You laugh, but they are there acquiring knowledge, which will teach them to laugh at your absurdities, and to esteem you as you deserve. The spirit of science and of knowledge is gone abroad amongst the people of England, and the consequence is, that the "No Popery" cry of their predecessors has dwindled away into a soft wailing from the mountains of Cumberland. The hon. Member for Bradford, with all his piety and purity, will doubtless be astounded to learn that the corporation of Bristol, the Tory corporation of Bristol, have sent up a petition for the emancipation of the Jews. I have now, I think, said enough to impress upon the House my feelings on this subject; I have poured out my whole soul before you, and in the warmest language of my heart I have in-treated you to do justice to Ireland. I call upon you now to do it, if you be statesmen, and not empyrics, if you be Christians with Christian charity in your bosoms, and not mere sectarians and pretenders to religion; if you believe in that retribution with which honest men ever visit those who have been guided in their actions by the mere trick of party spirit— or if, above all, you believe in that more awful retribution which shall be visited upon you by that omnipotent Being who must some day hence judge the motives and the secret intentions of us all.
Sir Robert Peel: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is not about to quit his place.—[These words were followed by the most deafening yells and cheering from the Opposition benches, which continued for some time. Mr. O'Connell left the House for a minute or two, and returned.] It certainly is much more agreeable to a person rising to notice observations made with considerable vehemence and warmth by another, that he should have the opportunity of noticing them in the presence of that person. And as the hon. and learned Gentleman did personally suggest to me,

85
the taking a note of what he was saying, and challenged me to give an answer to the statements which he was making, I think I could hardly have expected that the first act of his on closing his speech, would have been to deprive me of the opportunity of making my comments in his presence. The learned Gentleman commenced his speech by a warm eulogium on a speech delivered the other night by the Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton). He considered that speech as a complete exemplification of Christian charity; as a proof that it was possible for a man to maintain his own opinions and to urge strongly his own views, and yet do that without insulting his opponents—without imputing to them impure and corrupt motives for the conduct which they were pursuing. The learned Gentleman advised that, as a specimen of true Protestant feeling, the hon. Gentleman would not trust his speech to a reporter, but would report and publish it himself. For the purpose of giving force to the contrast, will the learned Gentleman report his own speech? He admires the example which has been set him, he admires this proof of Christian charity and truly Protestant feeling; but in the speech which he has made to-night, in his imagination, in the character of a West Briton, it is quite clear, that while he admires the example, we have not made him a convert to Protestant charity. The learned Gentleman says that it is right we should understand the Bill, as statesmen, before we pronounce upon it. I listened to him, having great doubts whether I did understand the Bill, having doubts whether I did comprehend the real motive from which it sprung, or the object which it professed to gain. I did listen with patience and attention to him for the purpose of having any deficiency of information supplied to me. The learned Gentleman was exceedingly severe on the hon. Gentleman beside me (Mr. Harvey) whom it is no part of my duty to defend—whom it is no part of my duty, because the hon. Gentleman, I think, opposed the proposal of the noble Lord, as he did the Bill before us. But I must say, after the avowals made by the learned Gentleman, that although it is no part of my duty to defend the Member for Southwark, I do not conceive why he was subjected to the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the Member for Southwark entertains extravagant notions on this subject, that he con-
86
templates the appropriation of tithes to the purposes of charity or of public utility; and then he says, that he will tell us what his own opinions on the subject- are. Why, they appear to be about as extravagant as those of the hon. Member. He says that the true notion would be that of returning tithe to land, giving up the corn-laws to commerce, and paying the clergy out of the Consolidated Fund. Why, that seems to be pretty nearly as hopeless a proposition as that of the hon. Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this Bill will settle the tithe question. [Mr. O'Connell: No.] Not effect an arrangement of the tithe question? [Mr. O'Connell: At present it will not.] Then why does he invite us to accede to it? If it is to effect no settlement, if it will continue the discontent and disorders which prevail, what is the argument by which the learned Gentleman asks the vote of the House to it? The learned Gentleman makes a speech, in which, professing to be an advocate for this Bill, he repudiates every one of the principles on which his Majesty's Government profess to rest it. At the same moment that he is professing his adherence to it, he uses arguments which preclude its acceptation by the people of Ireland. "Make this settlement," he says, "for the Church." "Do you wish," he asks, "to put an end to scenes of bloodshed that have caused pain to every feeling mind?" We do; but what hope have we of putting an end to those scenes of bloodshed if we are to accede to this arrangement, and then hear the comments which the hon. Gentleman makes? The Bill of his Majesty's Government proposes to allot 368,000 l. to the maintenance of the parochial clergy in Ireland; that sum is to be raised by annual payments, according to the Bill—that Bill of which the learned Gentleman is the advocate, and which he condemns us for not acceding to. The whole change is to be a conversion of tithe composition into rent-charge, the rent-charge being paid, in the first instance, by the first estate of inheritance— by the landlord, but being subsequently paid to the landlord by the occupying tenant. The Bill maintains an Establishment. The hon. and learned Gentleman says no Establishment ought to be maintained. The Bill makes the support of that Establishment to fall on the occupying tenant, not by a direct payment, but indirectly it does so. The learned Gentleman says that he is an advocate for the voluntary principle; be thinks that no

87
man ought in justice to be required to pay for the support of a religion which he does not profess, and that the clergy of Ireland ought to be paid by the Consolidated Fund. Observe, these are arguments which he uses to induce the people of Ireland to adopt the Bill which is directly opposed to the voluntary principle for which he contends. They are to have tithe composition converted into rent-charge. He is opposed to redemption, which we propose; but "no," says the learned Gentleman, "I will not even give you leave to bring in your Bill; the real extirpation and extinction of tithes shall and must be part of the arrangement." They are to be called on for the annual payments, and the learned Gentleman who invites them to pay, says that he maintains the system of the voluntary principle, and the injustice of any man supporting a religion which he does not profess. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, that if we did justice, we ought to allot seven-eighths of the tithes to the Roman Catholics as an establishment. Is that the way in which he reconciles the Roman Catholics, who receive no part of the tithe, to pay the seven-eighths to the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment? And finally, the learned Gentleman says, that Scotland did not effect the establishment of her religion by this tame acquiescence—that her people went out in the morning on the mountain sward with their claymores — that they were not content with liberty of conscience, but demanded establishment, and with establishment an ascendancy. And the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his boasted influence over the people of Ireland, thus demonstrating his view of the injustice of this arrangement, tells us that we may hope the next winter will pass in quiet, and that there will be a universal and cheerful acquiescence, because tithe-composition is converted into rent-charge. The learned Gentleman, too, calls us men of blood, and insinuates that we view without horror—almost with satisfaction—the melancholy consequences of enforcing legal rights. He details, as is his wont, the scenes of Rathcormac; he tells us of the widow and of the orphan; and by this enumeration of horrid details he works on the feelings and on the passions. Now, let me ask of the learned Gentleman, after the views which he has expressed of the injustice of maintaining an establishment, if the wrong of departing from the voluntary principle, and the grievous oppression of withholding from the people of Ireland
88
seven-eighths of this fund, for an establishment of their religion—if for an establishment they were disposed—let me ask of the learned Gentleman what security he can give that next winter, without the shedding of blood the enforcement of his rent-charge will be possible? Will he abandon it to the first threat of opposition, or if opposed will he enforce the law—and if the civil power be insufficient, will he call in the aid of the military force? If he will, he will be responsible, as he attempts to make us, for the scenes of suffering which he details—for the cries of the widow and the orphan. If, on the other hand, he advises, that on the first show of resistance you should abandon your right, then let me ask you what becomes of your security for the rent-charge? There have been many speeches delivered in the course of the debate, many parts which I should have been glad to notice, but on account of the lateness of the hour, and because I feel how completely exhausted the subject is, I shall refer only to their speeches which were peculiarly important, either from the ability which they manifest, or the station of those who delivered them; and first, and shortly, I shall refer to the speech of the learned Gentleman (the Member for Weymouth), which has excited the admiration, but has not insured the imitation of the learned Gentleman. That hon. Gentleman (the Member for Weymouth) has, I think, for some reason or other—I am sure a conscientious one—abated somewhat of his anxiety for the Protestant Establishment. The anxiety and apprehensions which he expressed last year have been considerably diminished. The hon. Member then insisted that ample precaution should be taken in case of an increase of the number of the Protestant Establishments, for holding ample reserves for the purpose of insuring the spiritual care for their increased numbers; and he now makes his vote for this Bill dependent on one condition—he, a determined friend of this Bill, was yet prepared to withhold his assent from it and oppose it, unless he received some assurance that immediate inquiry should be instituted into the subject of Irish education. But can the hon. Gentleman be surprised at other persons entertaining a similar jealousy? If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is a primâ facie case for inquiry—and he is prepared to withhold his assent to the Bill unless inquiry be conceded, let me ask him what he would do supposing inquiry were con-

89
ceded, and the result to be unfavourable? Surely, if there be ground sufficient to withhold your assent from an important measure unless inquiry be granted, it follows as a matter of course, that, assent ought to be withheld if the result of inquiry should be unfavourable; and can the hon. Gentleman be surprised if, when he thinks it necessary to demand inquiry, the Members of the Establishment in Ireland should view with some reluctance and apprehension, before the inquiry, the irrevocable alienation of their property by Act of Parliament, for the purposes of advancing the object of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman says, "You contend that there is no surplus, and if then," he triumphantly asks, "there be no surplus, what can be the possible objection to appropriation?" I tell the hon. Gentleman, in the first place, that to discuss hypothetical questions with respect to excess of property, is dangerous to all property. I say that it signifies not what the character of the property be; I may see the distinction between corporate and individual property — I may recognise that the one is a trust, and that the other belongs to individuals without a condition annexed to it. But although there be that distinction in the character of the property, let me tell the hon. Member that the danger to all property of discussing hypothetical cases with respect to excess is precisely the same. Establish the fact of a surplus, and with your principle, having determined the amount, proceed to appropriate. But there is danger, you being uncertain whether there be a surplus or not, in your assuming the contingency and providing for its appropriation. Suppose the hon. Gentleman said to a man engaged in trade, or having large landed possessions, "we will provide that in case of there being an excess of property, more than is sufficient for your wants, it shall be devoted to some other purposes." If that were objected to, the answer would equally apply, that "if there be no surplus where is the harm done?" It is a bad precedent to establish, and on that account it is objectionable; it is objectionable to set the precedent of legislating for hypothetical cases. If the hon. Gentleman has watched the course of legislation this Session, he must have seen that we have enough to do with practical matters. This is the 3rd of June, and we have made no great advance in practical matters. The clap-traps of the last Government have been held up to public scorn; but so satisfied is the hon. Gentleman of the progress which we have
90
made in the remedy of grievances, and in administering practical measures of relief, that he is content to provide, on an assumption of the future, for contingencies which may never arise. But there is another evil. If there be no surplus, you are practising a gross and unjustifiable delusion. You are deluding the tithe-payers of Ireland. You have not taken a surplus from the Irish Church. You have appropriated nothing from the Irish Church. You have taken 50,000Z. from where? From the Consolidated Fund. Who provides the Consolidated Fund? The tithe-payers of Ireland, by taxation, contribute towards it; and the delusion which you practise on them is this —that, after the lapse of years, you will perhaps be enabled to obtain something from the surplus of Church property for the payment of that 50,000 l. which you now take from the Consolidated Fund. The noble Lord told us, that it would be years before a surplus arose for that purpose. And this is the question about which we are debating. This is the matter on which apparently parties are at issue; then, years hence, a few hundreds will be raised for the purpose of paying a surplus which does not exist, but which you are giving a fictitious existence to by taking it from the produce of the general taxation of the country. That, then, is my answer to the hon. Gentleman—that if there be no surplus, although in one sense the concession of appropriation may be small, it is objectionable in principle, as endangering property, and objectionable in fact, because it is a delusion. The three speeches to which I wish more particularly to refer are the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, and the speech of the learned Gentleman, the Member for the county of Tipperary. I select these three speeches because I consider them of importance themselves on account of the abilities of those by whom they were delivered, and on account of the station of the two noble Lords, and also because one of them, as we are told, indicated the principle on which the Government has proceeded. That was the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, administered what he called in his jocose phrase "a dose of calculation." The speech of the learned Gentleman was important, he being the able and eloquent Representative of a class, and explaining the grounds on which he gave his apparently cordial

91
support to this proposition. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, told us last night, that in the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department we must look for the principle of this measure. He said, that the measure was founded on broad and fundamental maxims, and that those should be explained by the noble Lord, the leader of the House of Commons; he intended to perform the part —which he performed with great ability— the subordinate part of supplying the arithmetical calculations. He said, "important as are the principles—although we rely on them—although they are broad and fundamental—and although we are almost inclined to disregard statistical and arithmetical calculations, yet the inferences which we draw from our philosophy are confirmed by our arithmetic; we stand on the double ground—we defy opposition, and, fortified by philosophy and figures, we are prepared for the contest." I want to examine both the philosophy and the facts. I first want to examine the principle on which this rule professes to be founded; and then the principle having been established, I want to ascertain whether the calculation be correct. I want to show that not acting on my own assumption— not defending the abuses in the Establishment—not urging extravagant compensation for sinecures, or insufficient duty—the arithmetical calculations of the noble Lord fail him. I want to show—taking his own data, with the new amendments which have been introduced into the Bill—he has been again deceived. I am almost afraid to do this, because the noble Lord next year will tell me that the scheme is mine. I expect that, because I assume the principles of the Government—because I attempt to show that on their own data, they have hardly the means of executing their own intentions. The noble Lord will hereafter tell me, "this was your plan of Church Reform, and you ought to be satisfied, because we have adopted your suggestions." The noble Lord (the Secretary for the Home Department) had risen professedly to reply to the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who, the question turning necessarily on arithmetical details, had confined himself naturally to this narrow compass, not whether in the case a large surplus should be proved to exist, it would be proper to appropriate it in such and such a manner, but whether any surplus at all did exist or not. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had gone on
92
step by step throughout his speech to show that if the clergy of Ireland were adequately provided for there would be no surplus. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, gave a short explanation of the principle on which the measure was founded, and then, having made a declaration against figures as of very little importance, the noble Lord flew into a declamation on the course which he stated we were about to take. "On the same grounds," said the noble Lord, "on which you brought in or acquiesced in the Coercion Bill, or in the same spirit in which you resisted corporate reform, and in which you have misgoverned Ireland for seven centuries—on the same grounds and in the same spirit you now refuse to appropriate a contingent surplus, and I cannot condescend to argue the question when placed in this its true light." Such was the declaration of the noble Lord. But was the principle a new one on which this measure professed to be founded? I thought, until the noble Lord had spoken, that the principle adopted by his Majesty's Government was, that the first claim on the revenues of the Church was for the purposes of the Church. "I thought, that on that view the claims of the Roman Catholic population were necessarily excluded, not only here, but by the Government, until the fact of the existence of a surplus was ascertained. But," said the noble Lord, "you talk of 200 l. per annum for the Protestant clergyman, and for supplying the spiritual wants of Protestants; but you omit from your calculation the 6,500,000 Roman Catholics: you consider them as aliens in blood—as subjects of a lower class than yourselves; you totally forget their claims on the Church revenues." Sir, for myself, I disclaim entertaining any such view with respect to my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. I have always said this, and I repeat it, that civil disabilities having been removed, I admit no civil distinctions between any of the classes of his Majesty's subjects. They stand in that respect upon a perfect equality. But if I admit that the first claim on the revenue of the Established Church is the spiritual wants of the Church, I have a right to exclude the claims even of the 6,500,000 Roman Catholics. I don't say neglect those claims—I don't say withhold the means of supplying the deficiencies on which they rest—I don't doom the Roman Catholics to the darkness of ignorance and eternal deprivation of the light of knowledge—I say, consider their condition and

93
ameliorate it; and if they are in such a state of ignorance as they have been represented, surely this kingdom is powerful and prosperous enough to find the means of enlightening such a class of his Majesty's subjects. I do not, therefore, exclude the 6,500,000 Roman Catholics from a share in the benefits to be derived from instruction and knowledge. I only doubt the legitimacy of their claims until the spiritual claims of the Church of England in Ireland are satisfied. I only say, don't satisfy these claims from that source. I do not say that these claims do not exist, neither do I say, postpone the consideration of these claims, and doom those who urge them to ignorance. All T maintain is, that their instruction should be provided for from sources not affecting the revenues of the Established Church. When I heard the noble Lord declare his willingness to try a new principle with respect to the Church Establishment, I thought that new principle would at least be a common one. This I know, that the principle I have laid down was a common principle. What new colleagues the noble Lord may have, or how he may have been compelled to change his opinion, I know not. Having no surplus, your arithmetical calculations fail you. Your old principle not answering your present object, it became necessary to devise a new one. With that I have no concern, but I would prov to you that your old principle was in conformity with my views. In the year 1833, the noble Lord (Stanley's) scheme for Church reform was proposed. It was that scheme by which extensive and important reforms were effected. The number of Bishops were reduced from twenty-two to twelve; provisions were made for the complete extinction of all sinecures; power was taken of dealing with every existing living, and apportioning to them stipends of not more than 800 l., and not less than 200 l. per annum. He who proposed the Bill explained the principles on which it was founded, and the means taken by his Majesty's Government with respect to the principle of the appropriation of Church revenues. The noble Lord who was the Secretary for Ireland, is now considered as entertaining extreme opinions on the subject of the Irish Church, and on the inalienable nature of the revenues of that Church. But was that Bill proposed by the noble Lord? No, but by Lord Althorp, who, as if to give more emphatic proof of the fact that it was not the Bill of an individual, but the measure of Go-
94
vernment, distinctly declared, in proposing it, that "it had been agreed that this measure should be brought forward as a measure of the Government; and it had been thought best, on the present occasion, as on former occasions, by a person who filled the situation in the House that he filled, rather than the particular Minister with whose department in the Government of Ireland the measure was more especially connected."* The noble Lord, in the course of that speech, having explained the details of the measure, continued—"However great the differences of opinion may be, as to the right of Parliament to apply the property of the Church to the purposes of the State, both those who think it has no right to transfer it, and those who think that it has, all are agreed, I think, in this, that the first claim on the property of the Church is, the Church itself."† No parties are likely to dissent from this opinion, except those who either think that there ought to be no church establishment at all, or those who think that a different Church ought to be established in Ireland. The noble Lord repudiated the notion that seven-eighths of the property of the Church Establishment should be disposed of, in proportion to the number of those who differed from it in religious opinions. "We have heard, said the noble Lord, frequently of benefices in which no duty is performed at all, or where there is no church, or where there is no resident minister. We have heard these statements frequently made; but it is also well known that there are many places where there are congregations in which there is a difficulty in the due performance of public worship; and that the working clergy, whilst their superiors enjoy large revenues, have very inadequate incomes, and are frequently placed in the most distressing circumstances. There are 200 livings in Ireland of less value than 100 l. a-year. Whilst this is the case, where there are Protestant congregations who require to be supplied with the means of attending divine worship, it cannot surely be said by any one that the Church of Ireland ought not to have the first claim on the property of the Church."‡ These were the opinions adopted by the Government of 1833, and explained by Lord Althorp. Then, Sir, what is the principle now assumed by the noble Lord? I took a note of his words. I hope it will
* Hansard, (Third Series) vol. xv. p. 562.
† Ibid. p. 568. ‡Ibid. 568.

95
be found accurate. I hardly think there is a mistake in it. Now observe, that the opinion of Lord Althorp and the Government of the year 1833 was, that in case you admitted the Established Church to the first claim upon the revenues of the Church, it follows as a necessary consequence, that you must have this country divided into districts of a convenient distance, and a proper stipend attached to each. But the principle which the noble Lord maintained was this—"When you talk," said he, "of the State, I contend that it is the duty of the State not to choose or select a religion which shall be in accordance with the religious opinions of the Legislature or supreme authority, but to secure the means of inculcating instruction and morality amongst the great body of the people. If we were to maintain any other opinion, we must extend the Established Church of this country to Hindostan, and the clergy of our Established Church should repair thither, in order to spread throughout these and all our other dominions one religion, and to enforce a conformity to one faith." Now I have heard of an established religion, of which the propagation of its doctrines was not the main object. If that object be not the propagation of its doctrines, there is an end to the Establishment. How is that possible, but by inculcating the subscription to those doctrines which the professors of that religion maintain? "But," says the noble Lord, "it is the duty of the State not to select a religion in accordance with what the Legislature or the supreme authority may consider right, but to inculcate instruction and morality amongst the people." I say, that doctrine is fatal to the Reformation. It may be the duty of the State to take measures for the general instruction of the people—it may be the duty of the Legislature to provide the means of moral instruction in a country circumstanced as Ireland is—it may be proper to provide some mode of supplying instruction on a national principle, precluding the prevalence of any special religious doctrines from such a system—but if an establishment is kept up at all, it should be for the purpose of maintaining the doctrines which it was established to enforce. What are these doctrines? The doctrines of Protestantism, as opposed to the creed of the Church of Rome. If we are not ashamed of the Protestant faith, can we maintain the principle that it is not the duty of the Legislature to provide the means of inculcating,
96
not merely the moral instruction of the people, but affording the inhabitants of the country the means of worshiping God according to the rites of the Protestant religion, and selecting the ministers of that religion with the view of inculcating it. And if we determine on this course, the noble Lord argues that we must extend to Hindostan the clergy of the Established Church. Why? What! is the Church of Ireland placed in such a position as to make the question whether the established religion should be extended to Hindostan an analogous case. Is not the Protestant religion introduced by law into Ireland. Is not the King sworn to maintain the Protestant religion in Ireland? Does not the Act of Union guarantee its maintenance? And shall I be told that the question of the maintenance of the Protestant religion and establishment of it in a portion of the empire, with respect to which its continuance is guaranteed by the compact of the act of Union, should be argued in the same way as the question whether the Protestant clergy should be diffused over Hindostan? If there be one established religion, the inculcation of its doctrines—let the noble Lord say what he will—is an essential condition of it, and it cannot exist without it. If it be not our duty to inculcate the especial doctrines, it is our duty to abolish the Establishment. Paley argues that the religion of the majority should be the established religion. But if Paley were right, and we were wrong, still it must follow, as a necessary consequence, that the doctrines of the established religion must be inculcated. The question whether you choose the religion of the State, in conformity with what the supreme authority considers the truth, or whether you take the religious belief of the majority as the foundation for your establishment—and the latter proposition seems to have had the support of Paley—may be open to doubt. But whether Paley were right or wrong, that after you had selected the religion of the State, you are bound to inculcate its doctrines, seems to me to be a principle altogether incontrovertible. If, indeed, the noble Lord's principle be correct; if it be our duty to inculcate general, moral, and religious instruction, rather than the doctrines of the Established Church; then, indeed, the noble Lord is justified in maintaining that the revenues of the Church should not, in the first in-stance, be applied to Church purposes, but without reference to the demands of the

97
Church, the order of distribution should be reversed, and moral and religious instruction be administered to the people through other means than that which the Establishment supplies. But the system of instruction proposed by the noble Lord, and to the support of which the supposed surplus is to be applied, excludes all reference to religious doctrines. The noble Lord's intended system excludes all reference to religious opinions, and the first claim on the revenues of the Established Church is to provide means for the maintenance of such a system. If Lord Al-thorp's principle be adhered to, namely, that the first claim on the Church revenues is the supply of the spiritual wants of the Protestants, we are entitled to see what is really required to satisfy those wants. If, however, that noble Lord's principle be correct, we are bound to inquire, not what may be requisite for upholding the Protestant Church, but what may suffice for affording moral and religious instruction to the people. But how does the noble Lord satisfy the conditions of his own proposition? If it be the duty of the Legislature not to support the Establishment, but to devise means for promoting the moral and religious instruction of the people, why does he consent to postpone it? If it be his duty to the people of Ireland to take from the revenues of the Protestant Church, why does he make a boast of a plan which is to depend upon a contingent surplus, and which must take many years before it can be carried into execution? The noble Lord having assumed the principle of Lord Althorp, that the first claim is the wants of the Establishment, I will prove to him that his large surplus would have no existence if the reasonable wants of the Church were supplied. The whole question turns on the accuracy of the noble Lord's calculations. Now I am going to question their accuracy, and without ascertaining whether his magnificent surplus should be devoted to general moral instruction or not, I intend to show that his estimates are fallacious, and if he was prepared to uphold his own expressed intentions with regard to the Protestant Church, there will, in point of fact, be no surplus. And if that be the case, then I say, it furnishes an undeniable argument in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, and I have a right to call on you not to countenance those delusions, and not to hazard the security of the Church and of the peace of Ireland by holding out expectations which
98
cannot be realised, and which can only end in disappointment. I will make no allusion to the fund for the building of churches, but I entreat the noble Lord's attention to a scrutiny of his calculations. The noble Lord proposed that 1,250 benefices should be continued in Ireland. He had, with a view, as he said, of consulting the feelings of the people of England, given, as an average amount of income for each clergyman, 295 l. a year. Of this 295 l., forty-five pounds were to be supplied by glebe; and, consequently, 250 l. would remain to be supplied by tithes. The total revenue which the noble Lord, according to his plan, would require for the parochial clergy of 1,250 benefices, would be 368,750 l. Deduct the glebe—for that calculation included glebe, which amounted to 56,000 l. —and the sum which the noble Lord would require from tithes would amount to 312,750 l. There is an error in the noble Lord's calculation; but I will take the noble Lord's own figures. The noble Lord estimated ecclesiastical tithes at 511,500 l.: he thought they only amounted to 507,000 l., but he would take the noble Lord's estimate, and, deducting the thirty-two and a half per cent, which would amount to 166,000 l., from the 511,500 l., and there would remain 345,500 l. The tax on benefices is 7,300 l., which will reduce the amount of ecclesiastical tithes to 338,000 l. The noble Lord calculated on 250 curates, which was a large reduction on the present number of 450. The curates were to be allowed 100 l. each; 75 l. of which is to be paid out of the general fund, and 25 l. by the clergyman. Still, though drawn from different sources, 100 l. a year must be drawn from tithes. The fund thus created will amount to 25,000/. The amount of tithes has already been reduced to 338,000 l., take from it 25,000 l., and there will remain 313,000 l. The noble Lord said not a word about reopening compositions, or the purchase of glebes, which, in my opinion, will amount at least to 20,000 l. I have already reduced the sum to 313,000 l., and if I am correct in the statement of what is to be allowed for the purposes just stated, it will reduce it to 293,000 l. But to this must be added, 10,000 l. ministers' money, which, upon his own showing, will raise the sum calculated upon by the noble Lord to 303,000 l. Out of that sum 1,250 benefices are to be provided for at 250 l. which will amount to 312,000 l. By deductions from the noble Lord's own principles it is plain that he wants

99
312,000 l., and he having only 303,000 l., instead of there being any surplus, it is plain that there will be a deficiency of 10,000 l. Where will this surplus be derived from? It can come from no other source whatever but the sale of Church lands. The noble Lord has taken power by the Bill to sell Church lands on the next avoidance; tithe is uncertain property, but land is not. They left, as the Bill stood, the clergy in the possession of a rent-charge, and they took the power of selling every acre of Church land into the hands of the Crown. What is the case which they heard stated to-night There was a clergyman deprived of every shilling of his tithes; but having the good fortune to have twelve productive acres of land, and God having blessed him with sons able and willing to work—ashamed to beg, but not ashamed to dig—he contrived to eke out a miserable subsistence by the produce of some potatoes, gleaned by the sweat of his own sons' brows. The noble Lord last night made a great impression on the House, by attempting to show what is the amount of duty committed to an English clergyman, compared with that of an Irish clergyman. The comparison which the noble Lord instituted between a clergyman in Scotland and in Ireland is wholly inapplicable. The noble Lord estimated the average extent of parishes in Ireland at ten thousand acres, the area of an English living at 3,460 acres, or five square miles. Now, it did not at all follow as a necessary consequence that the duties of a clergyman were in proportion to the number of the inhabitants of his parish, for a small number scattered over an extensive area would impose duties much more burdensome than a larger number living in a small extent. In Ireland the noble Lord computed there were 10,000 acres in a parish comprising an area of thirteen to fourteen square miles. But that estimate is altogether incorrect; and if I prove that, what confidence can be placed in such statements, and what becomes of the conclusion that the Irish clergyman is assigned a sufficient stipend for the duties which he has to perform? There are 20,000,000 statute acres in Ireland. Divide 20,000,000 acres by 1,250, the number of the benefices, and there would remain 16,000 statute acres for every parish. The noble Lord's estimate is 10,000, so that here is an error of 6,000 acres. The noble Lord also said, that the limit of the area was fourteen miles. But there are 640 statute acres in a mile; and
100
divide 16,000 by 640, and it will be found that the noble Lord has made an err of about twelve square miles, when he estimated the area of the parishes in Ireland at thirteen to fourteen miles. The average is twenty-five square miles, instead of fourteen. The average number of Protestants in each benefice is 650, who will be intrusted to the charge of every minister of the Church of Ireland. Now there being 650 members of the Church, and the duty being extended over twenty-five square miles on the average in every benefice, is it just to limit three-fourths of the Establishment to 250 l. per annum at the maximum of emolument? Why, then, talk sarcastically of acres? That is a wretched sophism put forth to extort a cheer from a party. And you who have repeated with so much levity this doctrine, will you allow me to read to you what was said by Lord Althorp when the Church Temporalities Bill was under consideration. The noble Lord's words were:—
"Sir, a great deal has been said with respect to the number of Bishops in Ireland, as compared with the number of Bishops in England. I do not consider that, however, to be quite a fair mode of making the comparison, because the duties of the Bishops in Ireland does not depend wholly on the number of Souls in their Dioceses, but on the space over which those duties are to be exercised: the duty of a Bishop requiring the regular visitation of the different parts of his diocese."*
So that Lord Althorp admitted, that the consideration of space ought to be one of the elements of the question. Now what is the scheme with which I have been finding fault? My object is to show you, that even taking your own plan of supporting the Church, even with the scanty pittance which you dole out to its ministers, you can have no surplus. I shall take the dioceses of Cashel and Tuam, comprising very nearly one half of Ireland, for those dioceses contain nearly 10,000,000 statute acres, and include the counties of Tipperary, Limerick, Kilkenny, Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Galway, Clare, Roscommon, Mayo, King's County, Queen's County, and Sligo. In these two dioceses, by your plan there will be only eleven livings exceeding 300 l. a-year, and which must be under 400 l. a-year. What hopes of advancement can be held out to the clergy, when for one-half of Ireland there will be only eleven benefices exceeding 300 l. per annum? In
* Hansard (Third Series) vol. xv. p. 573.

101
the diocese of Cashel there are 469 benefices; in Tuam only 103; making a total of 572 benefices; and in the two dioceses there are 423 churches. Now out of the 572 benefices, by this Bill of his Majesty's Government, 489 can in no case exceed the value of 200 l. per annum, and may be only worth 100 l. I have, however, that confidence in the noble Lord opposite that I do not believe, while he holds the office of Secretary for Ireland, that he will ever hesitate to use the power he will possess, to raise the 100 l. livings to 200 l. per annum. Thus, then, out of the 572 benefices, the prizes are to be eleven livings varying from 300 l. to 400 l. per annum. I know that the number of Protestants in these districts is small, and that Roman Catholics have the preponderance; but still I never shall believe that it can be for the interest of the Established Church, that for one-half of Ireland there should be allotted only 100 l. a-year for each of 489 livings. I share, in common with the noble Lord opposite, all the revolting feelings he so strongly manifested when he stated the other night how painful it was to discuss what ought to be the lowest stipend of a minister of the Church. If this were res integra—if this were an allotment out of the Consolidated Fund, there might be something in the proposition; but this is an allotment to be made to the clergy out of property which is their own. I am as ready as the noble Lord to say, "prohibit sinecures, abolish pluralities, curtail superfluities;" but when it is said, that there exists a necessity for limiting stipends to 200 l. a-year, I really must ask from what cause does that necessity arise? Is it a necessity created by engagements into which the Government has entered? Is it entailed by the obligation imposed upon them of finding a surplus revenue? or is it a necessity produced by a provident view to the wants and interest of the Church? 200 l. per annum for a minister of the Church? Is that the great, inducement to be held out to the ordained servants of that Church? Look to the inducements held out to members of other professions: take, for instance, the Poor-law Commissioners, the Assistant-Commissioners, the Commissioners for Consolidating the Criminal Laws, with the grants to them of 5,000 l. and 10,000 l. per annum. Do I mean to say that this remuneration has been too great for the Gentlemen forming these bodies?—Certainly not; but I call upon the House to maintain at least
102
some decent proportion in dealing with members of a profession, of at least equal respectability. If it be desired to degrade the Church—to banish from it men of educated and enlightened minds, able to defend the doctrines they inculcate—if it be wished to expel such men from the service of the Church;—tell them at once, that they must expect nothing but the mere means of daily subsistence, and that they must abandon all thoughts of independence of character—and your object will then be understood; but if it be intended that the minister of religion should be enabled, not only to exist himself, but able, as he ought to be, to relieve the wants of the distressed and wretched—consider not his interests, but the interests of charity and of religion; and allot to him, at least, a decent stipend, and give him some hopes of, at least, moderate advancement. There are many men who now hear me, possessed of ample fortunes, acquired by their own industry—there are others enjoying property, which has been gained for them, and handed down to them by their fathers; —to these I would say, "You know what a stipend of 200 l. would be to a clergyman with a large family—a man who has to pay 20 l. on receiving his appointment to a living; do not grudge an increase to him —if you will not grant it for the sake of the individual, at least do so for the sake of religion." Compare his position with that of the member of any other profession—of the bar, the army, or as connected with commerce. Remember, not only to what, by this Bill, he is limited, but also that which he is ever precluded from attaining. Let hon. Members compare the position of the Irish clergy, with that of the messengers of this House. In the early part of the session, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny put a notice on the books, of which I certainly have since heard nothing, that he would move a special instruction to the Committee, on the fees and salaries of the messengers and door-keepers, to provide for the vested interests of those officers during their lives. Here is an acknowledgment of the necessity of providing;, for important offices, men of respectability. God forbid! that I should throw any disparagement upon any situation; but even in these days of apology, I will offer none to these officers, whose interest are thus watched over, for saying that I do not think them superior to the ministers of the Established Church of Ireland,

103
Neither shall I shock their feelings by saying that all situations are not equal. From the Report of the Committee, however, it appears that there are three doorkeepers, and one of them, Mr. Pratt, returns that he has received, annually, on an average of the seven years 1829 to 1835, the sum of 1,060 l. The Committee, however, are of opinion that his income might be fairly taken at 911 l., and they recommend that he may be allowed that sum in lieu of all perquisites. The Select Committee, in 1835, recommended that the salary of the head door-keeper should be 500 l.; but the last Committee recommends that in any future appointment to those offices, after Mr. Pratt and Mr. Williams shall retire, the salaries of the door-keepers, be 400 l. each. The Report concludes thus:—
"Your Committee having consulted Sir William Gossett, the Serjeant-at-Arms, respecting his department, agree in opinion with the Committee of 1835, that the future establishment should consist of two door-keepers, as already recommended; of one head messenger to be designated "Assistant to the Serjeant-at-Arms," with an annual income of 425 l.; of four messengers at 300 l. each; of two messengers at 200 l. each; of four extra messengers at 105 l. each, increasing to 120 l. after ten years' service, with discretionary power in the Serjeant-at-Arms, to employ, on any emergency, according to the recommendation of that Committee, an extra door-keeper and such temporary messengers, at weekly wages, as may be wanted during the temporary pressure of business."
Such is the amount of remuneration which the House of Commons thinks just and reasonable for the purpose of securing the services, in places of trust, of respectable men. This scale of remuneration is not, in this instance, thought extravagant. Now what is expected from the Irish clergy? The noble Secretary for Ireland last night said, that he hoped ever to see the clergy of that country, now, as well educated, able, enlightened, learned, amiable, and men of refined manners. If they enforce the law, when unhappily they are driven to do so, with what vigilance are they watched! The utmost courtesy is expected from them,—the qualifications of angels are required in them,—the long-suffering and forbearance of martyrs;—and is it, then, too much to ask the House to allot to men, in whom all these qualifications are expected, half the amount of stipend which is considered necessary for the salaries of the door-keepers of the House of
104
Commons? I have already trespassed so long upon the attention of the House, that I should feel inclined to pass by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, did not that speech,—eloquent as it unquestionably was—prove that the question now under discussion is not— whether 50,000 l. shall be allotted out of the revenues of the Church for purposes of education? On the contrary, the question, according to the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman, is neither more nor less than this,—shall the established religion of Ireland be Protestant or Roman Catholic? If it be not so, why did the hon. and learned Gentleman refer to the example of Scotland? Why did he say that Scotland, having banished episcopacy, has assumed the aspect of a flourishing country? Why did he say, that agriculture is creeping up her mountains,—that commerce has filled her coffers since she has relieved herself of episcopacy,—if he did not anticipate that the same results would follow a similar course on the part of Ireland? The hon. and learned Gentleman has called upon the House to settle the question of tithes, by passing the Bill introduced by his Majesty's Government. What guarantee, however, has he afforded that this Bill will be a settlement? The arguments by which the hon. and learned Member has supported the measure, are fatal to the proposition itself. It would be acting with perfect consistency if, after the passing of this Bill, the hon. Member for St. Alban's should move to reduce the number of Bishops to four, and the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary were to say, that the Roman Catholic religion was entitled to be established in Ireland. On these grounds I distrust the assurances of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this measure will prove a settlement of the question. I always listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the greatest attention, and I much admire his powers of imagination; but I must say—and I do so with all respect—that I distrust his sagacity as a prophet. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "settle this question now, and all will be peace in Ireland." The hon. and learned Gentleman, long ago, said.—"settle the Roman Catholic question, and all will be peace in Ireland." The two measures, it is true, rest on perfectly different grounds—the one was a definite measure, for the restoration of civil equality, and the abolition of every disability affecting the Roman Catholic subjects of

105
the realm. The other, that now before the House, contains nothing definite, and there are, according to the supporters of the plan, many other questions left, of which a satisfactory settlement will, in due time, be demanded. With respect to the definite and "final" measure of Catholic relief, this was the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, himself, in 1825? The hon. and learned Gentleman was asked:—
" Do you think, in case the general question of Catholic Emancipation were settled by Parliament, there would be a power existing in any individual to get public assemblies together, and to create a combined operation in Ireland?"
He answered,—
"I am convinced that it would not be in the power of any man, no matter however great his influence might be, to draw large convocations of men together in Ireland; nothing but the sense of individual injury produces these great and systematic gatherings, through the medium of which so much passion and so much inflammatory matter is conveyed through the country."
Such was the prophecy made by the hon. and learned Gentleman well acquainted with the character and feelings of his countrymen; that prophecy has not been fulfilled, and therefore I now distrust the hon. and learned Gentleman in his character as a prophet. Let me, however, beg of the House to observe these remarkable words. On the same occasion, to which I have just referred, the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to say:—
"Whenever any mention is made in a Roman Catholic assembly of the evils of that measure, it is made for the purposes of rhetorical excitement, and not with any serious view, on the part of the speaker, to disturb that which, in my humble judgment, is perfectly indissoluble. In answer to the question, I beg to add this; that I am perfectly convinced that neither upon tithes, nor the Union, nor any other political subject, could the people of Ireland be powerfully and permanently excited. At present, individuals feel themselves aggrieved by the law, and it is not so much from public sentiment, as from a sense of individual injustice, that they are marshalled and combined together."
The hon. and learned Gentleman may probably find it difficult to afford a solitary instance of the verification of this prophecy. I can, however, find an instance to the contrary, and that instance is the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary himself, This is the more striking, as the
106
hon. and learned Gentleman declared to the Committee, that at least he could answer for himself, that if he had a fair chance of rising in the profession for which he had endeavoured to qualify himself—if the exasperating impediments to advancement in that profession which grew out of his religious creed were removed, — he should give himself no further concern about politics; but should devote himself exclusively to his professional avocations. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, after this failure, and his prophecy of last night, will endeavour to lay some better claim to the character of a prophet, and will forbear from exerting, in agitation, the great talents he unquestionably possesses. I do not know that there is any other speech to which I need advert, except that of the hon. Member for Water-ford, who complains that out of a revenue of 760,000 l., an allotment for the purposes of education, 50,000 l. is refused. Can the hon. Member guarantee that there exists a revenue of 760,000 l.? If he can, cadit questio, and I shall be perfectly content. If any one can show that out of tithes, after the deductions contemplated by this Bill, there will be a revenue, not of 760,000 l., but even of 400,000 l., I will admit Ireland to be in a much better condition than I have supposed. I have now stated the reasons for which I have supported the Bill, which has been proposed on this side of the House, and opposed that which has been brought forward by his Majesty's Government. Why is it that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, with his strong feelings against an Establishment, is able to consent to the Bill of his Majesty's Government? How is this mystery to be unravelled, when the hon. and learned Member holds that an Establishment for the minority is fatal to the peace, tranquillity, and happiness of Ireland? With these sentiments, how is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman can give his support to the Bill? The supporters of the measure submitted from this side of the House, profess a readiness to cure abuses, to reduce superfluities, to abolish pluralities, and destroy sinecures; they do not want to make the Church Establishment a source of political influence, they contend for an equal distribution of its preferments. Do I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary expects to gain anything by the allotment of 50,000 l. a year, out of the revenues of the Church? No; I believe that the hon.

107
and learned Member gives his consent to this Bill because he, a Roman Catholic, is convinced that, coupled with this allotment and a reduction of income, there is involved in the measure a principle which, once admitted, will be fatal to the independent character, and the very existence of the Protestant Church. Take away the glebes from the Church, enable the Crown to dispose of them, to re-allot them, and will not that alter the whole character of the Church Establishment? And will it not, instead of being an independent corporation, possessed of its own property, become, and be placed on the footing of, a mere stipendiary Church? Is this desirable? Is it politic? For what object is it that the dignity of rector is to be abolished, and that future incumbents are to be mere vicars, removable at the will of the Privy Council? Is this in accordance with Lord Althorp's views, who thought that even the Church Commissioners should be independent of the Government? A portion of the security of the Church rests, not merely on its possession of its own lands, but upon its self-government. I repeat, that this Bill would alter the Church from an independent corporation to a mere stipendiary Church, and would shake its very existence. I have very carefully looked through the whole of the Bill, and, in my opinion, the least prejudicial part of it is that which takes from its revenues the sum stated. The great evil of the Bill is to be found in the provisions which divest the Church of its property, which change its character, and destroy its independence. The noble Lord opposite has justly stated, that between the views of two conflicting parties on this question, the good sense of the people of England must be the arbiter. In that I fully concur. It must be left to the people of England to determine whether I and those with whom I act are or are not warranted in refusing to be parties to the Bill of the noble Lord. I do not hesitate to say that I view the condition of the Church of Ireland with the deepest regret and anxiety—that so far from rejoicing in the application of force, or the execution of process for the payment of dues, I declare, before God, my object would be to cause a cessation of all religious discords, to put an end to all religious distinctions, and to obliterate for ever all former animosities. Such, of all others, are the objects I would most cordially cherish; but, at the same time, believing the Church Establishment in Ireland to be
108
perfectly consistent with the political rights of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen —believing it to imply no degradation to them—conceiving that Establishment to be essential to the best interests of religion, and conducive to the permanent happiness of the empire,—I cannot consent, unless convinced by reasoning, to the introduction of a principle, which, I believe, will be fatal to both. I wish to see an amicable arrangement of the question effected; and it would be a most ungrateful return for the Church of Ireland to make to the people of England, who have shown such a generous sympathy in her behalf, if her members were to manifest a less anxious desire to expedite that settlement. If the people believe that I, and those with whom I am associated, have, in our opposition, any sinister object in view, or any wish to protect abuses for political purposes, they will decide against us, and ultimately overthrow us; but I trust the people of England will not expect from us, that if we are not satisfied by fair argument, that the measure of the Government is essential to the interests of religion, but on the contrary, if we believe it is necessary for the interests of religion, that the Protestant minister should be enabled to support his family in decent competence,—then, Sir, I am sure, the people of England will not expect from us, that we should betray our duty to the Church, by pretending to be convinced by arguments, the transparent fallacy of which we have exposed,—or by calculations, the glaring inaccuracies of which we have demonstrated. On the contrary, remembering that penal laws, and civil disabilities have ceased—believing that the progress of knowledge will ensure adherents to the pure doctrines of our Church—relying upon the justice of our case—we shall firmly refuse to cut off fr that Church its means of usefulness—to reduce its ministers to a state of stipendiary dependence on a department of the Government;—and we will not consent to strike a blow fatal to the interests of civil liberty, and of true religion, by destroying the independence of the Establishment, and by degrading the character of its ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I am very unwilling to take up the time of the House; but some of the statements of the right hon. Baronet have been so entirely beside the question, that unless some notice be taken of them, they may produce a most erroneous and unjust impression. Was it

109
worthy of the right hon. Baronet—was it worthy of the cause he supports—was it worthy of any great or generous principle —to draw a comparison between the incomes of the clergy and the salaries paid to the door-keepers of this House? If the right hon. Baronet's argument deduced from that comparison he sound, what becomes of the Bill of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire? Why has not such a test been applied to the Church Temporalities Bill and to other measures? Remuneration ought always to be proportionate to the duty done. If it were proved that nothing was done, it appears to me to be impossible to escape from the conclusion that no remuneration should be given. If but little were done, then the remuneration ought to be small. The argument of the right hon. Baronet, drawn from a comparison between the salaries of the door-keepers and the incomes of the Protestant clergy, would go to show that the Consolidated Fund ought to be poured out for the purpose of increasing the latter. The argument of proportion, if it be good for any thing applies as well to that which now exists, where the income is less than that which the noble Lord opposite has stated ought to be the minimum, as it would do to any state of things that may occur after this Bill shall have been passed. Notwithstanding, then, the lateness of the hour, I wish to refer to a few of the observations which have been made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth. The reply to many of those observations I should have deemed it better to leave to the individuals to whom they directly apply, except that throughout the whole of the debate on this question, no opinion has been expressed by any Gentleman generally favourable to the Government, which it has not been attempted by hon. Gentlemen opposite to fix upon Ministers, as an opinion for which they were responsible. Ministers are no doubt responsible, and ought to be held responsible for their own expressed opinions and for their own measures; but even if, upon the present occasion, they are to be held responsible for the arguments used by some of their usual supporters in the course of the debate, I must be allowed to say, that the construction put upon many of those arguments by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite was not fair. Take, for an instance, what was said with respect to the arguments used by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. It is perfectly true that
110
that hon. and learned Gentleman declared his opinion to be in favour of that from which I entirely and unequivocally dissent —namely, the voluntary principle. But at the same time that the hon. and learned Gentleman made that declaration, he said:—
"I know that that is an opinion which will not receive the support of the House; and, therefore, not being able at the present moment to advocate it with a prospect of success, I will take this measure, which, though it be not exactly all that I could wish, is still calculated to improve the present state of things in Ireland."
I now come to some of the more serious misrepresentations which have been made by the right hon. Baronet, and which interest me the more deeply because they relate to my noble Friends who sit near me. I do not understand, that my noble Friend, the Secretary of State, has, on this occasion, laid down or announced any new doctrine, in respect of Church property in Ireland. I do not understand my noble Friend to have stated any thing on this occasion different to what he stated on the 13th of July, 1832, when he expressed himself on the subject of Church property in Ireland in these terms:—
"He thought that the Protestant Church of Ireland was too large, not only for the purpose of giving instruction to that part of the population of Ireland which professed the Protestant faith, but he thought it too large for its own permanent stability. Therefore, whenever the question might arise in its proper day and at it a appointed time, he should be ready to maintain the views which he had formerly expressed. It was certainly the opinion which he had always held, that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide for the religious and moral instruction of the people of Ireland in a way that had never yet been done. What was intended by our ancestors in the establishment of the Church of Ireland for religious and moral purposes had not answered that end, and as the Legislature had now to consider anew in what way that end might best be attained, it was bound to respect (as he believed every Member of that House was ready to respect) the right of those who had existing interest in the present arrangements. Preserving to the Church those rights of property which it justly claimed, the Legislature might provide for its future welfare, at the same time that it would deliver the people of Ireland from the state of ignorance in which they were proved to be by the daily accounts from the newspapers, or from other sources of information. To that ignorance he attributed all the evils by which Ireland was afflicted, and until effectual measures were

111
taken to educate the people, it was vain to legislate for the preservation of property or for the maintenance of peace, good order, and tranquillity in that country."*
If I had wished for an announcement of the Bill now upon the Table of the House, I could not have had it more clearly or more distinctly made than it is in that statement of my noble Friend. The authority of Lord Spencer also has been appealed to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, as adverse to the present measure. On the 2nd of June, 1834, Lord Spencer, speaking upon this subject, expressed himself thus:—
" Church property was trust property, and if the amount of it were greater than was necessary for the accomplishment of the objects of the trust —if it were greatly greater than was required for the maintenance of the Established Church for the benefit of Ireland, so far from injuring the religious interests of that Church—so far from injuring the religious interests of the Protestants, he thought that to apply a part of the revenues to the religious and moral education of the people would tend much to promote the prosperity of the Protestant Church."*
These were the declarations made by the two noble Lords, to whose opinions such repeated reference has been made in the course of this night's debate. The first declaration, the one made by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State, was made when the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was sitting by his side, and acting with him in the government of the country. The second declaration, that of Earl Spencer, was made after that noble Lord had separated himself from his former colleagues. These things are material in themselves, but they become much more so from the words employed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in the course of his speech of this evening. I wish, indeed, that those words had been put forward by the right hon. Baronet a little more distinctly, because I should then have had it in my power more closely to grapple with them. But when the right hon. Baronet speaks of the new doctrines and of the possible new lights which the Government may have been compelled to adopt, I am rejoiced to have the opportunity of meeting him upon the point; and I tell the right hon. Baronet, and I tell the House and the public, that the Government have not been compelled to take any forced step
* Hansard (Third Series) vol. xiv. p. 377.
† Ibid. (Third Series) vol. xxiv. p, 15.
112
—that we have not been driven into the making of any arrangements;—and I say further, that a falser, more malicious, or more calumnious charge, than that which attributes to us any kind of restraint— other than that which we owe to our conscience, our Monarch, and our country,— never was preferred by any party or set of men against the members of any Administration which ever has been intrusted with the government of the affairs of the British empire. I deny the charge with indignation;—it is untrue—it is a disgraceful calumny. I have now answered the observations which had reference to the speech made by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State, in 1832, and by Lord Spencer in 1834. I come, Sir, to another point. It has been said, and possibly there are many hon. Gentlemen about to vote on this question, who honestly believe, that this very Bill embodies a compromise of principle, which has purchased for the Government the support of many Irish Members. My noble Friend opposite does not believe that to be the fact. My noble Friend knows that the principle of appropriating some of the property of the Church in Ireland, for the purpose of instructing the people of that country, was a principle conceded and ready to be acted upon at the time when we were associates in the Government, and when he evinced the strongest animosity to the persons with whom he was then acting. A Bill, involving the principle of a surplus of Church property in Ireland, and the appropriation of that surplus to purposes of education, was in print for the use of the Government previous to the dissolution of Lord Melbourne's first Administration. Such a Bill was prepared and positively in print at the time when the very individuals, on whose account the present concession is supposed to be made, were opposed to the Government. This fact is material; because I know that there is a spirit amongst Englishmen of every class, and of every description—a spirit which exists alike on both sides of the House—which should induce them to look with contempt and scorn on any Government composed of men who could be compelled by any consideration on earth to take a course which they did not in their hearts honestly believe to be the right one. I have shown, that my noble Friend, the Secretary of State, professes no new principle on the present occasion. The very preamble of the present Bill involves the principle which the right hon. Baronet,

113
the Member for Tamworth, assumed to have been thrown over by my noble Friend. The Bill assumes, that the performance of spiritual duties, to an extent adequate to the wants of the Protestant population in Ireland, ought to constitute the first charge upon this property. If I did not believe that, after all those wants were provided for, there would remain a considerable surplus,— I should not, for any consideration under Heaven, give my consent to the appropriation of a single farthing of it to other than Church purposes. But I do believe, that there will be a considerable surplus, and with that belief firmly impressed upon my mind, I contend that I have a right to deal with it. And I contend further, that it is for the interest of the Church itself, that I should deal with it in the manner proposed in the present Bill. At this late hour of the night, and more especially when I anticipate that we shall have the opportunity of discussing the Bill in its future stages,—I do not feel myself justified in trespassing at much greater length upon the patience of the House. When the dial tells us that it is now past two o'clock in the morning, it would be unwarrantable in me to follow the right hon. Baronet through the statement of figures into which he has entered. The right hon. Baronet said, however, that he differed from the noble Lord,, the Secretary of State, in some of the calculations which have been made, and upon which many of the provisions of the Bill depend. I must be allowed to differ from the right hon. Baronet in turn. The right hon. Baronet stated the present available income of the clergy at only 70,000 l.a-year. What is the fact? By a return made by the Revenue Commissioners in the present Session, it appears that the value of glebe lands alone amounts to 73,000 l. a-year. — [Sir Robert Peel: You include the Bishops' lands.] No; of glebe lands alone. The value of glebe lands alone, therefore, exceeds the calculations made by the right hon. Baronet. With respect to the Church territory, my noble Friend, the Secretary of State, took it upon the estimate of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, at 10,000 l. This was considerably under the mark; but my noble Friend took it upon the noble Lord's own showing, and argued this point upon the supposition that that showing was correct. But I shall not dwell longer upon these statements of figures. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth,
114
referred to the averments made by several Irish Gentlemen, and particularly by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, who is not now in his place, as to the prophecies that were made of the tranquillity which was to ensue upon the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Does the right hon. Baronet remember that those prophecies were made in the year 1825? Does he not know, that if the policy of Lord Liverpool's Government had not been opposed to a measure which many of the Members of the Cabinet at that time believed ought to be carried—does he not know, that if the policy of that Government had not opposed the passing of the measure of Catholic relief at that time, the predictions hazarded in 1825 might have been fulfilled? The right hon. Baronet, then, has no just ground on which to taunt the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, and other Gentlemen from Ireland, with being false prophets. But have there been no other political prophets? If unverified prophecies are to be made matters of taunt, do we not all recollect the memorable day when the Reform Bill was carried, and when guns in honour of the event were fired within hearing of the House. Do not hon. Gentlemen remember that they were then told, that the next time those guns were fired they would be shotted? That prophecy probably was made, too, by one whose ears could distinguish between shotted guns, and those which were loaded only with blank cartridge, as well as any man in the country. I shall not taunt that hon. Gentleman with being a false prophet; but a mistaken prophecy, made in the year 1825, is no reason for our opposing the present measure. Let the House consider the manner in which the question has been debated. On a former occasion, the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, stood forth as an opponent of the Government upon it. On the present occasion he does the same. What is the meaning of all this? What is the meaning of the amendment which the noble Lord has moved? Why, instead of offering this description of opposition to the Government Bill, does not the noble Lord, in a straight forward and manly manner, move for leave to introduce his own Bill? Let the two Bills be laid upon the Table of the House, and let the House judge between them. I will yet hope that the noble Lord will adopt this course. Let him move for leave to bring it in on Monday. Government will not deprive him of the opportunity of

115
doing so. But no; it is not the introduction of his Bill that the noble Lord desires. His real object is, by an indirect means, to dispose of the question altogether. It is very convenient for those who do not like to grapple with the principle of the measure, to assist the noble Lord in making a diversion by which it may be virtually, but not directly, overthrown. The course adopted on the present occasion induces me to think that there are many more Gentlemen in the Opposition, who are ready to support an indirect, rather than a direct resistance to a measure of this description. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, stated, that the House was spell-bound upon this question. I believe it will be found that the people of England are spell-bound upon it also, I believe that the cry of "the Church in danger," which it has been attempted to raise will have a beneficial effect upon the country, if the measure of the Government be such as it has been represented to be. If we dared to overthrow the Protestant Church in Ireland —if we dared to leave the Protestants in that country without adequate religious instruction—I believe that there would be, as there ought to be, throughout the whole of England, one general feeling that would induce the people not to acquiesce in the measure. But when it is proposed to sustain Protestantism in Ireland—to maintain the ministers of the Protestant Church—to pay them proportionably to the duty which they have to perform, and to apply the surplus of Church property, when these objects shall have been fully and adequately provided for, to the moral and religious instruction of the people, I, for one, am not afraid of the decision at which the people of England will arrive upon the question. I feel that common sense and common justice are with us, and, therefore, I believe that the people of England will support us. On former occasions, as well as on the present, our opponents have been afraid to meet us in front; and why? Because the Resolution of the House of Commons upon the subject of Church property in Ireland, stands recorded upon our Journals. The present House of Commons determined that the surplus of Church property should be applied to purposes of mor and religious instruction. What has occurred since to induce the House to desert its own Resolution—to abandon the opinion it formerly expressed? But it would seem, from the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Resolution was originally proposed
116
for party purposes. It was moved for no party purposes, but with the view of improving the condition of the Church. Was it for party purposes that we originally moved the Resolution—party purposes meaning the turning out of office of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth? Was it for party purposes that we issued the Church Commission, when we ourselves were in office, and when we stated distinctly, on issuing the Commission, that our object was to come to a fair and equitable adjustment of this very question of appropriation? Could it be with a party or a personal object that we undertook the responsibility of sending out that Commission, pledging the government —Lord Althorp in one House, and Lord Grey in the other —that the Church Commission should be acted upon, bona fide, when the return was made. In introducing the present measure, therefore, the Government are only fulfilling what they have long promised. The right hon. Baronet has fallen a victim to the opinions which he professed upon the subject, and the present Government has risen by the support which the House has given us in the views which we took with respect to it. Under these circumstances we should have been disgraced if we had deserted or flinched from our opinions. We have not done so. We have maintained our position, and are determined to adhere to it, not as the noble Lord opposite assumes, — from false pride or false shame—but from principle, and because we think it right; and I, as an Irishman and a Churchman, tell the noble Lord, that my motive for thinking it right is because, as an Irishman, I believe it will give tranquillity to my country—and as a Churchman, that it will give security to the Establishment. Gentlemen who differ from me upon this point have no right to suppose that I have a less regard than others for the welfare of a country on which my dearest affections are placed. I never doubt the sincerity of those who differ from me upon the subject of the Church in Ireland; but as they are ever ready to give their testimony to the opposite doctrine, I beg on this occasion to be taken as a witness myself, and as an Irish proprietor I undertake to say, that we can have no peace, no repose, no safety to the Church in Ireland, whilst this question is left unsettled. Is it worth while to fight for 50,000 l. a-year? If the concession of 50,000 l. a-year will give, as I believe it will, tranquillity to the country and peace to the

117
Church, I, for one, shall feel disposed to rejoice that the sum is so small, rather than quarrel with it for not being larger. The present Bill is a recognition of the principle, not of spoliation, but of preservation. It is a principle which tells the people of both parties that their interests have been considered and regarded; therefore I entreat the House to preclude the necessity of violence—to save the Irish Church—to save itself from the perpetual revival of these painful discussions. Every moment of delay augments the difficulty of a final and satisfactory settlement. The appropriation clause is quarrelled with now, and yet former Bills, without the appropriation clause, have been equally objected to. What the future may be, I shall not pretend to prophesy; but, judging from the past, we at least know, that every year that has been allowed to elapse has tended to make the difficulty of a satisfactory settlement of the question still greater.
The House divided, on the original motion: Ayes 300; Noes26l—Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

Bowes, J.

Adam, Sir C.

Bowring, Dr.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brady, D. C.

Ainsworth, P.

Bridgeman, H.

Alston, R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Andover, Visct.

Brodie, W. B.

Angerstein, J.

Brotherton, J.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Browne, R. D.

Anson, Sir G.

Buckingham, J. S.

Astley, Sir J.

Buller, C.

Attwood, T.

Buller, E.

Bagshaw, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Bulwer, E. L.

Baines, E.

Burton, H.

Baldwin, Dr.

Butler, hon. P.

Ball, N.

Buxton, T. F.

Bannerman, A.

Byng, G.

Barclay, D.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Baring, F. T.

Callaghan, D.

Barnard, E.G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Barron, H. W.

Campbell, W. F.

Barry, G. S.

Cave, R. O.

Beauclerk, Major

Cavendish, hon. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Bellew, Sir P.

Cayley, E. S.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Chalmers, P.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Chapman, L.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Chetwynd, Capt.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Chichester, J. P.

Bernal, R.

Childers, J. W.

Bewes, T.

Churchill, Lord C.

Biddulph, R.

Clay, W.

Bish, T,

Clements, Lord

Blackburne, J.

Clive, E. B.

Blake, M. J.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Blamire, W.

Codrington, Admiral

Blunt, Sir C.

Colborne, N. W, R.

Bodkin, J. J.

Collier, J,

118

Conyngham, Lord A.

Holland, E.

Cookes, T. H.

Horsman, E.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Howard, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Howard, hon. E.

Crawford, W.

Howard, P. H.

Crawley, S.

Howick, Lord

Crompton, S.

Hume, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Hurst, R. H.

Curteis, E. B.

Hutt, W.

Dalmeny, Lord

Jephson, C. D. O.

Denison, W. J.

Jervis, J.

Denison, J. E.

Johnston, A,

D'Eyncourt, right hon.

Kemp, T. R.

C. T.

King, E. B.

Divett, E.

Knox, hon. J. J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Duncombe, T.

Lambton, H.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Langton, W. G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Leader, J. T.

Dundas, J. D.

Lee, J. L.

Dunlop, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Ebrington, Lord

Lennard, T. B.

Edwards, J.

Lister, E. C.

Elphinstone, H.

Loch, J.

Etwall, R.

Long, W.

Euston, Earl of

Lushington. Dr.

Evans, G.

Lushington, C.

Ewart, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Fazakerley, J.N.

Mackenzie, S.

Fellowes, hon. N.

M'Leod, R.

Fergus, J.

M'Namara, Major

Ferguson, Sir R.

M'Taggart, J.

Ferguson, R.

Maher, J.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Mangles, J.

Fielden, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Marshall, W.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Marsland, H.

Filzsimon, C.

Maule, hon. F.

Fitzsimon, N.

Methuen, P.

Folkes, Sit W.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Fort, J.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

French, F.

Morpeth, Lord

Gaskell, D.

Morrison, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Gisborne, T.

Mullins, F. W.

Gordon, R.

Murray, rt. hn. J. A.

Grattan, J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Grattan, H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Grey, Sir G.

O'Brien, C.

Grey, hon. Col.

O'Brien, W. S.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

O'Connell, D.

Grote, G.

O'Connell, J.

Guest, J. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hall, B.

O'Connell, Morgan

Handley, H.

O'Conor, Don

Harland, W. C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Hastie, A.

O'Loghlen, M.

Hawes, B.

Oswald, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Paget, F.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Palmer, General

Heathcoat, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Heneage, E.

Parker, J.

Heron, Sir R.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Hindley, C.

Parrott, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J,

Pattison, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Pease, J.

Hodges, T. T,

Pechell, Captain

119

Pelham, hon. C. A.

Talbot, J. H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Philips, M.

Tancred, H. W.

Philips, G. R.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Phillipps, C. M.

Thompson, Colonel

Ponsonby, hon. W.

Thornely, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Tooke, W.

Potter, R.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Poulter, J. S.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Power, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Price, Sir R.

Turner, W.

Pryme, G.

Tynte, J. K.

Pusey, P.

Verney, Sir H,

Ramsbottom, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Vivian, Major C.

Rippon, C.

Vivian, J. H.

Robarts, A. W.

Wakley, T.

Robinson, G. R.

Walker, C. A.

Roche, W.

Walker, R.

Roche, D.

Wallace, R,

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Warburton, H.

Rooper, J. B.

Ward, H. G.

Rundle, J.

Wason, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Wemyss, Captain

Russell, Lord

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Russell, Lord C.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Ruthven, E.

Whalley, Sir S.

Sanford, E. A.

White, S.

Scholefield, J.

Wigney, I. N.

Scott, J. W.

Wilbraham, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Wilde, Sergeant

Seale, Colonel

Williams, W.

Seymour, Lord

Williams, W. A.

Sharpe, General

Williams, Sir J.

Sheil, R. L.

Wilson, H.

Simeon, Sir R.

Winnington, Sir T.

Smith, J. A.

Winnington, H. J.

Smith, hon. R.

Wood, C.

Smith, R. V.

Wood, Alderman

Smith, B.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Stewart, P. M.

Wrightson, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Wyse, T.

Stuart, Lord D.

Young, G. F.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, V.

Steuart, R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A,

Bentinck, Lord G.

Alford, Lord

Beresford, Sir J.

Alsager, Captain

Bethell, R.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Blackburne, I.

Archdall, M.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ashley, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Ashley, hon. H.

Bolling, W.

Attwood, M.

Bonham, R. F:

Bagot, hon. W.

Borthwick, P.

Bailey, J.

Bradshaw, J.

Baillie, H. D.

Bramston, T. W.

Baring, F.

Brownrigg, S.

Baring, H. B.

Bruce, Lord E.

Baring, W. B.

Brudenell, Lord

Baring, T.

Bruen, F. Y.

Bateson, Sir R.

Buller, Sir J.

Beckett, Sir J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Bell, M.

Calcraft, J. H.

120

Campbell, Sir H.

Gresley, Sir R.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Grimston, Lord

Castlereagh, Lord

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hale, R. B.

Chaplin, Colonel

Halford, H.

Chichester, A.

Halse, J.

Chisholm, A. W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Codrington, C. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Cole, hon. A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Cole, Lord

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Compton, H. C.

Hardy, J.

Conolly, E. M.

Hawkes, T.

Cooper, E. J.

Hay, Sir J.

Coote, Sir C

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Corbett, T. G.

Heathcote, G. J.

Corry, right hon. H.

Henniker, Lord

Crewe, Sir G.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Cripps, J.

Hill, Lord A.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Hill, Sir R.

Damer, G. L. D.

Hogg, J. W.

Darlington, Earl of

Hope, H. T.

Dick, Q.

Hotham, Lord

Dottin, A. R.

Hoy, J. B.

Dowdeswell, W.

Hughes, H.

Duffield, T.

Jackson, Sergeant

Dugdale, W. S.

Jermyn, Lord

Dunbar, G.

Ingham, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Johnstone, Sir J.

East, J. B.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Eastnor, Lord

Jones, W.

Eaton, R. J.

Jones, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Irton, S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Kavanagh, T.

Egerton, Lord F.

Kearsley, J. H.

Elley, Sir J.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Elwes, J. P.

Ker, D.

Entwisle, J.

Kirk, P.

Estcourt, T. G.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Estcourt, T. H.

Sir E.

Fancourt, Major

Knight, H. G.

Fector, J. M.

Knightley, Sir C.

Feilden, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Lawson, A.

Ferguson, G.

Lees, J. F.

Finch, G.

Lefroy, A.

Fleming, J.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Foley, E. T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Follett, Sir W.

Lewis, D.

Forbes, W.

Lewis, W.

Forester, hon. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Forster, C. S.

Longfield, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Lopes, Sir R

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Lowther, hon. Col.

Geary, Sir W.

Lowther, Lord

Gladstone, T.

Lowther, J. H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Lucas, E.

Glynne, Sir S.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Goodricke, Sir F.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Gordon, hon. W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Gore, O.

Maclean, D.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Mahon, Lord

Goulburn, Sergeant

Manners, Lord C. S.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Marsland, T.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Mathew, G. B.

Greene, T.

Maunsell, T. P.

121

Maxwell, H.

Scourfield, W. H.

Meynell, Captain

Sheppard, T.

Miles, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Miles, P. J.

Smith, A.

Miller, W. H.

Somerset, Lord E.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Stanley, Lord

Mosley, Sir O.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Neeld, J.

Stormont, Lord

Neeld, J.

Sturt, H. C.

Nicholl, Dr.

Tennent, J. E.

Norreys, Lord

Thomas, Colonel

North, F.

Thompson, Alderman

Owen, H. O.

Tollemache, hn. A. G.

Packe, C. W.

Trench, Sir F.

Parker, M.

Trevor, hon. A.

Patten, J. W.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Twiss, H.

Peel, J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Peel, right hon. W. Y.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pelham, J. C.

Vernon, G. H.

Pemberton, T.

Vesey, hon. T.

Penruddocke, J. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Pigot, R.

Wall, C. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Walpole, Lord

Plunket, hon. R. E.

Walter, J.

Polhill, F.

Welby, G. E.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

West, J. B.

Pollington, Lord

Weyland, Major

Pollock, Sir F.

Whitmore, T. C.

Powell, Colonel

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Praed, J. B.

Williams, R.

Praed, W. M.

Williams, T.

Price, S. G.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Price, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Wood, Colonel T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Richards, J.

Wyndham, W.

Ross, C.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Russell, C.

Yorke, E. T.

Ryle, J.

Young, J.

Sanderson, R.

Young, Sir W.

Sandon, Lord

TELLERS.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Paired off—Not-Official.

AYES.

NOES.

Hallyburton, hn. D. G.

Mandeville, Lord

Pryse, P.

Barneby, J.

Martin, T.

O'Neill, General

Kerry, Lord

Smith, T. A.

Tynte, Colonel

Peel, E.

Gully, J.

Smyth, Sir H.

O'Connell, M.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Clayton, Sir W.

Palmer, R.

Sheldon, R.

Clive, Viscount

Speirs, A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Oliphant, L.

Pringle, A.

Finn, W. F.

Bruen, Colonel

Wilks, J.

Hanmer, Colonel

Williamson, Sir H.

Noel, Sir G.

Tracy, C. H.

Fleetwood, H.

Goring, H, D.

Chapman, A.

Ord, W.

Davenport, J.

122

Hector, C. J.

Cartwright, W. R.

Humphrey, J.

Houldsworth, T.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Insolvent Debtors' (Ireland).—St. Ann's Chapel (Wandsworth). Marriages' Validity. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from KINGSTON-UPON-HULL, against Punishment of Death for any Crime but Murder.—By the Bishop of LINCOLN, from various places, for Better Observance of the Sabbath. —By Earl GREY and Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from various places, in Favour of Municipal Corporations' Act (Ireland), as passed by the Commons.—By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from various places, for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).

RAILWAYS.
The Marquess of Clanricardewished to move the third reading of the Birmingham, Bristol, and Thames Junction Railway Bills, if the proposition were not to be opposed by the noble Duke opposite, who, he understood, was anxious to move a resolution on the subject of Railway Bills generally. He did not believe that the noble Duke would object to the third reading of the Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsincerely wished that all these railway projects might prove successful, but in proportion as they were successful, in the same proportion was it desirable that there should not be a perpetual monopoly established in the country. Under these circumstances, he had a strong feeling that it was desirable to insert in all these Bills some clause to
2
enable the Government or the Parliament to revise the enactments contained in them, at some future period. He conceived that, by carrying these measures into execution, a very great injustice was often done to many proprietors in the country, and they were forced to submit to great inconvenience, or to contend against that inconvenience, by means of incurring a very large expense, both in that and in the other House of Parliament. If some measure of the description to which he alluded were not adopted, and if these railroads were to become monopolies in the hands of the present or of future proprietors, they would hereafter be only enabled to get the better of such monopolies by forming fresh lines of road, to the detriment of the interests of the landed proprietors, and to the great increase of expense and inconvenience. These circumstances had most forcibly struck his mind. He had had the subject under consideration for some days; he had conversed with others respecting it, and it appeared to him, that some plan ought to be devised, in order to bring these railroads under the supervision of Parliament at some future period. He, therefore, was anxious that the further proceedings in all these Bills should be suspended for a

3
short time, that he might propose some clause, or introduce some measure, to meet the object to which he had referred. He thought it was a subject, the consideration of which ought not to fall on any individual, but which the Government ought to take in hand. He was, however, perfectly ready to take the responsibility with the Government in proposing such a measure for the consideration of their Lord-ships; but he did think that some thing ought to be done, in order that the Legislature might be invested with the power of revising these enactments after a certain time.
Lord Wharncliffeapproved of the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Duke. He conceived that the adoption of some measure of the kind would be nothing more than an act of justice to the landed proprietors.
The Marquess of Clanricardedid not mean to discuss the point adverted to by the noble Duke; but he felt it necessary to point out the state of the Bill, which he wished to have read a third time. That Bill had passed unopposed through both Houses of Parliament (but with amendments in their Lordships' House), and it was desirable that it should be read a third time as soon as possible. If it were passed to-night, it would probably be the law of the land on Monday next; but if it were not passed now, it would most likely be a very long time before it became law. He understood that the measure contemplated by the noble Duke would have reference to those Bills which had passed, as well as to those which were to be considered in future. If that were so, the object of the noble Duke would not be affected by allowing the Bill to be now read a third time.
The Duke of Wellingtondenied that the measure which he contemplated was intended to have a retrospective effect. He wished a clause of the nature to which he had alluded to be inserted in these Bills before they became the law of the land. He conceived that this ought to be done on the first opportunity that offered, and he believed that the present was that first opportunity. He was anxious that such a provision as he had described should be inserted as a clause in the Bill; at the same time, he should be very sorry to interfere with the private interests of individuals by any unnecessary delay.
The Marquess of Clanricardefound
4
that he had misunderstood the noble Duke, and he would not press the third reading then. When the noble Duke spoke of seizing the first opportunity for the introduction of such a clause, he was in error if he supposed that the present was the first Railway Bill that had arrived at such an advanced stage. He believed, on the contrary, that several Railway Bills had already received the royal assent.
Viscount Melbournesaid, this was a subject well worthy the consideration of the House. He agreed in the general principle laid down by the noble Duke. Something ought to be clone to accomplish the object to which the noble Duke had directed their attention; and he should be happy to co-operate with the noble Duke in the formation of such a measure.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to know what course the noble Duke meant to pursue?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that in the course of a few days he should be able to bring forward this subject; and in the mean time it would be necessary to stop the further progress of the Bills now before the House.
The conversation terminated.

BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM BILL.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the Order of the Day for the committal of the Bishopric of Durham Bill, said it was necessary that the measure should be passed with as little delay as possible. There was a clause in the Bill for the abolition of certain local courts. On that point very strong representations had been made, in order to retain one of these Courts. He alluded to the Court of Pleas. As their Lordships might deem it expedient not to abolish that Court, and as some alterations must be made in the Bill if that were the case, he trusted that the noble and learned Lord would allow the measure to go through the Committee to-night, pro forma. The proposed amendments might then be printed, and they could be considered on the report or on the third reading. By this means all unnecessary delay would be avoided.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he was anxious that the Court of Pleas should not be abolished, because the general feeling was, that justice was promptly and effectually administered in that Court. He had no objection to the proposition of the noble

5
Marquess, and in order to remove any difficulty, he would propose his amendments then.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he could not, in justice to the petitioners against the Bill, let this opportunity pass without again expressing his opinion. It was not his intention to make any observations on the ecclesiastical revenues of the See of Durham, until the Bill appropriating those revenues was regularly before them; but he begged leave to state what was the opinion of the petitioners with respect to the proposed abolition of those Courts. The petitioners clearly pointed out the great loss and inconvenience which the county would experience in consequence of the proposed arrangement, He was extremely sorry that the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), who had so frequently declared his anxiety to uphold all our ancient institutions, should have stated it to be his intention to support this Bill. And what were the grounds on which he meant to afford it that support? Why, he said that he would take that course, because the measure was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the noble Duke approved of every thing recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commission, he must approve of much that was recommended by persons whose opinion, with reference to the Church Establishment, was very different from his own. He, therefore, came to this conclusion, that the noble Duke could not agree to all the details contained in the Reports which had emanated from that Commission. The Commissioners had altered their opinion over and over again. Let their Lordships, for instance, look to the See of Bristol. On that point the eyes of the Commissioners had, it appeared, been opened. If that were so, he could not understand why they should not look again into the case of the county of Durham. Considering the statements made in the petitions which he had presented, it did appear to him that the Commissioners had recommended the Legislature to do one of the most unjust things that he had ever heard of. Now, of whom was the Commission composed? He saw the signatures of Sir R. Peel, of Mr. W. Wynn, &c, affixed to the first Report. To the second Report were affixed the signatures of Melbourne, S. Rice, and J. C Hobhousc—individuals whose feelings with respect to the Church Estab-
6
lishment were very different from those that were entertained by the preceding Commissioners. These latter individuals were for pursuing a course of parsimonious economy; but he believed if they had a cheap hierarchy they would soon have a cheap monarchy. The second Report, speaking of the palatine jurisdiction of Durham, said, "With respect to the Bishopric of Durham, we have been informed by Viscount Melbourne, that your Majesty has been pleased to approve of a plan for detaching from that See its palatine jurisdiction, and for placing the county of Durham on the same footing as to secular affairs with the other English counties." Now, the noble Duke stated, that he would support this Bill, which removed that jurisdiction, because the proposition was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But it would appear that the noble Viscount was the individual who recommended the plan, and not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He could not see, therefore, how the noble Duke could give the measure his support as emanating from the recommendation of the Commission. He should now advert to the reasons which induced the petitioners to object to the abolition of the Courts of Chancery and Pleas in the county of Durham. With respect to the first, they said, "That the Court of Chancery, in particular, gives the advantage to the inhabitants of obtaining the concurrence of infant heirs-at-law and trustees, and of prosecuting the other matters appertaining to the amicable jurisdiction of the Court of Equity at a slight expense." And why, he asked, should that advantage be taken away without full inquiry? It had not been removed from the county of Lancaster, and why should it be taken from Durham? Why should this harsh measure be restricted to Durham alone? With respect to the Court of Pleas, the noble and learned Lord had taken up that subject. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord would succeed in preventing the abolition of that Court; and he trusted that the noble and learned Lord would also make a stand for the Court of Chancery, and prevent it being; annihilated. If a proper case were made out for that Court, as he was certain could be done, why should it not be left untouched? He should be glad to know why, in the execution of this difficult task, he was deserted by noble Lords on that side of the

7
House? On what grounds did they support this Bill? He should, of course, be told, because the measure was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But that was no reason for upholding one of the most unjust and cruel measures that was ever brought be-fore Parliament. The petitioners further stated, in support of the continuance of these Courts,—
"1st. That the Courts are of immense advantage to the inhabitants of the county, in enabling them to sue for and obtain payment of debts due to them at a much less expense than in the courts at Westminster. 2d. That if the Courts are abolished, the inhabitants will be compelled to resort to the superior Courts, and thereby be subjected to an increased expense per annum of at least 5,000 l., without the slightest additional advantage. 3d. That no case of abuse in the practice of the Courts of Pleas and Chancery can be established to justify their abolition; and in the absence of any such proof, the advantages now enjoyed by the inhabitants ought not to be taken from them. 4th. That no proper inquiry has been instituted into the necessity of the abolition of the Courts, all information obtained having been procured from one or two irresponsible individuals in Durham, by a gentleman sent down for that purpose, and without any public inquiry."
He conceived, after these statements, that their Lordships ought to pause before they consented to such a measure as this. For his own part, he must protest in the strongest manner against the present proceeding for the abolition of those most useful Courts.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Lord who had just sat down had complained of his taking him by surprise with respect to the support he had chosen to give the Bill before their Lordships. He (the Duke of Wellington) had been a party to the appointment of the Commission so frequently alluded to by the noble Lord in the course of his speech, and although that Commission had certainly been considerably changed since he was in office, yet he felt happy in being able to give his support to a measure brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, having the Report of its members for its basis. The noble Lord had complained of his having deserted and disappointed him upon this question; but, in reality, the contrary was the case; for when he bore in mind that the noble Lord, during the time that he (the Duke of Wellington) was in office, had concurred with him in
8
the propriety of appointing the Commission, he thought that he should not be far wrong in saying, that the noble Lord had deserted and disappointed him. He would only repeat, that he felt pleasure and satisfaction in being enabled to give his support to the present or any other measure of his Majesty's Ministers, which he could conscientiously vote for.
The Earl of Winchilseahoped, that when the See of Durham Appropriation Bill should be brought from the Commons, their Lordships would show every attention to the recommendations of the late Bishop, as regarded the institutions in Durham which had been founded by him.
The House went into Committee, and the Bill, with amendments, passed through the Committee. The Report to be received.