Sitting of 8 May 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Slave Trade (Sweden); Slave Trade (Hans Towns); and Slave Trade (Netherlands).

SEIZURE BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
Dr. Lushington, seeing the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department in his place, wished to ask a question relative to the seizure of certain ships belonging to her Majesty's dominions on the coast of Africa. In the month of July, 1831, there were two vessels carrying on trade on the coast of Africa; and he was informed, that two French vessels of war then came down; that they attempted to compel the English vessels to sail from the coast; that they seized the guns that were being put on board, and ultimately seized the British vessels themselves. In the month of February, 1835, a blockade was attempted to be imposed on that coast by the French Government. A vessel called the Eliza, and other vessels in the trade, belonging to her Majesty's subjects, were then seized. The question he wished to ask was, whether or not the Government had preferred a claim against the French government for reparation, and whether there was any immediate prospect of its being brought to a speedy conclusion? Upon the answer he received, would depend whether he might think it necessary to make any motion on that subject.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that it was quite true, as stated by the hon. Member, that certain vessels belonging to British subjects had been interrupted in their commerce on the coast he had stated. The first was antecedent to a blockade, and the latter after it. He presumed, that it was not the wish of the learned Gentleman that he (Lord Palmerston) should enter into the details of the transaction, but he could state, that application having been made to the British Govern-

997
ment, they applied to the French Government for compensation. That had been under the consideration of the French Government for some time; a reply was made, which was submitted by him to the claimants; and a short time ago, a communication was made to the English Ambassador at Paris; to that communication he had not yet received any reply communicating the final determination of the French Government, but, at the same time, believing, as he did, that the claim was founded in justice, he could not persuade himself, that the French Government would not give it the consideration to which it was entitled.
Dr. Lushingtonwould wait a short time to see what the effect of any communication would be; and if it was not as favourable as he expected, he should bring the subject before the House.
Subject dropped.

FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
Mr. Bainesrose to move, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing the First Fruits of the Clergy in England and Wales, and the more effectual rating, and the better collection, of the Tenths applicable to the maintenance of the poor clergy. In adopting this course to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, he followed the precedent established upon the occasion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) bringing forward the subject of the Irish Church Temporalities. On that occasion, it was decided, that a resolution of a Committee of the whole House was requisite as the foundation of every measure in any way affecting the taxation of the people. He feared he could not propitiate the House, by promising to trespass but a short time on their attention; for the subject was most important, as involving the interests of a most influential and useful body of men—the working clergy. The principle of first fruits and tenths, was of a date as ancient as the establishment of parishes. The hon. Member traced the history of first fruits and tenths from the period of their earliest institution down to the well known Act of Queen Anne, and read the addresses presented to her Majesty by the convocations of Canterbury and York, to shew what were its objects, and the benefits that were expected to be derived from it to the poor clergy. They were as follow:—
998
"Address to her Majesty Queen Anne, from the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury assembled in Convocation, on the 15th Feb., 1704.
"We, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, together with the Clergy, do most humbly beg leave to express the great and deep sense that we have of your Majesty's most tender compassion for the poor clergy of this Church, who have hardly wherewith to support themselves in the exercise of their ministry, and of your Majesty's gracious intentions, even by bestowing your own revenue, to make a provision for them, in such a manner as you were pleased to declare in your Majesty's late message to the House of Commons.
"We cannot be thankful enough for so singular a blessing as we enjoy, in a Queen who has recommended our holy religion to her subjects, by the great example she has set them; and, particularly, by such signal instances of piety and charity, as not only render her the joy and delight of all true Christians of this age, but leave those effects behind them for which her Majesty will be blessed in all succeeding generations."
The Clergy of the Convocation of York also presented to her Majesty an Address, in which they said—
"Your Majesty not only takes care to preserve our religion in purity, and to protect our Church in all its rights and privileges, but has further taken care also that the ministers of it shall, in due time, have a competent maintenance, the want of which provision was the great, if not the only blemish of our Reformation; and, therefore, doubly blessed will your Majesty's memory be in all succeeding generations.
"As we are sure that this pious and charitable act of your Majesty is highly acceptable to God, so we cannot but hope, that it will have its proper effect upon all your Majesty's subjects, and especially upon us the clergy."
That Act of Queen Anne, he contended, had been a miserable failure, having achieved anything but the object for which it was intended. What was the consequence of the failure of Queen Anne's Bounty? The list of small livings, taken from the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which he would now read, would show:—
"There were 11 livings under 10 l. a-year; 19, from 10 l. to 20 l. a-year; 31, from 20 l. to 30 l.; 63, from 30 l. to 40 l.; 172, from 40 l. to 50 l.: making 296 livings under 50 l. a-year.—There were 305, from 50 l. to 60 l.; 307, from 60 l. to 70 l.; 254, from 70 l. to 80 l.; 354, from 80 l. to 90 l.; 396, from 90 l. to 100 l. total, 1,616, making 1,912 livings under 100 l. a-year.—There were 1,602 livings from 100 l.

999
to 150 l. a-year; and 1,352 from 150 l. to 200 l. a-year; so that there were 4,868 livings under 200 l. a-year. Besides these, there were 5,280 curacies, varying from 40 l. a-year to 160 l., and averaging 81 l. per annum each."
Now, in what way did this happen, and why had the Act so greatly failed in its purpose? He did not mean to give any offence to those connected with the subject, but, in his opinion, the governors of the Queen's Bounty had not done their duty, and had not attended to the solemn trust which had been reposed in them for the benefit of the poor clergy, by the munificent spirit of Queen Anne. In addition to this, there were some equivocal expressions in the Act, which rendered its meaning difficult to be properly understood. He alluded to the passage in the 6th section of that Act, in which it was said, "that the First Fruits and Tenths shall hereafter be assessed and paid by the clergy, according to such rates and proportions only as the same have been hitherto rated and paid." He thought, however, that this ought to be corrected, for where any law operated oppressively on any portion of the people, it was the duty of Parliament to revise its enactments, so as to be just towards all. He certainly must say, that he considered the governors, as trustees of the bounty, and as having received from the Queen a royal injunction, guilty of a great dereliction of duty, in not construing the Act to the advantage of the poor clergy, as was enjoined by the charter of Queen Anne, appointing governors for dispensing the Bounty Fund. In explanation of his plan, the hon. Gentleman said, that he proposed, in the first place, that first fruits should be altogether abolished, because he considered, that the payment of first fruits acted oppressively on the clergy during the first year that they held their livings. He would not, however, stop there; and he further proposed, that all livings under 300 l. should be exempted from the payment of tenths, and that all livings above 300 l., of yearly value, should be charged with one-tenth of their net value. He would further state, that it was not his intention to apply these regulations to the livings of clergymen now in possession. He proposed, that they should remain as they are at present, and that the regulation he suggested should only take effect on clergymen to be hereafter appointed. What, it would be asked, would be the effect of this scheme on the fund devoted to the support of the poorer clergy? By a calculation he
1000
had made, he found that a tenth of the annual value of the whole livings of the clergy would amount to 250,000 l., and that that sum would be at their disposal instead of only 13,500 l., the amount at present derived from first fruits and tenths. That amount, however, could only be obtained by the gradual operation of the plan he proposed, and not all at once, because, no clergyman at present in possession of a living, would be affected by his proposal; and it was only on future presentations to benefices that his plan would take effect on those benefices. The next question was, as to the application of the fund to be thus raised; and, in his opinion, the first object they ought to have in view was, the augmentation of the livings of the poor clergy. He wished, as the chief object of his measure, to increase those livings, and to give to the working clergy a clear annual income of not less than 200 l., and he wished also, that no curate should have less than 150 l. a-year. Of course, various objections would be made to any legislative interference on the subject. He would advert to some of the most prominent. From the valuation, as returned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it appeared, that the clear yearly revenues of the church amounted to 3,500,000 l. Deducting 500,000 l. for discharged livings, and livings not liable to payment of tenths, the amount would be 3,000,000 l. The tenths of which sum would yield 300,000 l., and the first fruits 200,000 l., making 500,000 l. The tenths and first fruits now yielded only 13,500 l., leaving a deficiency of 486,500 l., being less than a thirty-seventh part of the actual first fruits and tenths. But this part of his plan did not rest on his authority alone. Last year, a Select Committee was appointed by the House, to consider the mode of payment, and the application of first fruits and tenths, and the Report of that Committee recommended the adoption of measures similar to those which he had proposed. This Committee recommended, that the first fruits should be abolished.
"But, whenever that should be done," said they, "we incline to the opinion, that in place of the present tenths, a moderate and graduated impost, according to a valuation more nearly representing the actual income, and upon the scale adopted for the Irish livings, by the 3rd and 4th William 4th., c. 27, might be charged upon all future holders of benefices above the yearly value of 300 l., the produce of which impost might be advantageously applied to the more speedy augmentation of small

1001
livings—the provision of a retiring pension for infirm incumbents of small livings—and to assist in the endowment of new churches in the various parts of the country in which the increase of population will never cease to create a necessity for extraordinary aid."
His plan differed from that suggested by the Select Committee in one particular only, namely, that while the Act regarding Irish Church Temporalities required the payment by a graduated scale, varying from five to fifteen per cent., he adhered to the ancient tenths, as snore definite in their name and character, and as claiming the sanction of a higher antiquity. The House might inquire what would be the effect of his plan? What it would produce annually for the poor clergy might be thus stated:—The total clear income of the Church, as stated in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was 3,500,000 l. Deduct 1,000,000 l. for livings under 300 l. a-year. The tenths of 2,500,000 l. would be 250,000 l. The sum now produced by first fruits and tenths was only 13,500 l. The annual increase would therefore be 236,500 l. This full income would not be attained immediately, but would proceed at the rate of 20,000 l. a-year, till it reached its consummation. Amongst the several objections to the plan he had now the honour to propose, the first was, that there were no petitions on the table from the poorer clergy, complaining of their situation—that there were no manifestations of discontent:—nor was it necessary to establish this fact by petitions. He would merely ask, if it was possible that a gentleman, or even a mechanic, could live upon an income of 10 l., 20 l., 30 l., 40 l., or 50 l.? It was scarcely the remuneration given to the lowest mechanic. But the poorer clergy knew how much they depended on clergy of the higher order. They abstained, therefore, from petitions, complaining of their condition, because they apprehended they might give offence to those whom they desired not to offend, and on whose favour they had to depend for future preferment. He wished hon. Members could look into his bureau. They would there see vast masses of letters, which clearly showed what the feelings of the inferior clergy were on the subject. Their complaints were not loud, but they were deep. He would, with the leave of the House, read a letter which he had received on the subject from a clergyman, dated March 15, 1837. It was as follows:—
"Sir—I sincerely hope that one of the pur-
1002
poses contemplated by your motion for a return of the sums paid as first fruits and tenths by the bishops and the higher beneficed clergy, is the improvement of the condition of the poorer clergy, who are not in circumstances to help themselves, and whose interests have been grossly neglected by those who ought to have shown themselves anxious protectors of them.
"While the tithes have been, for years, taken by bishops, rectors, and impropriators, according to the improved value of land arising from the employment of increased capital and skill in its cultivation, the first fruits and tenths, which form the fund for the augmentation of the small livings, or starvings, of the poor clergy, are paid according to a valuation made in the reign of King Henry 8th.—that is, in simple truth, the actual tenths are received, but in most cases, not one-tenth of them, or of the first fruits, are paid to the fund in question; and, while one portion of the church possesses an absurd and superfluous revenue, the other is left in a state of degraded poverty.
"It was the duty of the bishops, and other governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to propose, from time to time, new valuations of the benefices, and other offices, and to give thus to the poor incumbents, a benefit of which the dignitaries, and others who did not want it, so largely partook. * * *
"Have they discharged this duty?
"To Edward Baines, Esq., M. P."
Another letter stated, that the writer was a married man, with a large family; that his wife was in bad health; that his income was only 40 l.; and that he was in a state of miserable penury. That last fact the writer need not have stated. The only wonder was, that he did not go to the first union workhouse, and apply for relief. Another letter, which he (Mr. Baines) would take the liberty of reading to the House, was a letter which he had received from a beneficed clergyman, containing an account of a few of the rich livings, with their real values, as returned by the clergy themselves, in 1835; together with the values thereof respectively, as stated in the Liber Regis. The letter was as follows:—
"Sir,—I thank you for the manner in which you have taken up the subject of Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, and the cause of the poor clergy of the Established Church. The eyes of the public only want to be fairly opened upon this subject, to secure speedy and ample justice for those whose cause you advocate. Go on fearlessly. You have a righteous cause in hand, and success will, ultimately, crown your efforts. I rejoice, that amongst the laity, yea, even amongst the dissenting laity, men are to be found who will stand

1003
up for the rights of the long-oppressed poor clergy. You have their good wishes, I am sure, though many of them are so circumstanced, that they dare not come forward boldly to defend themselves: it is from this cause that the evil has been allowed to attain so great a head. I send you a list of a few of the rich livings in various parts of the kingdom, merely as a specimen of their real value, as stated by the clergy themselves, in their returns to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which returns were made to the King in 1835, and laid before both Houses of Parliament; and I accompany it with the value of those livings, as they stand in the King's books, that is, in the time of Henry 8th, and upon which valuation, instead of upon the real value, the incumbents pay their tenths and first fruits.

Selection of Benefices with the real value of each, and their respective values as returned in the Liber Regis.

Name of Living.

County.

Clear yearly value.

Value paid upon.

Sum paid as Tenths.

Real Tenths.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Aldingham

Lancashire

1,093

40

4

0

109

Aldington

Kent

1,014

38

3

16

101

Algarkirk

Lincolnshire

1,310

50

5

0

131

Allcannings

Wilts

1,100

31

3

2

110

Alvechurch

Worcester

1,025

24

2

4

102

Alverstoke

Hants

1,287

21

2

2

128

Ashton-un-line

Lancashire

1,407

26

2

12

140

Aston

Warwickshire

2,075

21

2

2

207

Attleburgh

Norfolk

1,226

19

1

18

122

Barwk in Elmet

Yorkshire

1,352

33

3

16

135

Bibury

Gloucestershire

1,023

13

1

6

102

Bingham

Nottinghamshire

1,503

44

4

8

150

Bothall

Northumberland

1,484

25

2

10

148

Bury

Lancashire

1,937

29

2

18

193

Chatteris

Cambridge

1,370

10

1

0

137

Chelsea

Middlesex

1,003

13

1

6

100

Doddington

Cambridgeshire

7,306

22

1

4

730

Edgcomb

Salop

2,600

46

4

12

260

Feltwell

Norfolk

1,207

14

1

8

120

Hatfield Bishops

Lincolnshire

2,097

36

3

12

209

Hilgay

Norfolk

1,291

10

1

0

129

Halifax

Yorkshire

1,628

84

8

8

162

Lambeth

Surrey

2,277

32

3

4

227

Leverington

Cambridgeshire

2,099

25

2

10

209

St. Botolph without Bishopsgt.

London

2,290

20

2

0

229

Mepul

Cambridgeshire

1,267

3

0

6

126

Pulborongh

Sussex

1,376

19

1

18

137

Ross

Herefordshire

1,284

38

3

16

128

Rochdale

Lancashire

1,730

11

1

2

173

Rowley

Yorkshire

1,465

20

2

0

146

Sheffield

Yorkshire

1,285

12

1

4

128

Stanhope

Durham

4,843

67

6

14

484

Upwell

Norfolk

3,855

16

1

12

385

Winwick

Lancashire

3,616

102

10

4

361

64,775

1,014

100

4

6463

"These livings yield to the clergy, who are in the enjoyment of them, a clear income of 64,775 l. a-year, the tenth of which sum is 6,463 l., but instead of paying that sum for the better maintenance of the poor clergy, they pay only 100 l. 4s a-year, being about one sixty-fourth part of the real tenths, exclusive of first fruits.
"To this statement the higher orders of the clergy will be ever ready to say, 'We have paid our first fruits and tenths, as the law has directed us, and therefore we have withheld
1004
from the poor clergy nothing which they had a just right to claim.' But have they no just claim on the increased value of these livings? Do the tenants who hold glebe, &c., under the incumbents, pay their rents on the valuations of 1534, or according to the valuation of 1834? Let the above statements answer that question. If, then, the incumbents of those livings have a just right to the increased value since 1534, have not the poor clergy an equal right to their increased value? Undoubtedly they have; and yet they have been long and shamefully deprived of it. Will the lay members and friends of the Church suffer this system of spoliation to continue any longer? Will the Conservative party any longer remain silent under this gross injustice? Or will they not at once come forward, and demand justice for the poor clergy?
"—Parsonage-house, May, 1837. "To Edward Baines, Esq., M. P."
It might be said, that a change in the value of livings had taken place in the interval that elapsed between the time of Henry 8th., and the reign of Queen Anne, which change, whatever it might be, was wholly overlooked, or entirely disregarded in the statute of the latter sovereign. It would appear, however, that the change in the value of Church property was not very great at the time, for within four years from the passing of the Act of Queen Anne, the bishops applied for an alteration of its provisions, upon the ground "that the first fruits and tenths then paid by the archbishops and bishops amounted to very nearly the full value thereof." That was in the time of Queen Anne. He would now show to the House how far the archbishops and bishops of the present day were from paying the full value of the first fruits and tenths; he would shew how some paid only one-fourth of the value, many only one-sixth, others only one-eighth, not a few only one-twelfth, and how one paid only one-thirtieth of the real value. The hon. Gentleman then read a statement of the present incomes of the hierarchy, together with the amount paid by each of them for first fruits and tenths. From this statement, it appeared, that the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury amounted to 19,182,l., whilst the amount paid by him for first fruits was only 2,682 l. leaving a deficiency of 16,500 l. The income of the Archbishop of York was 12,629 l., whilst the amount paid by him for first fruits was only 1,449 l. being a deficiency of 11,180 l. The first fruits of the several bishoprics he stated as follows:—

1005

SEES.

Clear Annual Revenue.

Payments as First Fruits.

Difference.

London

£13,929

£901

£13,028

Durham

19,066

1,638

17,428

Winchester

11,151

2,873

8,278

Bangor

4,464

118

4,346

Bath and Wells

5,946

479

5,467

Bristol

2,351

294

2,057

Carlisle

2,213

478

1,735

Chester

3,261

378

2,883

Chichester

4,229

609

3,620

Ely

11,105

1,921

9,184

Exeter

2,713

450

2,263

Gloucester

2,282

203

1,999

Hereford

2,516

691

1,825

Lichfield and Coventry

3,923

503

3,420

Lincoln

4,542

828

3,714

Landaff

924

139

785

Norwich

5,395

834

4,561

Oxford

2,648

343

2,305

Peterborough

3,103

373

2,730

Rochester

1,450

322

1,128

St. Asaph

6,301

168

6,133

St. David's

1,897

383

1,514

Salisbury

3,939

1,246

2,693

Worcester

6,569

929

5,640

He maintained, that a system which admitted of such a deviation from the spirit of the Act of Parliament was inadequate, unequal, and unjust. Bishop Burnet said, that in his time, the payments for first fruits and tenths amounted to from 16,000 l. to 17,000 l. a-year; whereas, at the present time, notwithstanding the increase in the value of property, they amounted only to 13,500 l. a-year, being an actual depreciation since the time of Queen Anne, of twenty-five per cent., to the disadvantage of the poor clergy. It was said, that if the payment of a real tenth were demanded from the clergy upon all livings above the annual value of 300 l., Parliament would be acting very oppressively towards them. He denied the accuracy of that proposition. In the first place, it would not at all apply to present incumbents, and with respect to those who came hereafter, it certainly could be considered no hardship if they were admitted to a good living, with the knowledge that they must contribute one-tenth of its income, for the purpose of benefitting their poor brethren. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford some time since took an objection, which certainly must be admitted as having some force; he said, that many persons had come into possession of advowsons under an impression that they were, at all times, to pay the first fruits and tenths, according to the rate fixed in the reign of Henry 8th. He acknow-
1006
ledged, that there was some force in that argument—he could not deny it; but, at the same time, he begged leave to ask the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), if the same argument was not equally applicable to the proposition which the noble Lord brought forward in 1834 with respect to the Irish Church Temporalities, and which received the sanction of Parliament. Another objection, which had been urged for nearly three centuries, was this—namely, that there was no other valuation upon which to ascertain the amount of first fruits and tenths, except that of Henry the 8th. That objection was now no longer applicable, because in the year 1835, a new valuation was made by the clergy themselves, who were not likely to over estimate the amount of their livings. The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a work by Mr. Johnes, who had instituted a searching inquiry into the management and application of Queen Anne's Bounty in Wales, with the view of accounting for the rise of dissent in the principality. Mr. Johnes said:—
"The first-fruits and tenths, since they have come into the hands of the clergy, have been a source of great wealth to the rich clergy, but for the poor clergy they have done scarcely anything. What will be thought when it is stated, that a vast portion of these revenues have been added to the wealth of the highest dignitaries of the land? I say added to their wealth, for such is practically the effect of relieving them, in whole or in part, from the charge of paying their own curates. Of all the abuses in the Church, the grossest is the system of relieving bishops and sinecurists from the maintenance of their own curates by grants out of Queen Anne's Bounty. All the parishes in the county of Carnarvon which belong to the bishops, the dean, and the archdeacon, exhibit these abuses. We are not to consider the present possessors of these benefices as the authors of the abuses alluded to; but it is to be attributed to the system which has lavished the funds of Queen Anne's Bounty, miserable as they are in amount, upon not the poor livings, but the rich livings, to save the pockets of the dignitaries and pluralists of the Church from the payment of their own curates. The parishes of Holt and Iscoed, like Gresford, are in the hands of the Dean and Chapter of Winchester, who derive from them 900 l. per annum. Here abuse is added to abuse, and their endowments are eked out by Queen Anne's Bounty: The curate of Iscoed has an income of 200 l. a-year, of which no part whatever is paid by the Dean and chapter; it consists entirely of Bounty money. In point of fact, it will be found that the most liberal grants of Queen Anne's Bounty

1007
are those which have been made to parishes in the hands of bishops and sinecurists. Amongst the grievances complained of in North Wales are these: the exemption of the wealthy clergy from the payment of the first-fruits and tenths according to the strict ancient proportions, the universally low salaries of the bishops' curates, and the practice adopted by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty of applying the Bounty fund in relieving the bishops from the support of their own Curates."
Of course he pledged himself for nothing contained in that statement, but he had inquired diligently as to whether Mr. Johnes was a gentleman upon whose statements he might implicitly rely, and many Members of the House had answered him in the affirmative. He must also add that the work itself bore strong internal evidence of accuracy and truth. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the proceedings of the Committee which met upon first-fruits and tenths, and called the attention of the House to the evidence of the Treasurer of Queen Anne's Bounty, who, upon being asked whether a poor clergyman, who had only a single benefice of 60 l. a-year, would have any better chance of having his living augmented than the clergyman who held two livings, one of 60 l. a-year and the other of 800 l. a-year, answered, "No; he would have only the same chance." He thought that this did not accord with the letter or the spirit of the Act of Queen Anne, which was entitled an Act "for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy;" and surely a pluralist with 860 l. a-year could not fairly come under that designation. He hoped he had now established the three propositions he was anxious to press upon the conviction of the House: first, that it was the intention of Queen Anne that her bounty should afford competent livings for all the poor clergy—secondly, that it had entirely failed to produce that effect—and, thirdly, that it was high time some remedy should be applied. The remedy he had suggested to the House he hoped was conceived in moderation, and would receive the approbation of those Gentlemen with whom he should be very happy to co-operate, or into whose hands he should be very glad to confide the whole matter, because it was from no personal ambition nor any selfish object that he had been induced to take it up. But finding, year after year and age after age, the same abuses going on and no member of the Church coming forward to
1008
redress them, he had at length volunteered his services, impertinently perhaps, in the cause of the poorer clergy. He had only to add, that he looked with a confident expectation to receive the support of that (the Ministerial) side of the House. From the time of the Reformation to the present hour no ministry had done so much for the Established Church as the Ministry who now held the reins of Government. If anybody doubted the accuracy of that observation, he would undertake at any time to make it good. To a Ministry, then, which had done so much for the cause of reform and for the benefit of the Church he looked with a confident expectation of support, when he brought forward a proposition so fraught with justice to those who took the labouring oar in the Church, and who, notwithstanding their poverty, discharged all the duties of their holy office conscientiously, and with great ability. He repeated, that he confidently expected the support of the present Ministry, and a period was now arriving—the coronation of the Queen—which would afford them a fit opportunity of enabling our young and gracious sovereign, Victoria, to give fresh vitality to the benevolent principles laid down by Queen Anne. He would not say whether the Government would or would not violate its duty if it did not seize the approaching occasion to perpetuate the memory of our present Queen, and to transmit her name to posterity as an equal benefactress to the Church with Queen Anne. When he said, that the present Ministry had done more for the Church than any Government since the time of the Reformation, he must say, that the reason why the same opinion was not shared by every Gentleman in the House, was this: that whilst the present Ministry had done so much for the Established Church, they had also, through their influence, done a great deal for the Roman Catholics and the dissenting body generally. It was because they had not confined their favours to any one particular denomination that it was sometimes imputed to them that they were the enemies of the Church. In the Irish Church Temporalities Bill they had asserted an important principle, from which he was satisfied the Church, as well as the rest of the community, would ultimately derive the highest advantages,—he meant the principle which declared that property rather than persons ought to be made to conduce to the payment of the clergy. If he looked with confidence to the Ministerial side of

1009
the House, he looked with not the less confidence for support to the opposite side of the House, where he saw many professed, and he doubted not very sincere, friends of the Church. How could they promote its prosperity or increase the happiness of its members better than by acceding to such a proposition as that which he then brought under the consideration of the House? Apologising, with great sincerity, for the length of time his statement had occupied, the hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing the first-fruits of the clergy in England and Wales, and the more effectual rating, and the better collection of the tenths applicable to the maintenance of the poor clergy."
The Solicitor-General, although he could not fulfil the expectations of his hon. Friend by supporting his motion, felt bound to state, that he did the most complete justice to the sincerity of his hon. Friend's motives in bringing the subject forward, as well as to the temperate tone and manner in which he had introduced it to the House. He was perfectly persuaded, that in undertaking the subject, his hon. Friend had but one object in view—that of promoting the spiritual happiness of the community at large, by the introduction of a just, legitimate, and useful reform. The grounds, however, upon which he felt bound to oppose his hon. Friend's motion, were shortly these: if the motion had been founded upon the general question of the right and expediency of Parliament to make a more equal distribution of Church property for the benefit of the community at large, he should be ready to say, that he would give to such a subject his most serious attention; but it must be an attention quite unfettered by any consideration that might arise out of the question of first fruits and tenths, or any point that might arise out of the statute of Queen Anne. His hon. Friend, throughout the whole of his address, appeared to have confounded the general abstract question with the question of right under the statutes of Queen Anne and the act of Henry 8th. In order to clear the way before him, he (the Solicitor-General) would call the attention of the House, to what those statutes really were, because it appeared to him to be clear to demonstration that the clergy had now under those statutes
1010
all that they ever were entitled to. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying, that by a statute passed in the reign of Henry 8th, the first fruits and tenths of all ecclesiastical benefices became payable by the clergy. The question, then, was, how the amount of the property was to be ascertained; and the statute provided, that it should be lawful for the Lord Chancellor to issue a commission to inquire into the value of livings. The Commissioners were directed to make their return in a certain specified form; and from the return so made, the value of the first fruits and tenths was to be taken. From the terms of the statute of Henry 8th, it was not easy to determine whether it were intended that the amount of the value then ascertained was to be regarded as an amount of value that should remain fixed and unalterable, or whether it were intended that the Crown from time to time should direct the Lord Chancellor to issue fresh commissions, with the view of making the amount of first fruits and tenths keep pace with the general increased value of property. His hon. Friend maintained, that the latter was the intention of the act; and, for the sake of the argument, he (the Solicitor-General) would assume that it was so. He would assume, that the Crown had the right, from time to time, to issue fresh commissions; but, in point of fact, it had never done so. When Queen Anne came to the throne, she had the right, subject, of course, to the approbation of Parliament, to deal with these first fruits and tenths; and, being so entitled, she exercised her right, and placed them in the hands of a certain corporation which she then established for the purpose of augmenting the income of small benefices. It was part of the Act of Parliament whereby Queen Anne gave up this fund, that the value should be taken at the old and not at the increased rate; that was one of the provisions of the act. Therefore, if his hon. Friend were to succeed in showing that there ought, by the statute of Henry 8th., to be a new valuation from time to time, the result would be, that the surplus would belong to the Crown, and not to the poor clergy. He was aware that his hon. Friend had referred to an opinion of Lord Eldon, expressive of some doubt as to the construction put upon the act of Queen Anne. Now, it was his fortune for ten years of his life to practise before that learned judge, and he believed there never

1011
was a subject upon which it was not the pleasure of that learned judge, from his great ingenuity, to justify the expression of a doubt. He believed, that if that learned Lord had to express an opinion of the character of Henry 8th. himself, he would say of him, "That some of his opinions were, perhaps, rather harsh and arbitrary." What, he would ask, was the meaning of any doubt on the present subject? When a bond was given, it was to conclude the subject, and even to set forth what the sum of money was that should be secured by that bond. The act said, that a bond should be required for the payment of the first fruits and tenths, and which said first fruits and tenths should be paid according to such rates and proportions only as heretofore they had been paid. But if there were any doubts as to the meaning of this act, subsequent acts had entirely and in the most distinct manner removed all such doubts. It appeared to him perfectly clear, therefore that upon the law of the case, the first fruits and tenths now receivable by the governors of Queen Anne's bounty were exactly the same which they always had received, and as he had stated on a former occasion, in answer to a similar motion to the present, the governors of Queen's Anne's bounty at the present day had no more power than his hon. Friend had to alter by one farthing the amount of the sum so received. That being so, the question was whether or not it were fit that some alteration should be made. But if any alteration were to be made, it must be made irrespective of Queen's Anne's bounty. It must be by some such measure has had been adopted in respect to the Irish Church temporalities and it ought not to be in the slightest degree fettered or encumbered by any of the provisions of the act of Queen Anne. He, therefore, felt himself bound in justice to give his opposition to the present motion.
Mr. Gaily Knightsaid: Having been personally alluded to by the hon. Member for Leeds, I feel myself called upon to say a few words; and as the hon. Gentleman distinctly states, that his intention is to apply his substitute for tenths, absolutely and entirely to the same purposes to which the tenths are now applied, namely, to the augmentation of poor livings, I cannot but offer him my humble support. Had the necessities of the Church not been great, had there not been a great number of ministers inadequately
1012
provided for,—had there not been on all sides, a loud and increasing demand for the extension of spiritual instruction, we might have been content to suffer things to remain as they are; but when we know that there are not less than 3,528 benefices under 150 l. a-year, that there are 2,878 benefices on which there is no house of residence, and that the actual produce of the tenths, by the help of which this state of things has to be amended, averages only 14,000 l. a-year, is it not manifest that it is most desirable to increase that fund, if it can be done without injustice? And, I must confess, that the hon. Gentleman is completely borne out by the fact when he states, that the manner in which the tenths are levied is most unsatisfactory—for not only does it bear no reference to the original impost,—not only does it bear no reference to the present value of the benefices, but it is most unequal in its pressure and distribution. Out of 10,498 benefices, only 4,898 pay tenths at all; and those which do pay, only pay according to what was the value of the benefices in the time of Henry 8th. How immensely those benefices have increased in value since that time, the House has already heard. I hold in my hand a few extracts from the returns made to the Commissioners in 1835, which, when compared with the Liber Valorum, confirm the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. I find, for example, that Halsal, which, in the time of Henry 8th was worth 24 l. 11 s. 5½d., in the time of William 4th is worth 3,095 l. a-year. Stanhope, formerly 67 l. 6s. 8d. is now 4,875 l. Hawarden, 66 l. 6s. 5½d. now 3,286 l. Winwick, 102 l. 9s. 9½d. now 4,220 l. Bishop Wearmouth, 89 l.18 s. 1½d. now 3,346. Doddington, 22 l. 5s. 0d. now 7,781 l. Lambeth, 32 l. 15 s. 7½d. now 2,481 l. Clapham, 8l. 10 s. 0d. now 1,299 l. When the change of value is so immense, if it be, as, after the statement of her Majesty's Solicitor-General, I must not deny it to be, consonant to law, is it agreeable to common sense, that the tenths paid now should be the same as when the benefices were of so little comparative value? But this is not all—the payment is not only disproportionate: it is also unequal. The benefices have by no means increased in equal proportion. Mines, manufactures, harbours, agricultural improvements, have greatly added to the value of some livings, whilst others, less fortunately circum-

1013
stanced, have increased in nothing like the same ratio; yet the benefice which has increased fifty-fold, may pay no more tenths than the one which has only increased twenty-fold. Some benefices are altogether exempted, whilst others of inferior value remain in charge. By the Act of Queen Anne, all benefices not worth more than 50 l. a-year, were exempted from the payment of tenths—many of these are now worth 300 l. a-year, whilst many of those, which in the time of Anne were worth just above 50 l. a-year, and which, therefore, were not exempted, have not had the good fortune to rise in the same proportion. But her Majesty's Solicitor-General tells us that, however different may be the value, however unequal the burthen, the book was finally closed by the Act of Anne, and cannot be opened again. It is perfectly true, that the Act of Anne says, that all benefices remaining in charge shall continue to pay their tenths according to such rates and proportions as they had been accustomed to pay before—which expression has ever since been construed to mean, according to the valuation made in the time of Henry 8th; but this is at variance with the spirit, at least, of another clause, which, speaking of the first fruits of bishops, says they shall continue to pay the same as before, because what they pay is not far from the real value. Having regard to this expression, should it not appear that it must have been imagined that the tenths were also much nearer the real value than was actually the case? and the real value was not ascertained, because a return was only demanded of such livings as were at that time below the value of 50 l. a-year. Admitting, however, this law to be correctly interpreted, I am not aware that Parliament, having once legislated on the subject, cannot legislate again; that Parliament, after the lapse of above a century, is precluded from again considering the question. If a case of injustice and unfairness is made out, I cannot admit that the door to amendment is irrevocably closed. But I am asked, where is the justice of taxing a particular kind of property? In the first place, I am not seeking to impose a new tax, but to adjust one which exists at present; and in the second place, I frankly confess that, in foro conscientiœ, I consider no Church property, not even advowsons, or lay tithes, to be unconditional property. All Church pro-
1014
perty partakes of the nature of a trust, and Is accompanied by the condition of spiritual instruction. Firmly opposed as I am, and ever shall be, to the secular principle; firmly opposed as I am, to every thing like spoliation, I am not opposed to changes within the Church herself, which would be calculated to increase her efficlency. I cannot belong to the Noli me tangere school; who, if they pushed their principle to the extreme, might at once be surrounded by victims of plethora, and of destitution. The precedent, which has been adduced by the hon. Gentleman, of what was done in Ireland, appears to me exactly in point, and, indeed, that graduated scale was the example which is recommended for imitation in the report of the Committee, to which allusion has been made. The proposition before the House interferes with the income of no living person, because it would only take effect on a real presentation. It relieves all the clergy from the inconvenient and expensive burthen of first fruits. It relieves all benefices of 300 l. a-year from tenths altogether—and it proposes that the tenths of benefices above that value, should be commuted for a per centage, the amount of which is left for the decision of the House. About the amount of that per centage I am not so anxious as that it should be equal. I certainly am of opinion that, in the present unfortunate state of the poor livings, it is not unreasonable to require of the larger livings, something more like their original liabilities, in aid of the unrequited labourers in the vineyard. But I candidly acknowledge that, whilst I wish to assist the poorer clergy, it is no part of my wish to hurt or humiliate any; or to reduce the Church of England to the level of her northern sister. The Church which has been preferred by the people of England, has much less decoration about her than the Catholic, but something more than the Presbyterian, and in my mind, has caught the happy mean between the two extremes; nor will I lend myself to any thing which would materially change her character, or alter her position. But, the poor livings may be assisted without materially affecting the prizes in the lottery of the Ecclesiastical profession. The tax may be made more equal without being oppressive to any, and a more satisfactory system may easily be introduced. Even in the moderate way in which I should desire to proceed, a considerable

1015
addition to the funds for the poor livings may be obtained. But we shall still want whatever more can be obtained for the building and endowment of new Churches, and the ever growing spiritual wants of a rapidly increasing population.
Mr. Humehoped his hon. Friend would not trouble the House to divide on this occasion, because it was perfectly evident from what the Solicitor-General had said, that there was no power of proceeding in the way his hon. Friend had suggested. It was undoubtedly in the power of Parliament to pass a bill and new model these matters altogether; but did his hon. Friend think that the Government, after their proceedings of yesterday and the few previous days, in which they had used their utmost efforts to continue pluralities in the Church, and to deprive the poorer clergy of those means which the Government had it in their power to give them—did he think that such a Government would at all listen to his common sense view of this question? It was only a repetition of the late trials he and a few others had in vain made, to induce the Government to act upon the principles of common sense in respect to the establishment of the Church. Could any man consider the Government to be sincere in their wish to put the Church upon an equitable footing after the changes that had recently taken place. The commutation of tithes had given to the Church, according to their own showing, no less than 3,500,000 l. a-year, but which he (Mr. Hume) believed would amount to more than 4,500,000 l. a-year. If, having that immense amount to deal with, there was any disposition on the part of those who pretended to be the friends of the Church to enable every incumbent in the country to possess an income of 200 l. a-year, it was at this moment perfectly practicable for them to raise every small living to that value. He considered, therefore, that the Government and those who pretended to be the friends of the Church were to blame for the present unsatisfactory state of things in regard to Church livings, because they refused to avail themselves of the means that were in their power for removing the grievance, and it was almost a farce for him and those who concurred in his views to attempt to proceed further until they could obtain a majority on the question.
Mr. James Stewartwas of opinion, that under the statute of Anne, a Commission
1016
could be issued at this day. If so, then, the Act of Queen Anne gave everything that was reserved to the Crown by the statute of Henry the 8th; and so far from the latter Act being repealed by Queen Anne's Act, it was by the second section expressly confirmed; and he contended, that every right that was possessed under the statute of Henry the 8th existed at the present day under the statute of Queen Anne. He did not think, that because a general inquiry was pending, that they were not to have a particular inquiry into the particular grievance arising out of these revenues.
Mr. Goulburnentirely concurred in what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-General, and objected to the view taken on the subject of first fruits and tenths by the hon. Member for Leeds. He denied that Parliament had any authority or power to take away those imposts for the purpose of applying the money to the use of poor clergymen. He asked if hon. Gentlemen were satisfied as to the justice of the original position, and whether they had weighed the effect which this motion, if successful, would have on other questions connected with the same subject? He did not believe, that any man who had attended to the early circumstances under which first fruits and tenths were imposed could approve of the tax. But by whom was this tax imposed? Why, by the Pope; and it was by him collected, notwithstanding Parliament and the clergy had constantly declared, that its imposition was an act of great injustice. It was well known, that more than half the tax was never paid, and if so, how could it be asserted, that in Roman Catholic times the payment was made according to the full value. At the period of the Reformation, this tax was taken by the Crown; but Queen Anne restored it to the Church for the purpose to which it was now applied—namely, the augmentation of small livings. The question whether or not a property tax ought or ought not to be generally imposed was one which must depend upon a very different footing from the subject of first fruits and tenths. From the hon. Member for Leeds' own showing, it would appear, that to adopt his principle would be to raise the taxation on this description of property from 13,000 l. per annum to about 2,50,000 l. He concurred with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in

1017
thinking, that the discussion of the question of first fruits and tenths afforded no argument in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Leeds. That hon. Member contended, that because many of those livings varied considerably from what they were in the time of Henry the 8th, therefore the taxation should be augmented; but he did not see that any argument had been adduced to support that proposition. It was well known, that there were many properties bound in a similar way, and subject to burthens which bore a comparatively greater proportion to their value than these burthens did in their present state of improved value. Now, surely no one would attempt to say, that a proposition to increase the burthens on such property beyond the terms of the old lease and proportionately to the present value could for one moment be supported. Surely the analogy was complete, and if they increased the burthens that were fixed at the time of Henry the 8th to the present improved value, he did not see on what principle they could refuse to subject other property, under similar circumstances, to additional taxation. Well, then, there was another point. According to the law of this country advowsons were considered to be private property. They were repeatedly sold, and it was well known that individuals purchased that description of property on the faith of Parliament, which told them that this was a very safe investment of property; and on what ground could the House feel justified in diminishing the amount of that property? He, on the grounds he had stated, as well as on other grounds, objected to the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, and fully concurred in the view of the law respecting the question which had been taken by the Solicitor-General. That view was not new to him. At various times, in discussions which had taken place on subjects connected with the property of the Church, he had expressed the same opinions. However, he would, on the present occasion, be content to rest the argument of the case upon the speech of the Solicitor-General, repeating his determination to oppose the motion.
House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 27: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bewes, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Blake, W. J.

1018

Briscoe, J. I.

Pryme, G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Roche, D.

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Salwey, Colonel

Cayley, E. S.

Stanley, W. O.

Collier, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Curry, W.

Stewart, J.

Duncombe, T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Grimsditch, T.

Stuart, V.

Hawes, B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Heathcote, J.

Style, Sir C.

Hindley, C.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hughes, W. B.

Thornley, T.

Hume, J.

Turner, W.

Humphery, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

White, A.

Lister, E. C.

White, L.

Lushington, C.

Williams, W. A.

Marsland, H.

Wood, G. W.

Ord, W.

Yates, J. A.

Parker, R. T.

Pease, J.

TELLERS.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Baines, E.

Philips, M.

Knight, G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Nicholl, J.

Bagge, W.

Palmer, R.

Barrington, Viscount

Palmerston, Viscount

Brughes, W. H. L.

Perceval, Colonel

Compton, H. C.

Pusey, P.

Estcourt, T.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Estcourt, T.

Richards, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Round, C. G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Goulburn, rt hon. H.

Hinde, J. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Hobhouse, rt. h. Sir J.

Wood, C.

Hodgson, R.

Houston, C.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Maule, F.

Maunsell, T. P.

Solicitor-General, the

Mr. Bainesmoved, that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Sir R. Ingliscertainly had not anticipated the result at which the House by its division just now had arrived. He owned he was surprised to see the hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) and others who ordinarily supported most zealously her Majesty's Government, vote against them on this occasion, and leave no less than four Cabinet Ministers in such a minority. His objections to the motion might be confined to two or three sentences. He objected to the levying a property tax upon one class of her Majesty's subjects, which would be the result of the proposition of the hon. Member for Leeds. Again, he objected because such a tax would be an absolute and unvarying tax, unlike the former general property tax. The only point in the speech by which the hon.

1019
Member for Leeds had advanced his views was, that even under existing statutes, it was competent to deal as he proposed with first fruits and tenths without the aid of any further act of Parliament. In reply to that position, he placed his reliance and confidence in the view of the law taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor-General), and if he required any confirmation of that view of the law, he could cite the opinions of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland and of Mr. Justice Crampton. If still higher authorities were required, he would call in aid the opinions of Lord Coke and Mr. Justice Blackstone, and from all these authorities he drew the conclusion that until the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds no person ever contended that the existing law unaltered would give the right of interference which the hon. Member contended for. But the hon. Member had endeavoured to prove that it the existing law were insufficient, to create a new law; and in aid of that argument the hon. Member had read a long list of livings, with their value as set down in the King's books, with their present value, in order to show that the value of some was formerly 300 l. to 400 l., and that now they were 3,000 l., to 4,000 l. This was quite unnecessary, but at the same time the observations of the hon. Member were very well ad captandam. It should not be forgotten, however degrading the consideration might be, that advowsons had been made the matter of sale and purchase in the same way as manors and other property, and the purchases had been made on the calculation that the payment out of first fruits was fixed and invariable. He would not take this subject further out of the the hands of the Government; but he was unwilling to go to another division without thus shortly expressing the general view he took of the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould say only one word in reference to this matter. He had voted in the minority on the subject the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, simply on the grounds stated by the learned Solicitor-General, that, even assuming the subject must be considered in reference to the wants of the clergy, the House had no right to put that construction on the acts which was suggested. He had heard nothing in the course of the debate which in the slightest degree tended to undervalue the importance of the pro-
1020
position; but at the same time undoubtedly on the previous discusions in reference to the same subject, the same rule had been laid down which had this evening been stated to the House. It was shown that, under the statute of Anne, the parties were protected and it was not just to draw the conclusion of the hon. Member for Leeds, either by legal or logical reasoning. But the House had decided the question of going into Committee, and he should therefore like to know what the hon. Member expected from it. The motion it was true, had been carried, but unless coupled with the speech of the hon. Member it imported nothing. It was "a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the propriety of abolishing the first fruits of the clergy in England and Wales, and the more effectual rating and better collecting of the tenths applicable to the maintenance of the poor clergy." But it would be a question whether this were intended to apply to the existing tenths or to those which might be established under any new scheme. He was clearly of opinion that it would be the better way to decide the question and not to divide again on the question of going into Committee; for, as the Committee had been carried, he saw no reason for objecting to it.
Mr. Bainesobserved that the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that there were certain resolutions to be proposed, which was already prepared.
Mr. Goulburnpresumed that the hon. Member intended to propose the resolutions in committee. He hoped it would not be supposed, from the few observations he had already made; that he agreed with the proposition of the hon. Member. The matter would be fully discussed in Committee, and he would then express the opinions which he entertained.
The Speaker left the chair. House in Committee.
Mr. Bainessaid, that after the discussion which had taken place on the subject it scarcely seemed necessary that he should detain the House by any further statements. His object was to submit to the House in Committee certain resolutions which he had taken care should be placed in the hands of every hon. Member before he moved them. He would now hand the resolutions to the Chairman, with a desire that they should be proposed by him to the Committee, and it would be for the

1021
Committee to deal with them as it thought proper. The hon. Baronet the Member hon. Member for the University of Oxford, appeared to have fallen into an error, which he must correct. He appeared to have misconceived the object which he had in view, and to think that the tax was to be an unvarying tax. That subject, however, was left open for the consideration of the House.
The first resolution was put in the following terms:—"That it is expedient, that a better provision for the maintenance of the poor clergy of the Established Church of England and Wales should be afforded than that which at present exists, to be derived from the revenues of the said Church."
Mr. Estcourt, without meaning at all to question the truth of the resolution proposed, would suggest to the Committee the propriety of the Chairman reporting progress on receiving the resolutions to be proposed, and of asking leave to sit again; and he should conclude the observations which he had to make, with a motion to that effect. Many hon. Gentlemen he knew were impressed with the same feeling, that it was impossible under the old law such a proposition as that made by the hon. Member could be carried, and he thought, that after the opinion expressed by the learned Solicitor-General, there was no question that the law was as they supposed. He could not but express his surprise, that so many had voted with the hon. Member, because if one proposition were more doubtful and important than another, it was the proposition which that hon. Member had made, that this was an adjustment only of the old tax, and not the introduction of a new tax. He believed, that it had been stated that out of the 10,400 livings there were only 4,300 which did pay tenths, and yet the imposing the tax on all livings above the value of 300 l. a-year, was called only an adjustment of it. There were already many livings of this value, and some below this value, which now paid the tenths; and could the application of the tax to some new cases, and the removal of it from other cases, be called merely an adjustment of the old system? It was not necessary, however, to go into the whole question at that movement; and he should content himself with moving, that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Humesaid, that the objection of the hon. Member for Oxford University would apply if any difference of opinion existed on the subject of the resolution now before the House. The resolution, however, was merely "That it is expedient that a better provision for the maintenance of the poor clergy of the Established Church of England and Wales should be afforded than that which at present exists, to be derived from the revenues of the said Church." He would ask whether any hon. Member could do otherwise than agree with the terms of this resolution? If that were carried perhaps no objection would be offered to the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould ask the hon. Member for Leeds whether, under the circumstances, it would be politic to take the opinion of the Committee, when on the face of the case the House would appear, to a certain extent, to have been taken by surprise? [No, no!] Hon. Gentlemen said "no, no!" but he should like to know how they accounted for the very general absence even of their own friends, when a subject of so much importance was to be discussed? But supposing there was no surprise in the matter, then he had objections to urge against the motion; but he should at the same time suggest to the hon. Member, that under the circumstances he would gain very little by taking a vote of the Committee on the resolutions which he proposed to bring forward. The hon. Member, by adopting the course suggested, would lose nothing, for he might at a future time obtain a vote of the Committee on the subject, the course proposed being merely, that the Committee should now rise, and that the Chairman should ask leave to sit again. The hon. Member for Kilkenny, however, said, "Let us pass this resolution now, and take the others at another time:" but he thought that the course recommended by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford was more simple, and that it would be impolitic for the Committee to adopt one resolution, and to leave the others to be confirmed at some future time. For his own part, too, he should be extremely unwilling to give his sanction to resolutions on which a measure might be framed, and which, from the loose manner in which they might be worded, perhaps would not carry out his views. He thought, then, that it would be better for

1023
the hon. Member to accede to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Cayleywould also recommend the course suggested by the right hon Gentleman who last spoke. He had had great pleasure in voting with the hon. Member for Leeds in favour of his original motion, and although at present he saw no ground for adopting one only of several resolutions, yet he must protest against the suggestion of there being any surprise.
Sir R. H. Inglisdiffered entirely from the sentiments expressed in these resolutions, and although the beginning of that which was now proposed to be adopted did not certainly present any point very decidedly to be objected to, yet the last clause which it contained, that the funds were "to be derived from the said Church," was one to which he could not agree. He should support the proposition, therefore, of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford.
Mr. Aglionbyagreed, that the further consideration of the subject should be postponed, but not in consequence of the ground that had been urged by the hon. Baronet and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that the House had been taken by surprise. He denied, that this was the case, for the notice had been on the books several weeks, and it had that night been a considerable time under discussion, and, therefore, the friends of the Church had ample opportunity of being present if they had thought fit. Rather, however, than prejudice the question he would recommend his hon. Friend to consent to the Chairman reporting progress. The truth was that 100,000 l. a-year had been voted for several years as an addition to Queen Anne's bounty until a stop was put to this grant by the exertions of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. It was made on the ground, that the Church was unable to provide adequately for its poorer clergy, and he could only consider the proceedings in this matter as getting money under false pretences.
Mr. Bainesdenied, that he had done anything that could be construed into taking the House by surprise, for he had given notice of his intention to propose his resolutions upwards of three months ago. He had no wish to avail himself of any paltry advantage by proposing his
1024
resolutions at that moment, and, therefore, if it were more consonant to the feelings of the House, he would consent to the Chairman reporting progress, and asking leave to sit again, and to let all the resolutions stand over for consideration on a future occasion.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that in a Parliamentary sense there was no surprise, but in point of fact there had been. When hon. Members saw the hon. Member for North Warwickshire withdraw his motion, it was considered that there was no prospect of success for the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds, and that if left to itself it would defeat itself. He believed that that was the feeling of the greater number of Members who were now absent from the House, and that that feeling would be testified by the House when this question was again brought under discussion.
House resumed—Committee to sit again.

CHANNEL FISHERIES.
Sir R. Peelwished to hear from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether any steps had been taken to settle the international question between England and France as to the mutual rights of fishing in the waters on the coasts of the two countries, and, also, as to the regulations for the protection of the fisheries. This was a matter of great importance, as containing the seeds of dissatisfaction between the two countries. If anything like a bad feeling should arise between the two countries the most evil consequences might spring out of this question, small as the matter might now appear to be.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the first question had been referred to Commissioners that had been appointed by the two countries, and which met at Granville; they had not yet come to any satisfactory conclusion, but some matters that had grown up had been referred to the respective governments. There was still a larger question on the subject of the fisheries which had not been committed to the Commissioners, but communications had been made on the subject by the two governments, but he did not feel himself justified in going into any explanations on the subject at present.

THE YEOMANRY.
Mr. R. Palmer
1025
moved for a "copy of the report of the state of efficacy of the Wooldey troop of Berkshire Yeomanry Cavalry, on its inspection in the year 1837." He wished, in moving for this return, to state the grounds on which he made the motion. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the debate on the Ordnance Estimates a question had been put by his hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge University, as to the reason why the Government had retained the Hungerford Berkshire troop, in preference to any of the three others which belonged to that county. It was then stated, that the selection was in consequence of the report of the inspecting officer having been more favourable with respect to the Hungerford corps than any of the others. This statement had given the officers of the rejected corps considerable annoyance, and they had requested him to move for a copy of the report of the inspecting officer, which report recorded the efficiency of these corps in 1827. He could not read the report of the field officer as to the efficiency of these corps, but he would read his opinion, as expressed in a private letter. He said, "I am perfectly satisfied with all that I have seen and inspected. Your corps equalled all in general practice, and excelled them in one thing, the compactness of their movements. I beg you to return my thanks to the men, and to state that I shall make a full report in the proper quarter." The officers complained, then, of observations which had been made in the House, inconsistent with this address, and that was his reason for moving for a copy of the report.
Mr. F. Mauledenied, that he had sought to fix any imputation upon the character of the troop in question. The present motion was one, however, to which he could not accede, not from any inconvenience which would result to the Government from the production of the report, but because he thought it would be most inconvenient to the inspecting officers either of the Yeomanry or of any other force that their confidential communications to Government should be made public. He was not aware, that on the occasion to which his hon. Friend had referred, he had drawn any invidious distinction. He trusted he never had been in the habit of drawing comparisons which would hurt the feelings of any per-
1026
sons out of that House, who could not be there to defend themselves; and he could assure the hon. Member, that he had not drawn any such distinction between one particular troop of Yeomanry and another, belonging to the county which the hon. Gentleman represented. The only distinction he had drawn was between "very good, and good" These two corps—the Wooldey and the Hungerford, were inspected by different field officers; and the mere fact that the Hungerford had once been called out to aid the civil power, when the Wooldey had not, led to the conclusion that the former ought to be retained. This was the special ground for retaining this troop, and no reference whatever was had to individuals. At the same time he must say, that he was not aware on what occasion the corps was called out. He should have no objection to the production of Colonel Reid's report, only, that communications of that nature were considered of a private character, and if they were to be submitted to public inspection he was apprehensive it would be found very difficult to find officers to discharge this duty. He considered such reports to be confidential, in the same manner as reports of generals inspecting regiments were considered confidential at the Horse Guards. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this explanation.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Elgin having, during the discussion upon the Ordnance Estimates, stated as a reason for disbanding a troop of the West Essex yeomanry, situated in the neighbourhood of the Waltham powder-mills, that the works themselves furnished a sufficient defence, he was induced to ask the hon. Gentleman, not for the production of a confidential communication, but for the report of the officers of the Board of Ordnance to the Secretary of State, in which they expressed their complete power of protecting the property at the Waltham powder-works in such a manner as to render useless the maintenance of a troop of yeomanry cavalry. The old rule of the House was, that no Minister should refer to any document which he was not prepared to lay on the table of the House, if required; and the hon. Member would allow him to say, that when allusion was made to confidential

1027
communications, it should be done with some little discretion.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that the communication which had taken place with the Board of Ordnance with reference to the disbandment of the West Essex troop was a verbal communication between the departments, and not made in the shape of a report. The result of the communication was, that the Ordnance were perfectly able to maintain discipline at Waltham by means of the force upon the spot. The whole of the surrounding villages were occupied by persons who were employed at the works, and whose interest it clearly was to protect them.
Sir Robert Peelwas bound to state his conviction, that the hon. Gentleman had done all he could to satisfy the feelings of the commanders of these troops; and that his remark was a valid one with regard to the confidential communications of inspecting officers. At the same time, he considered it to be highly creditable to these corps to have manifested these jealous feelings upon a subject affecting their character in the estimation of the country. He thought the hon. Gentleman's explanation was quite satisfactory, inasmuch as he had shown that there were no grounds whatever for retaining the Hungerford corps rather than the others. The hon. Gentleman had stated two grounds on which this troop had been kept up—first, that the report stated, that the three troops were good, while this was very good, but then the hon. Gentleman had disposed of this ground by remarking, that the inspection having been made by different officers, no comparison had been made in reality. The other ground was, that this corps had been called out to assist the civil police, but the hon. Gentleman said, he knew no reason why the corps should have been called out.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, the right hon. Baronet for the sake of having his laugh, had slightly misrepresented him. What he said was, that he was not aware on what occasion the corps had been called out.
Motion withdrawn.

CHURCH LEASES COMMITTEE.
Mr. Aglionbywished to ask why it was, that no Member connected with Cumberland had been put upon the Church Leases Committee, of the nomination of which
1028
the noble Lord had given notice. There was a very large property held under the dean and chapter in that county, and yet every Member from Cumberland was excluded.
Mr. Ricesaid, that if a Member for each county were placed upon every Committee, he apprehended they would far exceed the limits of convenience and utility. The right hon. Gentleman then postponed the nomination of the Committee until to-morrow, as was understood.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of EXETER, from Stockport, by Lord KING, from Guildford, by the Earl of CARLISLE, from several places in Cumberland, by the Marquess of SLIGO, from Debenham, the parishes of St. George and St. John, Dublin, Belfast, and Great Yarmouth, for the Abolition of the Apprenticeship System in the West Indies.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from Clare (Suffolk), expressive of deep alarm at the encroachments of Popery, and praying for a repeal of the
966
Act of 1829.—By Viscount BERESFORD, from Carlow, and Viscount LORTON, from Roscommon, against the Irish Poor-law Bill.—By Viscount LORTON, from Antrim, against the present system of Education in Ireland.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH.
The Earl of Shrewsburysaid: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will allow, that it is not without provocation, nor from any desire to trespass unnecessarily upon you, that I am about to address you on the present occasion. So long as the accusations against us appeared to be unsupported either by argument or by fact, we were willing to trust, for a right understanding of the case, to the common justice, and common sense, of the country; and to the ample historical evidence bearing upon the points in question. But now, that new circumstances have come to light, which throw a semblance of truth around the statements of the right rev. Prelate who has so frequently obtruded the subject of the Roman Catholic oath upon the House and upon the public, I do think that an explanation of those circumstances is imperatively demanded of us. The great accusation against us in the present instance appears to be, that Catholics having pledged their oath as the security for their good conduct towards the Church,—that, that security has not only, for a long period, been most shamefully, nay systematically, violated in many quarters,—but that now it is absolutely null and of no avail in any,—being altogether abrogated by a recent decision of the Court of Rome, which the right rev. Prelate, in his prying and unwearied zeal, has ferretted out from its hiding place, and laid, with great pomp and ceremony, upon your Lordships' table.
The accusation goes on to say,—that Dr. Murray was, all the while, well acquainted with the circumstance, and that at length the secret is divulged of the tremendous demoralisation of Ireland.
Now, my Lords, I pledged myself to show, that the oath taken by Roman Catholics, both in and out of Parliament, remains precisely in the same position in which it stood, previous to the discovery of this wondrous correspondence. But as this is a mere matter of fact, depending solely upon the evidence to bear it out, I trust your Lordships will allow me to read that which I have obtained from those who are alone competent to give it, namely, the vicars apostolic acting for the see of Rome in this country. It will

967
occupy but a very few minutes. I should, however, premise that the oath in question has been matter of history, and subject to cavil and discussion, both at home and abroad, ever since the year 1791,—for the oath of 1829 is virtually the same as that which preceded it.
Without entering upon unnecessary detail, it seems right that I should remind, your Lordships,—since the right rev. Prelate neglected to do so,—that in 1814, an approbation of this oath was forwarded to this country by Mons. Quarantotti, then prefect of the Propaganda; but, that on the return of the Papal Government to Rome in the following year, Pius 7th withdrew this approbation, because the oath was not to be approved.
Now, my Lords, I ask—why these two published and important documents were so carefully overlooked by the right rev. Prelate? Even a visit to Downing-street was not necessary for their production,—no! they lay ready at hand upon the shelves of his own library! But, my Lords, they would have shown, that the non-approval of Rome, was no such wonderful discovery,—the whole sting of the controversy would have been drawn,—and the Catholic oath and Archbishop Murray, might, for the time at least, have reposed in peace!
Why, my Lords! even the very correspondence moved for by the right rev. Prelate, stands forth in testimony against him;—the very paragraph on which he grounds the whole of his accusation, itself points to those very documents;—but such was his haste and his taste for accusation, that even that was not sufficient warning, that he should inquire before he condemned. To what that inquiry would have led, your Lordships will presently see.
Now, my Lords, in the face of this official disapproval of Rome, the four vicars apostolic, and their two coadjutor bishops, on the 24th of November, 1829, came to the following resolution:—
"We are all of opinion, that the oath in the New Bill may be safely taken by Catholics; and that it does not interfere with any right of Members of Parliament."
Now, my Lords, since that period, three, at least, of these vicars apostolic, and several of the Irish prelates, have visited Rome; but not one word of reprimand has ever been uttered for this their sanction to the non-approved oath:—the
968
reasons for which will sufficiently appear in the following documents.
The first is a letter from the right rev. Dr. Baines, V. A. of the Western District of England, dated York, April 28th. As the first part of it relates to the interpretation of the oath, and that not being the immediate question before the House, I see no occasion to trouble your Lordships with it:—
"Of the letter addressed by the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Bishop of Malta, on the 19th December, 1835, I had no knowledge till it was lately noticed in Parliament, but I had long been aware, that if the authorities of the Holy See were consulted on the oath, and required to give an answer, that answer could be no other than what the Bishop of Malta received, viz., a refusal either to approve or condemn.
"This is evidently the purport of the letter of the Cardinal Secretary. It does not give, but evades a decision. To assert that the oath is condemned by that letter, because it is declared not approvable at Rome, is an unwarrantable deduction. Your Lordship will readily perceive the wide difference there is between not approving the formula of an oath, and condemning that oath as unlawful to be taken. There may be a hundred reasons for the former which would not justify the latter. That the Pope should approve a formula so loosely and incautiously worded, containing, moreover, insinuations grossly injurious to the Catholic religion, and to the Holy See in particular, was impossible; but that his holiness should condemn as unlawful an oath which, with his full knowledge and connivance, had been taken, for so many years, as a lawful oath, by the whole body of the Catholic clergy and laity of these kingdoms, was, as your Lordship well knows, equally out of the question.
"I had a long interview with Pius VIII., soon after the passing of the Emancipation Act, viz., on the 4th May, 1829, and the views of his Holiness respecting the oath, were precisely those I have mentioned. It may be proper to state, that I did not seek this interview with the intention of laying the oath before the Pope, or even mentioning it to him, not considering this a case which required a reference to the Holy See, and knowing how averse that high authority is to be troubled with questions which do not exclusively belong to it, particularly such as are not wholly of a religious character.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"With the highest respect,
"Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
"P. A. BAINES, V. A. W."
"P. S.—I have conferred with the other Vicars Apostolic on the subject of this letter, and I can take upon myself to say, that it expresses their sentiments also."
"To the right hon. the Earl of Shrewsbury,

969
The next, my Lords, is a letter from the most rev. Dr. Murray, whose name has been so often and so unwarrantably introduced into their discussions;—
"Dublin, 4th April, 1838.
"My Lord,—In replying to your Lordship's inquiry, if the Catholic prelates of Ireland had any reason to believe, that the oath proposed to be taken by the Catholics in the Emancipation Bill of 1829, was disapproved of by the Holy See, I beg to say, that I have no reason to believe, that any communication whatever took place between the Irish prelates and Rome, on the subject of that oath. I had, myself, no such communication, and I never heard that any prelate or priest, or other person had, until I learned from the public papers within the last few days, that the subject had been brought to the notice of the Holy See by the Bishop of Malta. The Catholic prelates of Ireland were persuaded, that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the oath was a point of morality on which they were themselves competent to come to a decision, without a reference to any other quarter. It is, however, fair to add, that I have at all times disapproved of that oath as unnecessary, insulting, and calculated to excite conscientious scruples in timorous minds, when not sufficiently acquainted with the animus of Parliament in proposing it. But whilst I could not, in this sense, approve of it, I have never condemned it as unlawful; and I need hardly assure your Lordship, that, when taken, I would be wholly incapable of asserting, or even hinting, that it does not impose on the consciences of those who take it, a religious obligation of observing it strictly, according to the sense and meaning in which it was proposed.
"As to the malignant charges respecting this oath, which have been recently circulated under the head of Parliamentary Intelligence, against me, and the Catholic clergy of Ireland, I will not stoop to notice them—they do more harm to the accusers than to the accused. The very writer who penned them could not have believed them to be true.
"I have the honour to remain, with the highest respect,
"My Lord,
"Your Lordship's faithful, humble Servant,
"D. MURRAY.
"The right hon.
the Earl of Shrewsbury, &c."
Now, my Lords, I think it is quite clear, that the oath is, at any rate, just as efficacious now, as it was from the beginning, and that the whole weight and virtue of the right rev. Prelate's argument, being built on the contrary presumption, necessarily falls to the ground.
I will not trust myself to dwell upon how little it seems consistent with the justice, and charity, and good-will to all men,
970
which ought to shine so conspicuously in one of so exalted a station in any Christian community as the right rev. Prelate, to have brought forward such grave and deadly charges, upon such loose and insufficient grounds—grounds which a moment's inquiry would have dissipated—charges, not merely against so respectable and so respected a personage as Archbishop Murray, but against a whole priesthood,—and through that priesthood, against every member of the Church of which they are the pastors. Neither, my Lords, I can assure you, are the other arguments of the right rev. Prelate of any stronger texture; nay, not half so plausible and so strong, which, in conjunction with this, have induced him thus to give vent to his indignation.
"It was painful to him," says the right rev. Prelate, "to make these remarks upon the bishops and clergy of another communion, but it was a duty from which he would not shrink, for he felt it to be deeply important, that their Lordships should see the real causes of the tremendous demoralization of that country; it was to the directions of the priesthood, and the mandates of the bishops, that they must refer that utter disregard of the sanctity of an oath, and the entire inattention to all that had been deemed sacred in life."
After all, my Lords, I suspect it was much more painful to me to hear those denunciations, than it was to the right rev. Prelate to utter them. But be this as it may, I will neither insult the understanding of the House, nor degrade the religion I profess, by any detailed defence against such foul and insulting charges. I will simply defy even the most prying scrutiny of the right rev. Prelate to show, that a severer code of morality, touching the observance of oaths, has been ever taught at any period, or in any country, or by any Church, than is now, and ever has been, by this most deserving, but most calumniated clergy of Ireland.
My Lords, I gave notice that I would not argue the interpretation of this oath; I will merely state it as my ultimate conviction, that there is no intermediate course; you must either disfranchise and disqualify us altogether, or we must be considered equally honest in our intentions, and free in our judgment, as to what is, and what is not injurious to the Church, as any other members of the Legislature. And I cannot but consider the constant introduction of this topic, for matter of debate,

971
as injurious both to the privileges and the dignity of Parliament.
From the manner, too, in which it is ever treated by the right rev. Prelate,—though happily by him alone,—it becomes necessarily offensive to some of his hearers, since he never fails to connect it with questions of polemic controversy, which, I am sure, of all things, ought to be most carefully excluded from these walls. Heaven knows we have contentions enough amongst us, without seeking for any fresh cause of disagreement.
And I think, my Lords, if it were only upon this ground, we cannot too strongly deprecate the course pursued by the right rev. Prelate, who, twice within three weeks, introduces the subject to the House, with speeches of nearly two hours and a half in length—makes detailed comparisons between the two Churches—gives his own exposition of our doctrines—takes up some crude, abstract proposition, and by the most strained and unwarrantable construction, adapts it to his own views—passes off an attack upon the abuses of the Church, as an attack upon the Establishment itself—calls up in judgment before him even the learned Member for Dublin, and convicts him out of his own mouth, but upon fabricated evidence—not content with the calumnies of modern days, goes back nearly 200 years, to quote, (aye, and to misquote too,) what I can call by no other name, than, the lying venom of an excommunicated friar, as good and honest testimony against us,—and then, to crown all, pronounces a solemn denunciation of manifest and wanton perjury against the priesthood of a whole Church, upon some ignorant and hasty surmise of his own!!!
My Lords,—the right rev. Prelate draws largely upon the credulity, and presumes much upon the ignorance of his audience, and not a little, I suspect, upon the want of able advocates for the accused. Secure of a momentary triumph, because he knows full well, that none can answer at the instant, accusations which it has taken weeks of labour and of study to concoct, the right rev. Prelate comes down, ready charged from his great magazine of combustibles, and drives headlong over his unsuspecting victim! From the thinness of your Lordships, benches on occasion of these displays, the victory, 'tis true, seems but little appreciated here; but to compensate for
972
its failure in the House, it is blazoned forth with seven-tongued trumpets out of doors.
Would to heaven, my Lords, this evil were arrested! But if you would do so, you must look deeper than the surface. And here, I trust, I shall not be considered as travelling out of my way, by saying a few words upon what I conceive to be, the true cause of all this trouble and turmoil.
My Lords,—the continued agitation of those questions, the satisfactory adjustment of which, has long been acknowledged upon all hands, to be absolutely necessary for the pacification of Ireland, is, I take it, the sole source of the whole evil. The Church was declared to be in danger, and such was the zeal of her friends, that few stopped to inquire into the justice of the means to be employed in her defence, It was a much easier task to lead the ignorance, and to excite the fanaticism of the people, than to reason them into the approbation of that which was manifestly unjust and untenable. To decry their presumed enemies, therefore, was the policy to be adopted; and all the calumnies that had been invented during three centuries of persecution were raked together for the purpose; while the most "ingenious devices" were resorted to, to render the poison still more palatable to the public taste. What was advanced with so much boldness, and maintained with such unrelenting pertinacity, could not be false;—and too many (like the members of the Protestant Association) soon became impressed with the conviction, that Catholicity was the most deadly curse that ever afflicted the nations of the earth;—too many (like the right rev. Prelate, and chiefly perhaps through his instrumentality,) were just as forcibly persuaded, that we belonged to a Church "whose priesthood," (and I use his own words) "had effectually laboured to remove every sense of the sacredness of an oath, and which was justly loaded with the scandal and the guilt of perjury." Delusive as are these convictions, it is not for me to question their sincerity; for doubtlessly in this great conspiracy against truth and justice, there were some honest men to lead, and many honest individuals to follow.
I have long admired the integrity of character, and the honesty of purpose of the noble Earl opposite, (Earl of Winchilsea)

973
who, if he has not presented, has at least seconded the presentation of petitions to this House, on the subject of this oath, from the Protestant Association. It was, therefore, with much deeper regret,—for his sanction gave them a character they might not otherwise have deserved—that I have noticed that noble Earl to take the lead at meetings convened for no other purpose that I can discover, (for they are not deliberative assemblies,) convened for no other purpose, than to vilify the religion of one third of the population of these islands;—meetings, at which no one is allowed to gainsay, and refute the calumnies and misrepresentations, so ostentatiously brought forward, for the purpose, (for I can see no other) of exciting a popular clamour against the religious principles of those, whose only crime is in seeking for a further mitigation of the evils they have so long endured, and the partial and unjust continuance of which, is now the only bar to the internal peace and prosperity of the whole empire. But, my Lords, this was a consummation, not to be endured, because it was supposed to be—most falsely do I think supposed to be—inimical to the interests of the Church.
My Lords, I accuse no one of intentional misrepresentation. No one, I trust, is more willing than I am, to make the most ample allowances for the prejudices of education, and for the blindness with which misguided zeal seems to overspread the understanding. I state the facts, without impugning the motives;—but the fact is, that from those meetings, the most false, foul, and calumnious statements are sent forth to the world,—to travel uncontradicted from one end of the kingdom to the other,—exciting a spirit of undeserved and unchristian hatred, against the professors of what was once, (and for a long and a brilliant period too) the established Christianity of these countries.
Why, my Lords! if Catholicity were what it is daily, nay, hourly represented to be, by that portion of the public press, opposed to the existing Government of the country—if it were what it is constantly asserted to be, by that multitude of farthing tracts, so widely and so industriously circulated, under the sanction of some of your Lordships—if it were what it has too often been stated to be, (to use the words of the reporters) before "fashionable assemblages of female beauty" at
974
Exeter Hall—if it were this, or any thing like this, or any thing approaching to this,—it would be a system which had long since been crushed under the weight of its own vice and iniquity. No! it never would have needed the exuberant zeal now brought into play against it, for its destruction; if it were this, or any thing like this,—it were a religion, the professors of which, I am sure, ought never to have been admitted upon the same benches with your Lordships! No, it never would have needed a petition to dislodge us, for we never should have been here!
My Lords,—these calumnious aspersions upon our religion, to any calm, reflecting mind, should carry folly and absurdity—at the very least, doubt and hesitation—upon the very face of them. Catholics, my Lords, are not a mere handful of ignorant people scattered throughout a desert;—they are the millions, occupying the most civilized portions of the world,—mingling in all the haunts of men,—attaining to the highest eminence both in literature and in science,—and withal, full as wise in their generation as others;—and are these the men, my Lords, to believe in the follies and abominations imputed to them by their calumniators? The very supposition is absurd, and the thing altogether incredible. I ask you not to take a contradiction to these calumnies from me—I ask you to hold them contradicted by 150 millions of Catholics of the present day—I ask you to hold them contradicted by thousands of millions, by the good and the great of every generation that has preceded us!
My Lords, I have thought fitting, under the circumstances, to trespass upon you with these few observations. I have now to implore your Lordships, when those questions again come before us, which have already been so frequently presented to your consideration by the Crown, though never so auspiciously as at the commencement of a new reign,—I implore you to bring those questions to a happy and successful termination; and thereby also to terminate, or at least to calm, that religious war which is now raging throughout the country—a war, vilifying and degrading to religion itself—a war, which blinds the judgment and perverts the reason of men—a war, which gains in acrimony just in proportion as the agitation of these questions is prolonged, and which, I am satisfied, owes its origin to them, since it exists in no other country in the world.

975
I still hope to see the day when kindlier feelings will prevail,—feelings that the discussions to which the right rev. Prelate has so often treated us of late, seem but little calculated to promote,—and that we may at length enjoy the same religious peace and harmony here, which now so happily subsists, with perhaps one slight, and I hope transient exception, in every other country in Europe, in which there is a mixed population of Protestant and Catholic.
Gladly, my Lords, would I have concluded here, were it not for another point which, in justice to ourselves as well as to the right rev. Prelate, I think it necessary to notice, namely, the quotation from Walsh's History of the Irish Remonstrance, which the right rev. Prelate gave us in his speech of the 1st of March, and to which he again triumphantly alluded on the 27th of the same month.
Your Lordships will recollect, that upon the former of those occasions the right rev. Prelate paraded before us a quotation, certainly a most calumnious quotation, from Walsh, whom he represented as a most learned, pious and honest man.
Now, my Lords, upon inquiry,—and I beg your Lordships' attention to these points, since so much stress has been laid upon the character of this person,—upon inquiry, I find, that this pious man was an excommunicated friar! And where do I find this? Why, under his own hand, in the very next page, in the very next paragraph of the work from which the quotation is taken! And why was he excommunicated? For violating his oath to his superiors! So that I think he is not exactly the man on whom the right rev. Prelate would again bestow the epithet of pious, nor exactly the man on whose testimony he would rely the most implicitly.
Walsh, my Lords, was little better than an apostate; for Burnet says of him, that he was the most honest Catholic he ever knew, because he was almost wholly a Protestant. But Burnet would have been shocked to learn, that Walsh's honesty did not stand true to him to the end, for in his latter days he repaired all the scandal he had given, by every means in his power, and again became wholly a Catholic.
The right rev. Prelate told us, that Walsh had said, that Catholics were taught to dissemble upon the oath of supremacy, because that was not an in-
976
dispensable article of their communion. But surely, my Lords, the right rev. Prelate must have known better than that. Surely he must have known that Sir Thomas More, and Bishop Fisher, two of the most virtuous men of the age in which they lived—men who would have been an ornament to any age or to any country—and numbers of others, had lain down their lives upon the block for this very article alone! Why, my Lords, the oath of supremacy was the very touchstone between the two Churches—between Catholicity and schism; it was framed for the very purposes of separation. And Walsh, my Lords, was too learned a man not to know this, just as well as the right rev. Prelate!
Walsh was a mere cat's-paw of the Duke of Ormond's—and that for the very worst of purposes—to sow dissentions amongst the persecuted members of his own communion, with a view of weakening their influence against the Government, and of creating, what Burnet calls, a revolt of the soberer part of that Church.
With all these, and many other imperfections upon him, I think it required some little art on the part of the right rev. Prelate to introduce Walsh to your Lordships as a pious and an honest witness against the priesthood of Ireland.
But, my Lords, if there was art here, how much more has been displayed in the management of the quotation with which the right rev. Prelate has favoured us!
"What, (says the right rev. Prelate), was the history of the necessity for enactments which required Catholics to take an oath abjuring the dogma of transubstantiation? It was this—they were found not to have adhered to their other engagements. A remarkably learned and pious ecclesiastic, in the reign of Charles the 2nd, one perfectly conversant with all that had passed in these troubled times, named Father Walsh, who wrote a history of the Irish Remonstrance of 1661, addressed to the Catholics of England, Ireland, and Scotland, in page 15 of that work, gave his reasons for that oath:—
"'Their missionaries (i. e. their Jesuit Priests).'"
Now, my Lords, it is rather singular that the word "Jesuit" is not to be found in the original. If it were here inserted by the right rev. Prelate to give a greater zest to the calumny—to make it more greedily devoured by the multitude—just by way of a sauce piquante—it certainly was well imagined; for a Jesuit, of all

977
men in the world, is the easiest to run down upon a bad name. Neither will it avail the right rev. Prelate to allege, that the missionaries must necessarily have been Jesuits. It was no such thing. They were Franciscans, (of whom Walsh was one), Capuchins, Benedictines, Dominicans, Carmelites, Secular Priests, and Jesuits; and if the truth were known, I'll be bound to say, that the Jesuits were not one in twenty!
"'Their missionaries (i. e. their Jesuit Priests) labour to infuse into all their penitents all their own principles of equivocation and mental reservation in swearing any oath, even of allegiance or supremacy, to the King, and forswearing anything or doctrine whatsoever, except only those articles which by the indispensable condition of their communion, they may not dissemble upon oath. That the tenet of transubstantiation is one of these, therefore, &c.'
"That was the statement of a great Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, much attached to the service of the Duke of Ormond. And it was in consequence of deceptions which had been practised on the Duke of Ormond that the book, from which he had read the extract, was published by Father Walsh."
Now, my Lords, the right rev. Prelate here represents Walsh—one so perfectly conversant with all that has passed—he represents him as speaking in his own person—publishing his own opinions—vouching, good pious man! for the truth of all that he related! But what will your Lordships' astonishment be to learn, that Walsh is not speaking in his own person, is not representing his own opinions, but the opinions of those whom he calls the law-makers—the makers of the laws—of the persecuting laws, against the Catholics!
Walsh's argument is this—that it is not to be supposed, that so many enactments have been passed against Catholics, merely on account of their real religious tenets, which were innocent enough. No! says he, the law-makers first of all persuaded themselves—that is his expression—persuaded themselves, that Catholics in general, believed in the deposing doctrine in its fullest extent, and in the lawfulness of dissembling upon oath; and, having persuaded themselves of that, then, says he, transubstantiation was attacked, harmless as it is, because "of the mischief," (and I use his own words,) "which they conceive to go along with it, through the folly of Roman Catholics in these domin-
978
ions." The law-makers conceive, that the missionaries go about deluding the people. That, my Lords, is what Walsh says. But, so far from declaring that they do so, (as the right rev. Prelate represented him)—he who was so perfectly conversant with all that was passing—he says just the contrary! For, in the very next paragraph, he makes a most lamentable outcry, because these three tests, as he calls them—the Oath of Supremacy, the Oath of Allegiance of James 1st, the Irish Remonstrance—were all three, (and I again use his own words) "with so much rashness and wilfulness, and so much vehemency and obstinacy, declined, opposed, traduced, and rejected, amongst them" (the Roman Catholics in these kingdoms). Instead of asserting, or even insinuating, that Catholics took these oaths under a dissembling interpretation, or that their doctrines taught them so to do, as the right rev. Prelate would lead us to believe, Walsh, (he who was so perfectly conversant in all that was passing)—his accusation and reproach all along is, that they declined and rejected them! So that, my Lords, what the right rev. Prelate intended as a dishonour to us, comes out with but little credit, to the accuser.
The right rev. Prelate goes on to say, that it was in consequence of the deceptions, that had been practised on the Duke of Ormond, that Walsh wrote his book! But where does the right rev. Prelate discover this? I can find nothing of the sort. The deception seems to have been all upon the other side. Take one example out of many,—when the Synod of 1666 renounced the deposing doctrine in the most clear, explicit, and unequivocal terms, the Duke of Ormond refused to receive it, because it was not in his own captious form; for that only could answer his object, which even Carte says, and he says it upon the authority of Ormond himself, "was to work a division of the Romish clergy." That, my Lords, was Ormond's purpose, and it was for that purpose that he employed Walsh as his tool.
The deceptions practised upon Ormond! If the right rev. Prelate had just reversed his proposition, and had said, the deceptions practised by Ormond and Walsh upon the Catholics, he would have been much nearer to the truth, though perhaps much further from his mark!
But, says the right rev. Prelate, they

979
were found not to have adhered to their other engagements, therefore a stronger test was necessary, to bind or to exclude. But, my Lords, what those other engagements were, the right rev. Prelate has yet to tell us, and your Lordships have yet to learn. But it was a point with the right rev. Prelate to pass us off as systematic violators of our engagements—to show us up as old offenders on this count!
The real object of those tests, as your Lordships well know, was not mere exclusion, but extermination—not as a punishment for any violation of former engagements—but because, on the most false and unjustifiable pretences—for purposes of rapine and plunder in one country—and to gratify the bigotry of the times in another, it was determined to pursue a system of the most barbarous and unrelenting persecution.
But they were found not to have adhered to their other engagements! What does the right rev. Prelate mean? If he allude—as perhaps he may—to the Rebellions, which followed, in pretty quick succession, at one period of the history of Ireland, then, my Lords, I say, if after experiencing, for above a hundred years, the most barbarous and cruel treatment that any nation has ever yet been known to endure—and if, at the expiration of that term, instead of a fulfilment of the promises—the solemn and oft-repeated promises—made to them by the Crown and by the Government, each year only brought an increased activity and intensity to their sufferings—and if, as a last hope against extermination, they rebelled—and that rebellion is to be styled a violation of their engagements—then, my Lords, I envy not the man who designates it by such a name!
But they were found not to have adhered to their other engagements! What does the right rev. Prelate mean?—Why, I ask, did he refer to Walsh at all, and to those troubled and calamitous times in which he lived? If it were to warn your Lordships against the continuance, even in the most mitigated form, of that wretched, miserable, and crooked policy, which then prevailed in Ireland, I should applaud his wisdom and respect his motives. But, if to torture the extravagant ravings of some furious partisan, such as Walsh undoubtedly was, (and a more false and extravagant writer I believe never existed,)—if to torture the ravings
980
of this pious man, into a criminal, nay, a slanderous, accusation against millions of his fellow-subjects of the present day, the right rev. Prelate scruples not to stir up the bitter animosities, and to revive within our memories the heart-rending history of that ill-fated period—I neither admire the means nor the end!
Here, my Lords, is an end of my case.—But, I ask, why so many blunders on the part of the right rev. Prelate,—why so many mistakes within so small a compass? Unfortunately they all tell desperately against us! all place Catholics in the most odious light! all tend to the right rev. Prelate's purpose! Has this, then, been purely accidental? or is it one of those ingenious devices so fashionable in the present day? I leave it to the right rev. Prelate to answer!
Lord Vaux, in seconding the motion, expressed his regret, that the attacks of the right rev. Prelate had driven the noble Lord to bring this matter before their Lordships, and suggested the propriety of the right rev. Prelate himself proposing a form of oath to be taken by Roman Catholics which could not be misunderstood.
The Bishop of Exeterwould endeavour to compress his observations within a very small compass, but he was afraid, that he should be compelled to occupy their time for a quarter or even half an hour. He would, however, set aside every thing of a personal nature; for he did not suppose that either of the noble Lords had intended to say any thing to hurt his feelings; and knowing that naturally they must be anxious for their brethren of the Catholic Church he was quite ready to take in good part all that had been said as to the disingenuousness of his conduct. But he confessed, that he did feel surprised that the noble Lord who had last addressed the House should have thought fit to talk of his having accused any one, especially of those sitting in that House. He would have defied the noble Baron who had last spoken, and who had not on the former occasion had a seat in the House, to have spoken as he had, if he had known the clear, distinct, and positive terms in which he had expressed his entire confidence in the honour and integrity and careful observation of their oath, not only of the noble Earl, but of every Roman Catholic Member of their Lordships' House. Words could not go further;

981
and, having said so much, he hoped that he might dispense with every thing which had been stated in this and former debates connected with the feelings of those noble Lords. The main question, though it had been overlooked, and a reference made to the histories of James 1st and Charles 1st, to which he would not advert, was the letter of the Bishop of Malta; and he had been a great deal surprised to hear the manner in which the noble Earl had thought fit to characterize the proceedings of the holy father, for he had said that the answer of the Pope to the letter of the Bishop of Malta was clearly intended to be an evasion. He could scarcely conceive a greater degree of disingenuousness than that which the noble Earl, a faithful son of the Church of Rome, imputed to the holy father when he talked of his answer being an evasion. The letter of Cardinal Burnetti to the Bishop of Malta commenced by informing him that the question had been submitted to his Holiness, and it might safely be said that any authority worth consulting upon a point of conscience might, from the commencement of that letter, be supposed to intend to answer the question put, and yet they were assured the answer was all an evasion. It happened that the words in the original were stronger than in the translation; for in fact the Bishop of Malta applied to Rome for its "oracle"—that was the very word used; and at length the Court of Rome gave that oracular response, which amounted at last to this, "that the Bishop of Malta would see the obstacle which existed to his becoming a member of the Council, and a still stronger one in the oath which was required to be taken. The form of that oath having been examined, and the requisite information obtained, he was informed that it was not and never had been approved of by the Holy See." That, it was said, was clearly an evasion. The noble Earl, a faithful son of the Church of Rome, said that the holy Church and father had determined to evade the question, and that was the statement of an individual who had talked of his disingenuousness in not reading the whole of a quotation. He had been charged with wilful suppression, because the passage went against his argument; but it often happened that persons took a false estimate of their opponent's argument, and he would state, that his only reason for
982
not reading the whole of any passage had been, that it would make a long speech longer. But he had now furnished himself with more little documents, which showed that applications had frequently been made by the Bishops in England and Ireland to the Pope of Rome upon the subject of oaths, and he would begin with a little earlier period. He would not, however, go back to so distant a date as that of James or Charles, but he would begin with the commencement of the present state of the laws in this country. In the reign of George 3rd the Roman Catholics had for the first time been admitted to office upon taking the oath prescribed by the statute of the 13th or 14th of George 3rd. Before that oath was taken the Roman Catholic Bishops applied to the Court of Rome to know whether they might take that oath. Upon that occasion they implored the Pope to have some feeling for his poor children in Ireland, and stated that, in consequence of being prevented from taking the oaths of allegiance, they were still exposed to the system of bitter persecution. The Pope was then pleased to say, that he would indulge them with that permission. That oath, however, did not satisfy all the apprehensions of the Protestants of this country. In 1789 a large portion, indeed almost all the considerable Roman Catholics, amongst whom was the predecessor of the noble Earl, were anxious to be thought worthy of admission to the whole of the Constitution, and desired to give a further pledge of their civil principles on the particular points on which the most apprehension was entertained. Accordingly, the English Committee drew up a protestation, in which they declared that they did not hold as essential points of their religion the infallibility of the Pope, his deposing power, or his right to absolve subjects from their allegiance. They protested that they held no such opinions, and upon that protestation an oath had been framed, to be introduced into a bill for further relief, certainly with the concurrence—he believed the assistance—of many of the Roman Catholic priests. Subsequently, when they looked at the form of the oath, the vicars apostolic gave it as their opinion that it had not been sanctioned. Their censure had the concurrence of the bishops in Ireland and Scotland, and finally received the ratification of the Pope. Before this censure

983
was thus ratified by the Pope remonstrances against it were addressed to the vicars apostolic, in a letter from the Lords Stourton and Petre, Sir H. Englefield, Sir John Throckmorton, Messrs. Townley and Homeyold, as well as two clergymen, one of whom, the rev. John Wilkes, persevering in his advocacy of the oath, after the ratification of the censure of it by the Pope, was punished by his bishop, and compelled to recant. For this the bishop received the especial thanks of the Propaganda, in these words:—
"Most Illustrious and rev. Lord, our Brother,—Your Lordship's despatches of the 18th of October afforded singular satisfaction to their eminences the fathers of the congregation. They were gratified, not only by your report of the present prosperous state of religion in England, but by the zeal with which you had subdued the boldness of the missionary, Joseph Wilkes, who, in conjunction with others, had opposed the encyclical letters of the vicars apostolic against the oath proposed to the Catholics. Your conduct in compelling that person, by ecclesiastical censures, to return to his duty and make the necessary recantation, was so approved by their eminences that they judged it suitable to decree your Lordship their distinguished thanks.
"I am, your Lordship's brother,
"L. Cardinal ANTONELLI, President.
"Rome, March 10, 1792."
That very oath had been drawn up almost in the terms of the protestation, and that protestation had been assented to by three of the vicars apostolic. In 1813 it was known that a bill had been brought into the other House of Parliament, and had nearly passed that House, which contained the form of an oath, and that oath, as well as the other provisions, had been submitted by the vicar apostolic of London to the court of Rome, to know whether the Catholics were at liberty to take that oath. It appeared that in Ireland the feeling was exactly opposite to that in England; for in England they were as eager to give security as they were in Ireland to refuse it. On account of the rescript of Cardinal Quarantotti, received on that occasion, it appears that "Doctor Murray went to Rome as delegate of the Irish Popish Bishops, to make their remonstrances; that rescript was revoked by the Pope, as having been issued without due deliberation in his absence, and this matter was referred to a special congregation. The noble Earl forgot to inform their Lordships that a great majority of the Roman
984
Catholics of England had been delighted with the rescript of Quarantotti, and had addressed the Pope on the subject in the following words:—
"That they had lately with unspeakable joy received from those venerable men to whom his Holiness had in his absence delegated the power of inquiring into, and sanctioning by their approbation, the conduct of the faithful, a rescript, &c.; and expressing their confidence that they should receive the assurance that these venerable depositaries of his authority during his captivity, have spoken the genuine and full sentiments of his Holiness's paternal heart towards the faithful of these countries."
As the noble Earl had evinced such anxiety that everything should be brought forward, he was astonished that the noble Earl had not called the attention of the House to an important document, which had been approved of by the Pope, and had been sent by his full authority, as containing the sentiments of the Pope respecting the oath which he would permit the Roman Catholics to take. The noble Earl had not been informed by those individuals who had supplied him with information on other points respecting a letter of Cardinal Litta, which contained an intimation to Dr. Poynter of the opinion of the Pope. The following letter, it was to be observed, had been addressed by Cardinal Litta to Dr. Poynter, the Bishop Apostolic of the London district:—
"Genoa, April 26, 1815.
"Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lord—Your Lordship has lately informed me of your speedy return to England, earnestly entreating me, at the same time, to put you in possession of his Holiness's ideas respecting the conditions that would be allowed, with a view of enabling the Catholics to obtain from the Government the wished-for Bill of emancipation. His Holiness has been pleased to communicate to me his sentiments with regard to the only terms which, after rejecting all those that have hitherto been proposed, his dear Catholic children of Great Britain may admit with a safe conscience, should the Bill of their emancipation, as has long been expected, have passed. The subjects which come to be taken into consideration, namely, those which the said Government for the tranquillity and security of themselves and the State, so far as the Catholic subjects are concerned, appear anxious to settle on a firm footing, are, first, the oath of allegiance. In the event of the emancipation, so as it be favourable to the Catholics in general, his Holiness will permit them to adopt for their oath any of the three forms following, &c."

985
"In no one of the three is there a single word respecting the Protestant Establishment, or Protestant succession to the Throne. One of the forms has the following:—I will defend the succession of the Crown in the family of his Majesty."
With this letter there were given three forms of oaths of allegiance which the Roman Catholics were permitted to adopt. He would read the three forms if the noble Earl desired it. [The Earl of Shrewsbury: Had no wish upon the subject.] Not one of those three forms which the Roman Catholics were permitted to take as a security to the Church and State of England, contained one single word of the Protestant Establishment or of the Protestant Succession to the Throne. There was a glaringly purposed abstinence from alluding even to the Succession to the Throne; but it only permitted the Catholics to swear that they would preserve the Throne in the family of his Majesty. The Pope told them not to give any such security. The noble Earl said nothing of the Catholics going to Rome with the oath; if they did, they would have to encounter the frowns of Rome, for the Pope did not forget, though the noble Earl might, the letter which had been written by Cardinal Litta in 1815. Now, he had taken it that when Archbishop Murray was in Rome when the discussion was going on about the Bishop of Malta, that he must have known something of the matter. There was, too, at one time, a Bishop Apostolic of the district which the noble Earl honoured with his residence. That Bishop Apostolic, Dr. Milner, the noble Earl, while in his district, was bound to obey in scriptural matters. Dr. Milner was known to be a very violent, but not always a very consistent man, but who still, he believed, was as honest as any other Vicar Apostolic in the country. Dr. Milner's opinion was thus expressed in the form of a syllogism:—
"On looking back to the passage quoted from the 'Pastoral' (of Dr. R. R. Poynter, V., of the London district), its writer will be found to have expressly asserted that it exclusively belongs to the province of the Legislature to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the religious establishment of this kingdom.' Now, this evidently supposes, and is grounded upon, the false and religious principle of Erastus and Hobbes, that any Government has an inherent right to establish whatever creed and worship it may at any time prefer within its own dominions. To consider the assertion
986
apart, and as it is laid down, it is evidently false and censurable, upon Catholic principles, as appears from the following syllogism:—It does not belong to the province of any man, or body of men, to make provision for the maintenance of a schismatical religious establishment, but the religious establishment of this kingdom is schismatical; therefore, it does not belong to the province of the Legislature of this kingdom to make provision for the establishment of it."
Now, he believed, that Dr. Milner knew more of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church than any one of the authorities which had been quoted by the noble Earl. Upon this point he wished to state what had been admitted by Dr. Slevin (the head of the Dunboyne establishment, connected with Maynooth College) before the Commissioners for Education in Ireland. The right rev. Prelate quoted the following:
'Examination of the rev. N. Slevin, D. D., Prefect of the Dunboyne Establishment, and, as such, Principal Instructor of the Chief Students in Divinity.
Q. "We will now look to the text of the decretal itself: Pro juratione incautâ imponi fecimus Episcopo pœnam congruentem; et primò, quia non juramenta sed perjuria potiùs sunt dicenda, quæ contra utilitatem ecclesiasticum attentantur. Is not the position clearly laid down in that passage, that an oath taken by a bishop against the utility of the Church amounts to a perjury?
A. "All will acknowledge that an unlawful oath never binds; an oath taken against the rights or real utility of the Church must, according to the Pope, be an unlawful oath, and, therefore, cannot bind: but anything that is lawful, according to the just laws of God and man, cannot be considered opposed to the real utility of the Church. The Pope's principle is admitted by all. I am not bound to answer for the application.
Q. "Who is to judge in that case as to the lawfulness of the oath?
A. "In things relating to the jurisdiction of the Pope of course the Pope considers himself authorised to pronounce whether an oath be lawful or not; any superior who considered himself possessed of a right to interfere in the matter in question, would also consider himself authorised to form a judgment on the lawfulness of the oath, and ought to form a judgment. A Judge or magistrate will declare an oath does not bind when he finds it is opposed to the principles of equity or to the law of the land."
Dr. M'Hale, who was professor of dogmatical theology, was asked as to the power of the Church dispensing with oaths:—
"Dr. M'Hale, p. 283, being asked respecting a proposition in Bailly, 'Existet in Ecclesia potestas dispensandi in Votis et Juramentis'—

987
a proposition proved, first, from Matt. xviii., 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven,' admits this in the sense in which it is laid down by the author, but he says there are limits to this power. 'When I say that the Church has the power of dispensing from oaths I understand that the Church is then the interpreter in some measure of the Divine will.' If there was an oath or a vow which was impossible in its performance, or which would clash with other duties of a more imperative nature, as there may be sometimes conflicting duties, then the Church is only expressing the will of the Almighty himself in releasing a person from the inconvenient obligation of an oath or vow, which would trench upon a superior obligation. In casuistry the shades between right and wrong may be sometimes so very indistinct as not to be seen by an ordinary eye; then the Church, being the interpreter of the Divine law, only decides what seems best in the, particular case. The Church is the judge of what is expedient or not in a doubtful case, and like every other tribunal may be deceived in any particular case.
"We find it laid down in p. 145 of that Class Book (Bailly, 2d vol. on 'Moral Theology,') that the following are just causes of dispensation, viz:—First, the honour of God; second the utility of the Church; third, the common good of the republic; fourth, the common good of the society. Who is to be judge of what the utility of the Church may require?—The superiors of the Church."—Moral Theology, 140.
"In order to explain more fully our doctrine of dispensation of oaths, I wish to observe that there is nothing in our principles at variance with those of sound jurists and civilians of every creed. If any person should take an oath which may clash with the duty which he owed to another he is absolved from that oath; he is told, 'You are not bound to fulfil it.' The Church, in granting the dispensation, only declares to the individual that he has contracted, or attempted to contract, by that oath, an obligation which is contrary to another duty. Every duty springs from God; and as God cannot contradict himself by requiring incompatible duties, the Church only interprets the Divine will, while she releases him from the obligation of his oath. In extraordinary cases (cases where persons may reason each way), in which ordinary persons are not able to decide, I am always to be directed by the superior."
"When you say, that the Church has the power of dispensing with oaths, do not you mean the superiors of the Church, and particularly the Pope?—The Pope and the bishops. In some cases the bishops—in all the Pope, that is, in those cases in which they are dispensable."
"Is there any case in which a dispensation can be granted, in which the Pope cannot do it of himself, or in which it is necessary that
988
there should be superadded to his power the power of a bishop?—No; I know not any.
"Is not an oath strictly a religious act?—Yes—ye call the Almighty to witness.
"Does it not therefore fall correctly within the principle of the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope, as distinguished from discipline?—Yes, it does; but, at the same time, if the dispensation should clash with any defined clear duty which I owe to any authority, I am of course to disregard the dispensation, I, myself, being the judge, if it is a clear case.
He thought, then, that he had shown that the Pope was recognised as having the power of declaring what oaths were lawful and what what were not, and of dispensing with the obligation of an oath when it was regarded as contrary to the utility of the Church. The noble Earl had talked at very great length of the quotation which he had made from Father Walsh. He re-affirmed the accuracy of his statement. He thought, that the passage referred to occurred in the dedication. [The Earl of Shrewsbury: No, in the preliminary dissertation.] Then, in the preliminary dissertation, he took it that Father Walsh spoke in his own person, and he thought too, that it was addressed in the first person to Roman Catholics. He still persisted in saying, that he was warranted in all he had declared; but the question was a wearisome one, and it would now take up too much time to enter into it. The noble Earl had spoken harshly of Father Walsh. Bishop Burnet called him "an honest man," and though it was probable that the authority of Bishop Burnet had as little weight with the noble Earl even as his own—yet still he must call Father Walsh an honest man. The noble Earl regarded Father Walsh very nearly as an apostate, and at one time he was very near apostacy; he should have liked the Father the better if he had become a Protestant, but it seems he did not; he "relapsed," or, to use the word of the noble Earl "repented," and he then might be said to be as good a Roman Catholic as any other, and to have died in peace with his Church. There was one remarkable passage in Bishop Burnet's "History of his own Times" which he could not avoid reading for their Lordships. It was expected that the peace of Utrecht would be made a matter of discussion before the House of Lords. For very special reasons the Government of that day did not wish for a discussion. Bishop Burnet afterwards published his

989
speech, and amongst other good things it contained, he told this remarkable anecdote. They all knew that Bishop Burnet enjoyed the confidence of the King, whose name, whatever might be the opinion entertained of him by the noble Earl, would be always mentioned with respect in that House:
"The late King, meaning William the 3r., who, as the House knew, placed great confidence in Bishop Burnet, told me, that he understood from the German Protestant Princes that they believed the confessors of Popish Princes had faculties from Rome for doing this as effectually, though more secretly. He added, that they knew it went for a maxim among Popish Princes that their word and faith bound them as they were men and members of society; but that their oaths, being acts of religion, were subject to the direction of their confessors; and that they, apprehending this, did, in all their treaties with the Princes of that religion depend upon their honour, but never asked the confirmation of an oath, which had been the practice of former ages. The Protestants of France thought they had gained an additional security for observing the edict of Nantz when the swearing to observe it was made a part of the Coronation oath; but it is probable this very thing undermined and ruined it."
It was notorious that many Roman Catholics did not adhere to their engagements. He believed what Dr. Walsh said about supremacy. It was proper to adopt transubstantiation as a test, because it, being an essential matter of religion, could not be denied as other matters were denied. As to the charge made against him of interpolating the word "Jesuit," it was introduced as an explanation of the passage, and he believed, that no one who heard him, received that word as part of the passage he had quoted. As to what were the opinions of the noble Earl in reference to this country, and to another country very near it, he should not enter into those portions of the subject, but he would only say this—that he ventured to hope, that he was as sincerely desirous of the true peace of that country which had been referred to, as much as the noble Earl or any one else; but then he would not cry" Peace, peace," when there was no peace, and until honesty and truth were again permitted to regulate the conduct of men.
Lord Stourtonwas understood to say, that with respect to the oath, concerning which so many comments had been made, that those taking it might have as great an objection to the changing of the leges
990
Angliœ as the Barons, and they would be as unwilling as their ancestors to abandon the Constitution of England, or to expose it to danger. The mode in which Mr. Peel had introduced the Catholic oath showed that it was not his understanding—that it was not intended to fetter men in their legislative functions. He did not think, in connexion with this subject, that a very straightforward course had been pursued by the right rev. Prelate in his comments upon what had been done by the Bishop of Malta. The Bishop of Malta was in a country completely Catholic—it was almost an Italian island, and he might have been placed in a position of particular difficulty, and one in which his religion might have been compromised. In such a case his taking of the oaths might not have been approved of. As to Cardinal Quarantotti, the dispute in which his name was mixed up was not at all connected with the dispensing powers, nor with a question of allegiance, but was a mere question of arrangement respecting the bishops. The Catholics of Ireland in that case feared that the nomination of their bishops might be fettered by cabals at the Castle of Dublin. That they were right in their opposition to such a plan was proved by the testimony of Mr. Burke, who had declared that those who dissented from a particular Church should not have the power of giving bishops to that Church. He complained of the manner in which Roman Catholics were attacked with respect to this oath. They were not tortured in their bodies, but they were in their minds. They were met with it whenever they appeared abroad, it was echoed and repeated upon all sides; and he believed, however ungracious, it was thought too advantageous at elections to be given up. He trusted, however, that the conciliatory system which had been adopted towards Ireland would do much to put an end to that wretched state of things which so many were endeavouring to prolong. He looked for a happy result, notwithstanding Ireland had been most unfortunate; notwithstanding the privations which the people had endured, and notwithstanding that country was marked with misery, branded with degradation, and reduced to a degree of distress which did not belong to any Christian country in Europe. He trusted that much good would be the result of the conciliatory efforts that were now made by the present Government.

991
This was his hope; for he could not but disregard the threats of those who talked of re-conquering Ireland; of having another Cromwell, who, after a ten years' war might leave the country unable to resist oppression, or a recurrence of penal laws. Situated as Ireland was, in reference to America and France, and with the examples of those countries before her, while there was a rapidly increasing intelligence, and in the present day many improvements in government and humanity, it was impossible, he thought, that such attempts should be made; or, if made, that they could be successful. He called upon noble Lords to aid in carrying forward a settled and firm principle of conciliation, not to consider whether the majority of Irishmen were Roman Catholics or Protestants, and that they were not to look upon Irishmen as slaves; but to consider how they were to be governed as free men.
The Earl of Winchilseadid not, upon entering the House, expect to take part in the present debate; but having been personally alluded to, he felt bound to address a few words to their Lordships. It appeared to him that the Court of Rome claimed the power of interfering with the religious and political rights of Protestant Sovereigns; for he insisted upon it that there was no political question which might not also be regarded as a religious one. He contended, that the oath could be properly interpreted only by the Protestants, by whom it was framed for the maintenance of the Protestant Church and institutions of this country. He believed, that the Roman Catholics would not have taken the oath without the sanction of their Church, and he was equally certain that the Pope, if he had thought it injurious to that Church, would have given them a dispensation so that they might not observe it. He altogether disclaimed that this question was raised, as the noble Earl had imputed, for purposes of political agitation; the object in raising it was the security of Protestantism, which he was ready to prove was the only true foundation of civil and religious liberty. He was no friend to agitation; all who knew him knew he was a man of peace, but he foresaw that there was no power in legislation which could avert a horrible conflict between the two great religious parties of this empire. He was convinced, that the whole force of the
992
Roman Catholic Church was exerted for the recovery of their lost domination and the re-establishment of Catholicism in Ireland, and, if it succeeded there, Protestantism would be subverted in England. England would discover, when it was too late, that she ought to have fought the battles of Protestantism on the Irish shores. Notwithstanding the observations of the noble Earl, he should feel it his duty to attend and preside at the meeting of the Protestant Association to be held to-morrow. The noble Earl called it an exclusive meeting; and certainly it was so far exclusive as that they were associated for the purpose of maintaining those principles on which the Church and State were founded, and which, by the blessing of God, they intended to transmit unimpaired to posterity. If, however, the noble Lord gave him the challenge, he was ready to meet him on either the Protestant or the religious grounds, and a fair controversy should take place. He was ready to contend against the noble Earl, that the Roman Catholic religion denied the right of private judgment, and was inconsistent with every principle of civil and religious liberty. No man could be considered a free subject who was not allowed the unrestrained exercise of the greatest blessing the Almighty had given us—his reasoning powers.
Viscount Lortonthanked the noble Earl for having brought this question forward; it had enabled the right rev. Prelate to lay before their Lordships much information in connexion with it, which might be exceeding valuable hereafter. The noble Earl was indignant at what had been said of the clergy of the Church of Rome in Ireland. He begged to read to their Lordships a few words which he had extracted from an address delivered by Baron Richards, who was known to be as liberal a man as ever sat upon the judicial bench. At the conclusion of four of the trials in the county of Mayo, his Lordship said:—
"He could not but grieve over this depraved character of the people who could be guilty of the many crimes of this description (homicide), which had come before him during those trials; and several of those homicides had occurred as the parties were returning from the mass houses. He must here say he could not but think that the minds of the people of this country were as open to instruction as were those of any other, and if proper precepts were instilled into them, they

993
would be induced to abandon the outrages in which they indulged. He was certain they could be humanized, and he did say, that a heavy responsibility rested on those who met these people in the house of God; he meant their spiritual instructors, whose duty it was to keep them from violence and disorder, and he thought this could be done by reasoning and persuasion. Amongst the clergy were many excellent men, for whom he entertained a great respect; but, in the discharge of his duty, he considered himself bound to say, that he thought the people of this country as capable of receiving benefit from the instruction of their pastors as the people of any other country whatever. It was by the efforts of the clergy, more than by the law, that the people could be humanized. In conclusion, his Lordship said, it was awful to think, that a man could not go to a place of worship without being in danger of losing his life. Such a state of things could not be permitted to continue. The law must be enforced, or abandoned altogether."
Now, he considered this a very high authority. It had been said, that the clergy of the Church of Rome were misrepresented. He denied it. He would go further, and assert, that if they were firmly allied to this great empire, Ireland would be found to be in a perfect state of tranquillity. She might be made a help and source of great strength to England, which at present she certainly was not? How many years was it since the Emancipation Bill had passed? Surely that measure put an end to the penal laws; not one of them was now existing. Then why had not the country improved? How was it that Ireland was in the degraded state described by the noble Earl? And since those measures had failed, how, he would ask, was she to be tranquillised? Was it by giving her up entirely to the Roman Catholic Church? He regretted, that he should not be able to meet his noble Friend (the Earl of Winchilsea) to-morrow at the association meeting; but he was prevented attending by being obliged to go out of town. He should have been most happy to have sat on his Friend's right or left hand.
Viscount Melbournebegged to say a word or two before the question was put. The noble Earl had moved for the production of certain portions of letters addressed to the noble Earl by certain ecclesiastical personages. They were entirely private documents in the possession of the noble Earl himself, and he begged to observe, that it was not usual to move in this manner for the production of such
994
documents, and he thought there would be a very great objection to producing them. In the first place, if private documents in the possession of the noble Earl might be moved for, other private documents in the possession of the noble Lord might also be moved for. Then, again, to agree to the motion on the ground that the noble Lord who made it, consented to the production of the papers, would be open to objection in this way, it would enable any noble Lord to place any document he pleased on the journals of the House. As he supposed the noble Earl had obtained his object in making the statement he had addressed to the House, he trusted that the noble Earl would have no objection to withdraw his motion.
The Earl of Shrewsbury:—My Lords, I am not going to trouble you at any length, but I cannot altogether allow myself to pass over unnoticed some of the observations which have fallen from the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate seems to forget the terms of his challenge. He comes down to the House saying,—"Oh! I have found it all out at last; here is the secret of the tremendous demoralization of Ireland!" and then throws his papers on the table as the proof of his discovery. Now it is to that point that I have directed my attention, while the right rev. Prelate has been completely begging the question, by running into matter altogether irrelevant to the purpose. I have shown that the oath is just where it was; that it has not been condemned at Rome; and that so far from suppressing evidence to that effect, as the right rev. Prelate asserts, the document he has now read, namely, the letter of Pius VII., is the very one I accused him of concealing from our view; for it is plain, that the same sentiments and feelings, respecting this oath, have prevailed at Rome at all times.
The right rev. Prelate, though he admits the fact, expresses his surprise, that Dr. Murray should have known nothing of this correspondence, though at Rome so soon after it had taken place. Now, my Lords, I was myself at Rome at the very time—Lord Clifford was there also; and though in all probability this very case came before Cardinal Weld, and though I saw Cardinal Weld and Lord Clifford, frequently, yet I never heard one syllable upon the matter, so little did it excite attention, and of so little importance was it considered. The case is, that, as

995
far as it regards this country, the oath has never been laid before Rome; nor could Rome, with the information she now possesses, judge of the terms of this oath according to the animus imponentis, by which its interpretation must necessarily be regulated: and if Rome has sometimes expressed itself strongly on this matter, it is to be attributed to a want of sufficient knowledge of the circumstances.
The right rev. Prelate maintains the accuracy of his quotation, and says, that he thought himself fully justified in inserting the word "Jesuit," because those were the doctrines which they held. But I can assure the right rev. Prelate that neither the Jesuits, nor any other class of men in the world, ever held such doctrines or opinions at all. As to the quotation in general, I have taken much pains to collate it with the original in the British Museum, and I maintain that Walsh is not representing his own opinions; he could never have imagined any thing of the sort. Here are the two quotations (holding them up), and any noble Lord may examine them who will, and see whether what I have stated be not correct.
As to what has fallen from the noble Earl, I am sure I had no intention of saying any thing offensive to him, far from it. I have by me here the first number of the publications of the Protestant Association, and though I will not trouble your Lordships with reading any extracts from it, I am sure it would convince you, that instead of condemning that association too severely, I have not been half severe enough; and I will just observe in passing, that I have never yet seen any case (when polemic controversy was in question) fairly stated by any one of our opponents.
My Lords, it is desired by the noble Viscount, that I withdraw my motion; and of course I must comply with the wishes of the House. But I cannot but consider it as another of the evils attending these sort of discussions, that the papers laid upon the table of the House, in the form of an accusation—for that was the form in which they were there laid—must so remain, without their explanation.
It is also another proof of the inconvenience, (though I do not know how your Lordships will agree with me in that), of our not having a resident and ostensible minister at Rome. A satisfactory explanation of this correspondence might
996
readily have been had, and your Lordships would have been saved "so much ado about nothing." It is really lamentable to see the time of the House taken up with such matters, which can only irritate and offend, where I am sure it is high time to heal and to conciliate.
Motion withdrawn.