Sitting of 11 June 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. —1°. Appeal in Criminal Cases; Coroners (Ireland).
Private.—1°. Necton Tithes.
Reported.—Coventry Improvement and Cemetery.
3°. and passed:—Ness Fisheries.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By many hon. Members (56 Petitions), against Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Mr. Cartwright, from Down, Mr. Ross, from Dromore, and Mr. Warburton, from Milnthorp, in favour of Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Mr. Bouverie, from Dumbarton, for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages (Ireland). — By Lord Rendlesham, from Suffolk, for Alteration of Parochial Assessments Act—By several hon. Members (4), against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. Comp-ton (17), from Northampton, against Repeal of Corn Laws. — By several hon. Members (9), for Inquiry into Anatomy Act. — By Lord Harry Vane, from Weardale Union, for Alteration of Poor Law.—By Mr. Ross, from Kilbroney, complaining of State Trial (Ireland). — By Earl of Lincoln, from J. Williams, suggesting a plan of Sub-Ways (Metropolis).

CAPTURED AFRICANS.
Dr. Bowringwished to put a question, of which he had given notice, relative to the alleged refusal of the Governor of St. Helena to allow certain Africans captured by Her Majesty's ship Arrow to be landed in that island. The statement which he (Dr. Bowring) had received with respect to this subject was to the effect that Her Majesty's ship Arrow arrived at St. Helena with two prizes containing captured Africans—that on their arrival at St. Helena the Africans were in a very unhealthy state, dysentery having broken out amongst them, and in consequence of this the Captain of the Arrow separated them, placing the healthy Africans in one of the prizes, and those who were diseased in another. He then asked leave to place the prizes in quarantine, previous to landing the Africans at St. Helena, but he was told that the dépôt in that island was broken up, and that it would, therefore, be necessary for him to
522
proceed to the Cape of Good Hope with the Africans, as he could not land them at St. Helena. The Captain stated to the authorities in St. Helena that only one of his prizes was seaworthy, the other having been injured by shot from the Arrow previous to her capture, and he, therefore, desired that in case he proceeded to the Cape with the seaworthy prize and the healthy Africans, the damaged prize might be allowed to ride quarantine at St. Helena previous to landing the diseased Africans. This was, however, refused, so that the Captain of the Arrow was obliged to mix up the sickly and healthy again, and compress the two cargoes into one, and proceed to the Cape. The result of that course was stated to have been what under such circumstances might have been anticipated, that the track of the prize to the Cape from St. Helena was strewed with the corpses of the unfortunate Africans, not half of whom arrived at the Cape of Good Hope. He wished, therefore, to ascertain if the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies could furnish any information with respect to the circumstances of this case?
Lord Stanleywas sorry to inform the House and the hon. Gentleman that the statement was correct to the extent of a considerable mortality having taken place amongst the captured Africans, but not to the extent represented by the hon. Gentleman. Of 337 Africans who had sailed from St. Helena in the Arrow's prize for the Cape of Good Hope, 18 died on the voyage, and 22 subsequently to her arrival at the Cape, so that in all only 40 out of 337 had died, instead of one half of the whole number. That was, however, a large number, and he thought it right to state to the hon. Member and the House the precise circumstances of the case. In 1839, general instructions were sent that all captured vessels, with Africans on board, should be carried to the port nearest to where the capture was effected, and the result of those orders was, that a considerable number were carried to St. Helena. In St. Helena there was no means of employment for them; there was a want of accommodation, and as the means of subsistence were more expensive in St. Helena than in any other port to which they might be carried, there were great complaints of the enormous expense of the number carried to that island. Subsequently, orders were

523
given to Her Majesty's cruisers to avoid St. Helena as much as possible, when they captured vessels containing Africans, and to bring them to the West Indies, or Sierra Leone, or the Cape of Good Hope, as might be most convenient, according to the peculiar circumstances. A limitation of ports took place after the treaty with Portugal, in consequence of the distinction between the ports to which vessels with no flag, and vessels sailing under the Portuguese flag, might be carried. Under these circumstances the Arrow arrived in the month of December, 1841, with two prizes containing captured Africans at St. Helena; and upon her arrival the captain was asked for a proof of the emergency of the case which had induced him to come to St. Helena instead of to the other ports to which the cruisers were ordered to repair whenever it was possible to do so. To that he answered that he had been sent there by his superior officer on the west coast of Africa, in order to take in water, and proceed to the Cape. The Governor then directed him to convey the Africans to the Cape, as there was not more sickness than usual, and as that was the most favourable season of the year for such a voyage—he also offered medicine for their use, if required; but no medicine was required, and they were provided with water, which was the only supply demanded for them. It was not considered by the Governor of St. Helena such a case of emergency as required the landing of the Africans at St. Helena, and he, therefore, ordered the Captain to proceed to the Cape of Good Hope. In doing so he the Governor acted as he thought right in the exercise of his discretion.
Dr. Bowringthought it would be well if the instructions given were such as would meet the circumstances of a similar case, if it ever should occur.

ANATOMY ACT.
Mr. Borthwick, aware of the general interest taken in the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, which stood for that evening, would state as briefly as possible the reasons which induced him to move for a Select Committee of that House to inquire into the operation of the Anatomy Act of 1832. He would assume it to be absolutely necessary for medical education and the promotion of medical science that the practice of morbid anatomy should be liberally
524
carried on in our anatomical schools. He thanked the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill of 1832, as it was a great improvement on the former system; but he regretted to say that it nevertheless contained the seeds of that horrible system— he meant the system of resurrection, by which dead bodies were procured for the use of the dissecting-room, inasmuch as it did not provide against the sale of entire bodies, or the illegal possession of parts of the bodies. In consequence of this, a most abominable traffic connected with the supply of bodies, was carried on for the purpose of enriching particular schools, to the serious injury and detriment of other schools, and the serious impediment of anatomical science itself. If dead bodies were necessary for the advancement of the science, there ought to be an ample supply of them to all the schools indiscriminately throughout the country; but it was something worse than infamous that private individuals or teachers in schools should have the power of enriching themselves, unfairly towards other schools, and towards the community, by the sale of that which the Legislature had provided for the purposes of science only. The principle on which the Anatomy Bill was founded was, that wherever persons had died in the poor-house and friendless, their bodies were to be given over to certain schools for dissection, subject to certain provisions for their due interment with religious rites. This he conceived to be a barbarous principle, and he was utterly opposed to it. For if there was any one class of persons, who more than others, had a claim on the public generally for due and careful burial after death, it was the persons who died friendless. Were not the feelings of a man dying in a poor-house to be as much respected as those of the rich man, surrounded on his deathbed by friends and relations? The Act took account of the dead and the survivor, but it wholly disregarded the feelings of the dying. It was said, however, that these prejudices against dissection ought not to be cherished in the minds of the poor, that they ought to be made to see the importance of science to the human race, and that they ought to sacrifice their own natural feelings for the benefit of mankind. He did not, however, find that those who advised the poor to do these things began by setting them the example. Nor did he think that it was

525
advisable that such feelings should be destroyed. The prejudices which it was sought to root out, were co-existent in the minds of the poor with the fundamental principles of humanity, and you could not remove them without deteriorating the character of mankind. To remove the terror which the Anatomy Act was calculated to excite in the minds of the poor—to provide that subjects should no longer be taken by law from the huts of friendless poverty, he sought for an inquiry into the operation of the Act by a Committee of that House. Of the extent to which the operation of the Anatomy Act went, some idea might be formed from the statement of Dr. Somerville, that in London alone 600 bodies were required per annum for the purposes of dissection. It was true that the Bill provided that all bodies left for dissection, should be decently interred with all due rites of religion—a humane provision, and one calculated to reconcile the public to the measure. But it was a delusion to suppose that that regulation was practically carried out. On the contrary, the bodies that had been subjected to dissection were notoriously the object of a most inhuman traffic and sale. They were separated, and the different parts sold to students. Any qualified person might, by paying for it, get the whole or parts of bodies at the different hospitals, avowedly for scientific purposes. These practices had been carried to such an extent, that the parish of Mary-le-bone had within the last twelve months or two years, refused to deliver any more subjects for dissection. He had been taunted for having promoted this question by a noxious agitation. The subject might be a noxious one and offensive to the delicate nerves of hon. Members of that House; but they had the authority of the right hon. Baronet himself for saying that the agitation had had the effect of putting an end to some of the worst abuses that had been engendered under the Act. Many of the evils arising out of the operation of the Act might be obviated by the adoption of Mr. Roberts's antiseptic process. On the subject of that process a petition had already been for some time before the House, which was printed for the use of Members, and which fully stated the whole of Mr. Roberts's case. The importance of Mr. Roberts's invention was sufficiently shown by the certificate signed by
526
some of the leading men in the profession, which he would read:—
"We, the undersigned surgeons and anatomical teachers in London, have witnessed the effects of a liquid, prepared and employed by Mr. William Roberts, for the purpose of preserving animal bodies from putrefaction.
"We are convinced, from what we have seen, that Mr. Roberts's preparation is capable of keeping in a fresh, moist, and inoffensive state the flesh of animals, and we think that it may become, in this way, of important use to surgeons and students of anatomy, and that it may be made to promote materially the objects of the Anatomical Bill.
"We shall be glad if any means can be devised by which this discovery may be made cheaply available to the profession, without obliging its inventor to tie it up by patent right.

"ASTLEY COOPER.

"B. C. BRODIE.

"JOSEPH HENRY GREEN.

"GILBERT MACMURDO.

"R. O. GRAINGER.

"B. B. COOPER.

"FREDERICK C. SKEY.

"EDWARD STANLEY.

"R. PARTRIDGE.

"R. B. TODD."

Mr. Roberts had in vain endeavoured, through the hon. Member for Bridport and other hon. Members, to obtain a remuneration for his invention. The leading men in the profession wished him to endeavour to get some remuneration from the public, and to devote the invention to the public use, instead of obtaining a patent. There were two advantages derivable from the invention of Mr. Roberts— the first was, that a less number of bodies could by its use be made to serve the wants of the dissecting room; and the other, that when they had been subjected to dissection they were still so preserved that they could be buried according to the provisions of the Act. It therefore seemed to him that the supporters of the Act were interested in the adoption of the plan. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Anatomy Act.
Mr. Hardyseconded the Motion. The Government by agreeing to the appointment of this Committee would vindicate its own character, and soothe the feelings of the people. The operation of the Act had, in his opinion, been discreditable to the Government.
Sir J. Grahamthought he should best consult the feelings of the House on this

527
occasion by replying with studious brevity. Although the subject appeared to be peculiarly attractive to the hon. Member for Evesham, yet certainly to the great majority of that House it was most revolting. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion, thought the character of the Government at stake, and that inquiry ought to be granted to soothe the feelings of the public, but for neither of these considerations should he think it consistent with his duty to grant an inquiry, when satisfied, as he was, that inquiry would be injurious to the public interests, and so far from soothing public feelings, he believed this discussion was calculated to irritate, excite, and wound them. He therefore at once said, it would be his duty to resist the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. Both the hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him had made some unintentional misrepresentations. It was true the 7th Clause gave any person in possession of a body right to sell it for anatomical purposes, but the Clause limited that right by. a proviso, that if the party dying, even in the last extremity, expressed a wish that his body should not be examined, no person, however nearly related, should have the power to dispose of it; and again, that no body claimed by any relative, however distant, should be subject to examination if that relative objected. The hon. Member for Evesham had stated few grounds for a Committee of Inquiry. He first objected to the general policy of the measure, and next he alleged a personal grievance; and perhaps, but for the latter, the House would never have heard anything of the former. But the hon. Gentleman, in impugning the policy of the Bill, made two large admissions in its favour; first, that it had given undisturbed repose to the ashes of the dead, and secondly that it had saved human life from the attacks of ruffians like Hare and Burke; could two greater benefits have been conferred on society by this Bill? And yet, after making these admissions, the hon. Member wished for a Select Committee to inquire into the policy of the measure. Even if there was an objection to the policy of the Act, that was a question for the House and not for a Committee, to determine, and the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill to repeal or to amend the existing law. The hon. Gentleman said that parts of bodies were publicly sold by unlicensed persons; he doubted the fact, but if it were true, it was an infraction of the existing law, and any party so offending
528
was liable to punishment. Every body that was examined was reported to the inspector, and the inspector reported to the Home Secretary 'quarterly, as to all the bodies examined, how they were distributed; the name, age, &c, of the deceased; so that the identity of the body could be ascertained; and the distribution of the bodies to the several schools of anatomy was also reported, and security was taken that the remains should be decently interred. On this latter point it was said there had been an infraction of the law. The late Government had appointed a Commission to inquire into the general working of the measure. Since the present Government had come into office a more particular inquiry had been instituted. Mr. Green, the eminent surgeon, who had, in the first instance, expressed a favourable opinion towards Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Rogers, Q.C., and Deputy Judge Advocate, being the Commissioners. They carefully investigated the matter, and some additional regulations were adopted by their advice, but the allegations generally made against the working of the law turned out to be incorrect. It appeared, therefore, that there had been full inquiry, and regulations had been adopted which the Government believed would be quite effectual. If any violation of the law occurred, notice given to the Home Office would secure immediate attention. The Bill had secured for science an ample supply of subjects, without which surgery as a science could not make any progress. There had been no violation of public decency—no wounding of public feeling—and the silence with which it had been carried into execution was the best proof of its success. So much for the policy of the measure. He now came to the personal grievance. It was said that the late Government unfairly obtained possession of Mr. Roberts's secret; but at that very moment the preparation used by Mr. Roberts still remained a secret. Mr. Roberts had applied to him for an investigation, and he tendered him one before the College of Surgeons; but Mr. Roberts demanded fresh securities for the preservation of his secret, and sought to impose conditions. It was true, that in 1836, Sir Astley Cooper, and Sir Benjamin Brodie, and other eminent men, did entertain favourable opinions of the discovery; but he had reason to think that Sir Astley Cooper changed his opinion before his death, and as to Sir B. Brodie, he was authorised to state, that Sir B. Brodie

529
was now satisfied, from investigation, that the discovery, whatever other merits it might have, was not of such a nature as to make it generally available for anatomical purposes. An experiment had been made at Guy's Hospital since 1836, and every opportunity had been given to Mr. Roberts to prove the utility of his invention. Mr. Roberts tried his experiment on several subjects, and with respect to the whole of them, he had been informed that Mr. Roberts had entirely failed. No one experiment had been so successful, he was informed, as to entitle Mr. Roberts to public reward. It was not enough that a body should be preserved merely for anatomical purposes, it was requisite that the muscles, nerves, and fibres should be fresh and perfect, and in speaking of saving the number of bodies required, the House must remember that it was not sufficient for a student to see the knife used, but that he must be accustomed to use it himself. This went to the real merits of Mr. Roberts's claim. There was no doubt that Mr. Roberts's fluid was antiseptic, but not sufficiently so for anatomical purposes. With every respect for a Committee of that House, he did not consider that a question of this kind — painful to consider, and still more painful to discuss— was a fit subject for inquiry. So far as the policy of the measure was interwoven with the Motion, it was clear that the House, and not a Committee, was the place to discuss it; and he must add it was most suspiciously interwoven. He much feared that Mr. Roberts, if no reward were given him for this alleged discovery, was determined to bring the Anatomy Act itself into disrepute. On these grounds he trusted the House would agree with him in refusing the Motion.
Mr. Frenchdenied, on Mr. Roberts's authority, the statement made by the right hon. Baronet as to the experiment in Guy's Hospital. That experiment was made, not on sixteen bodies, but on four and a half, and was perfectly successful. It was notorious that upwards of 300 paupers had been dissected between the years 1839 and 1841. It was true that Dr. Somerville had been removed, and he gave credit to the right hon. Baronet for this and other corrections of abuses, but many still existed. It was well known that parts of bodies were still sold, and there was a regular market-price for a leg or an arm; and it was also notorious that the masters of workhouses received
530
money for the bodies of the paupers, and after thus disposing of them they entered them in the dead-book as having been buried by their friends. It was clear, then, that the Act did not work beneficially, and the prejudice that existed against it was manifest from the number of parishes that had protested against the pauper bodies being given for dissection. Believing that, he would vote for the Motion.
Mr. Warburtondisliked the discussion of such a subject, and would gladly have contented himself with appealing to the practical operation of the Anatomy Act. Anatomical schools were established, in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and all large towns, wherever great hospitals existed; yet we had never heard now from any authentic source any well established instances of the bad working of the measure. The study of anatomy was essential to the practice of medicine and surgery; and nothing could have enabled the students to have the necessary opportunity of examining the human system but the measure to which he referred. If the enormities which formerly existed had continued, the Government would have been compelled to put an end to the study of anatomy by the human subject. When Mr. Roberts had first applied to him to assist him in his object of obtaining a grant of money in consideration of the disclosure of this process, he had certainly required to be satisfied that it was not only effective but economical and expeditious, and, on being informed of its nature, he had satisfied himself of its being so; but, upon hearing that Mr. Roberts had carried on an agitation against the Anatomy Act, he declined further proceedings with the matter till persuaded by Sir G. Sinclair. He had been "soft'' enough to resume his application to Government recommending a much smaller sum, however, than was required by Mr. Roberts. The Home-office rejected the proposal, and then it appeared that various anatomical authorities, especially the Anatomical Society, had described the process as inefficient. Mr. Roberts had endeavoured to excite prejudices in the popular mind against the operation of the Anatomy Act, and had addressed a letter to the Government declaring his determination, unless they took up his process and remunerated him for its disclosure, to obstruct the distribution of bodies through the metropolitan parishes. And this gentleman had published placards of which one read thus:—

531
"The method pursued now in procuring and examining dead bodies is destructive, mercenary, and disgusting; destructive, because it entails upon students the risk of death through contact with putrid bodies; mercenary, because the system involves the extraction of the largest amount of fees without regarding the advancement of science; disgusting, because by leaving the dead in a rotten state, more are wasted than are used."
Mr. Roberts had tried to force himself into some workhouses with the object of circulating such placards as these, in another of which he spoke of "the practice of sending thousands of the bodies of paupers and of other friendless persons for dissection;" and this gentleman had held meetings in public houses for the purpose of exciting all possible prejudice and ill-feeling against the operation of the present measure. Various charges had been brought against Dr. Somerville; but a commission of inquiry having been appointed by the Government, not a tittle of evidence was produced to substantiate them.
Alderman Copelandsaid, that for some years past he had moved for certain Returns on this subject, which, although ordered every year to be made, yet from some unfortunate circumstance or another, they had never been furnished to the House. He must say, that on a previous evening this Session, when the subject had been brought before the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, that right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, replied to it most satisfactorily. The Commission was issued, and the whole of the allegations which had been made against the conduct of the Inspector of Anatomy had ended simply in the cases of two bodies of paupers having been buried in the Wesleyan churchyard. The proprietor of this burial-ground was one of his Common Council, and he had reason to think that there were hundreds buried in these fields. He thought it somewhat extraordinary, that from the day that Commission (which had been so often alluded to) had been appointed, up to the present time, no Report had been made by the Commissioners to the Secretary of State. He believed, that this Anatomy Act had been for a series of years made the instrument of jobbing, with the view of giving an income to the University College. He thought that this was a subject worthy of the serious attention of the Government, who ought to appoint some persons to supervise the conduct of those against whom such allega-
532
tions as the present had been brought, and to Report on the Subject occasionally to the House.
Sir J. Grahamin justice to Dr. Somerville was bound to say, that the whole of the charges made against him were submitted to the Commission, and were by them investigated, and they had reported that none of them were true, except that of the burial of a person in the Globe Fields.
Mr. T. Duncombehad always under-Stood that a Minister of the Crown should never refer to any official Report which was not virtually laid upon the Table of the House. A Commission was appointed to investigate these charges, but it was somewhat extraordinary that no copy of the evidence taken before such Commission had ever been furnished to that House nor any Report founded upon such evidence. The right hon. Baronet had, however, thought proper to quote from this Report in his opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Evesham. They, however, knew nothing of this Report— indeed it was that they sought to be informed of. It was not fair or candid towards the public to refer to documents of that sort which the House was not as yet in possession of. If this Act had worked in a proper manner—if no such abuses had been practised under it as had been alleged —why not have the Report of the Commission laid on the Table of the House? This debate would no doubt excite extraordinary feelings of indignation in the minds of the public for the manner in which they had been treated. The determination of the House and the Government to burke all inquiry into this subject was quite apparent. It was no doubt a most delicate subject, and perhaps one that ought not to have been brought before the House. He was not expressing any opinion upon that point; but having been brought before it, they were bound to deal with it in some way or other, so as to satisfy the public. He regretted that the new fluid invention of Mr. Roberts had been put forward in his petition, inasmuch as it exposed him to the charge of being influenced by some sort of mercenary motives, as had been attributed to him by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. This had nothing to do with the nature of the Motion that the hon. Member for Evesham had brought before the House, which was to inquire into the operation of the Anatomy Act, and not into this inven-

533
tion. The hon. Alderman opposite had stated, that there had been much jobbing carried on under the Act—if so, it was high time for the House to inquire into it. He knew that much abuse had existed with regard to the Holborn Union, where they had been supplying the schools of anatomy with the bodies of the paupers at a considerable profit to a certain party. Many complaints had been made in the various petitions which had been presented on this subject to the House by parties who could not be accused of having any sinister motives. Such petitions had been presented from Holborn, and from his own constituents complaining that the remains of paupers did not receive Christian burial. He believed that a stronger feeling existed in the breasts of the poor with regard to the remains of their relatives than even in those of the rich. It was a subject which this House must inquire into. It was distinctly proved before the Committee on the subject of Health of Towns, that the bodies of paupers had been buried in an improper manner, and the service of the dead had been read by a man who had merely put a surplice on for that purpose.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if all the proceedings under the Anatomy Act, were to he made subjects of continual discussion in that House, and if every inflammatory statement were to be made the ground of special inquiry, he was afraid they would be unable to withstand the clamour which would be raised, and that they would be obliged to repeal the Act. In this case they would have revived those abuses and even those horrible crimes which were perpetrated before the passing of the Anatomy Act. An hon. Gentleman said, that some person in a workhouse had made a profit by the sale of the dead bodies of the paupers. In that case the Guardians of the Union ought to have investigated the conduct of their officer, and have dismissed him if the charge were true. With respect to the invention of Mr. Roberts, he (Lord J. Russell) had been in hopes that it would have greatly tended to the advancement of anatomical science, and it was only after submitting the subject to the consideration of persons competent to judge, and obtaining their opinion, that it would not be beneficial in the way he had expected, that he desisted from proposing any reward or making any Motion on the subject. The right hon. Gen-
534
tleman, who had succeeded him in office, had not felt it necessary to pursue a different course; but Mr. Roberts had gone on agitating, with the hope of getting his discovery adopted. He trusted that the Government would not be influenced by threats of any kind, to favour an individual at the expense of the public, and he hoped also that House would not agree to the proposed Motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 49: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Granger, T. C.

Bright, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Browne, hon. W.

Napier, Sir C.

Cobden, R.

Copeland, Ald.

TELLERS.

Duncombe, T.

Borthwick, P.

Fielden J.

French, F.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Aldam, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Archbold, R.

Mainwaring, T.

Arkwright, G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bellew, R. M.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Bowring. Dr.

Price, R.

Brocklehvrst, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Busfield, W.

Ross, D. R.

Butler, hon. Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Chapman, B.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Curteis, H. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Stanley, E.

Duncan G.

Stuart, W. V.

Eliot, Lord

Stock, Mr. Serjt.

Escott, B.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Forster, M.

Tufnell, H.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Warburton, H.

Gladstone, Capt.

Ward, H. G.

Goulbeurn, rt. hn. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wyse, T.

Greenaway, C.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, W. J.

Young, J.

Knatchball, rt hn Sir E.

Pringle, A.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
Mr. Wardsaid—Sir, nobody can feel more strongly than I do both the difficulties and responsibility that attach to any attempt made under the present circumstances of England and Ireland to re-open the question which I am about to bring under the consideration of the House this evening; and strong as my opinions unquestionably are respecting it —deep as is my conviction that delay in dealing with it will only aggravate the mischiefs of past procrastination—yet, Sir,

535
I should have shrunk from the task of endeavouring again to engage the attention of this House to a subject so largely and so ably discussed at the beginning of the present Session, if I had seen anything like a hope, however distant and however faint, that Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to recognise the principle on which the settlement of this question must ultimately depend. Sir, I have never been extravagant enough in my ideas to suppose that this is a question which can be settled, or even materially advanced, by any individual efforts. The same unhappy feelings, the same stubborn prejudices, that have plunged us for 300 years into a course of vicious legislation, still retain a certain hold, at all events, on the public mind, though I believe it to be much weakened; and whenever the time shall come for dealing practically with this question, it will require the best efforts of the best men on both sides of the House to remove the obstacles that still obstruct our path. There must be much forbearance, there must be many mutual concessions. Men on all sides must follow the advice of Bishop Watson, in the debate upon the Union, and learn to give up small things in order to secure great things, tranquillity, concord, peace. I have said thus much, that the House may not imagine, that I conceive the question to be one free from difficulties. I admit it to be difficult, I admit it to be complicated, but I say that is no reason why it should not be entertained. The Catholic question was difficult, but the Catholic question was carried; and the more difficult, the more complicated this question is, the more indispensable does it become that the House should entertain it, and entertain it promptly, before it is forced upon it by events over which it can have no control;—that it should try to fathom the difficulty, to unravel the complication, in order to place, if possible, the Irish Church on a footing more suited to its own professed objects, and more conducive to the great interests which it was intended to cement. With these feelings, if I had seen anything like a progressive policy on the part of Ministers—anything like an honest determination or desire to grapple with that which is their real difficulty in the Government of this country (and they know it well)—to regard Catholic Emancipation as Mr. Pitt would have regarded it, as the first of a great series of mea-
536
sures for the amelioration of Ireland, framed in a large and comprehensive spirit, and carried out with a vigorous hand—I say, that such a policy as that would have had no warmer supporter in this House than myself. I adopt, upon this point, not merely the feelings, but the words of an hon. Friend of mine, whom I am sorry not now to see in his place, for I have very often the pleasure of concurring in opinion with him, although we sit on different sides of the House. I mean the hon. Member for Wakefield, who said, in a recent debate, that "He wished to hear his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government announcing his intention of altering the anomalous position of the Protestant Church in Ireland, whilst maintaining it in those principles on which alone a Church Establishment could be maintained in any country for the purposes of religion, and the spiritual instruction of the people; but altogether giving up the idea that it was to be looked upon as a Protestant stronghold in that country." Sir, I adopt these sentiments altogether; but I ask any Gentleman on either side of the House, whether in the fondest credulity of party prepossession, he can point out to me any word or act since this time last year that would warrant him in entertaining the belief that such are the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government? Has there been any good legislation for Ireland? Is there any prospect of good legislation? Have Ministers announced any great change in their policy? Can any change be reasonably anticipated? Has any one thing been said or done calculated to allay admitted discontent, to remove just causes of excitement, and to bring back the alienated feelings of the people of Ireland to this country and to this House? No! There has been no good legislation, there is no rational ground for hope. The only Government measure announced is the Registration Bill; and until the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, declared to-night, that if the business before the House would admit of it, he had some intention of proceeding with it on the 1st of July, I really believed that it had been received with such a universality of condemnation, that we should not have heard of it again. There was another Bill—a very useful Bill—to which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government alluded at the beginning of the Session—viz., a Bill

537
to facilitate Endowments for the Catholic Clergy. I do not know whether that is in the list of measures which we may hope to see introduced by Government during the present Session, but up to the present time, at all events, there has been no legislation for Ireland since this time twelvemonth; and if from works we go to words, if, giving up the past policy of Government in Ireland as indefensible, we look to their own declarations as the criterion of their future conduct, I say distinctly, that never was there a time when there was so little good to expect and so much bad to anticipate. The Government have placed themselves in a strange position. They have not only taken up a position which is in itself untenable, but they have pledged themselves to die in the last ditch. We have had a series of declarations, within the last twelve months, coming from almost every Member of the Government, offensive to Ireland, discouraging to those who wish well to her, without reference to party objects here, and destroying all hope of future good from men who have begun by tying their own hands on the most important points that can possibly come before them in connection with Irish affairs. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, commenced these declarations upon this very question to which I have now the honour to call your attention, while it was under discussion towards the close of last Session. In his speech upon that occasion the noble Lord said, "He could see no difference between a Protestant Establishment and a Protestant Sovereign." "The Union was a distinct compact for the preservation of the Protestant Church." And in 1829, when Catholic Emancipation was carried, "there was an implied agreement, which it would be a gross breach of faith in the Government that carried that measure to depart from." This was the first declaration made by the Government in that House as to their intentions towards Ireland. He then came to another which had been made during the present Session. He knew not whether he was strictly in order in referring to speeches made in that House during the present Session; but as the rules of the House could always be evaded by a periphrasis, it would perhaps be more convenient to allow him to allude directly to those passages in a former debate which were necessary to his argu-
538
ment. He would, therefore, refer to the speech of an hon. Gentleman, whose opinion he should at all times consider to be of some weight on Irish affairs, but whose views derived additional weight by his recent appointment as Secretary to the Treasury, and he found that that hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Young) had declared "the Church to be the line of separation between parties in this country." "No Conservative Statesman could, without dishonour to himself and ruin to his party, make any other declaration than that he was determined to maintain inviolate and intact the dignity and possessions of the Established Church." Then came the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary (Sit J. Graham), who, speaking of Ireland as "the fatal field which had separated him from all his former friends, and on which he could not hope to meet them again except as opponents;" said, in his answer to the wise suggestions of the noble Lord, the Member for London, in the strongest and boldest manner:—
"I reject all these nostrums—they are all incompatible with that preference winch the Protestant State of England, as a fundamental principle, has decided on giving in favour of the Protestant Church Establishment." "I stand upon the choice made by this country at the Reformation, confirmed at the Revolution, sealed by the Act of Settlement, and ratified by the Act of Union. I hold that preference to be amongst the firmest foundations of our liberties. I believe it to have been the work of the greatest Statesmen; and I do not believe that it will be overthrown by any Repeal Association, or any body of conspirators, such as we have succeeded in convicting."
The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, had the merit of having considerably modified these declarations. The right hon. Baronet, it was true, declared that the Act of Union was one compact, and the Emancipation Act another, both being intended "to give an assurance to the Protestants of Ireland and of England that the existence of the Established Church should not be endangered;" but he added " If we are now convinced that the social amelioration of Ireland requires an alteration of this law—a departure from that compact—are our legislative functions so bound up, that we must maintain the compact in defiance of our convictions? I, for one, am not prepared to contend for that doctrine." Still he came to the same conclusion as his Col-

539
leagues; for he said: "I bring reason, and conviction, in aid of compact, and authority; and I come to the conclusion that the best coarse, and the course which I, for one, as far as my humble powers can be exerted, shall pursue, is—to maintain in its integrity the Protestant Church." These were declarations from which he, for one, could draw but little hope for the future fate of Ireland; for, so long as they were acted up to, there was no probability of bringing the question which agitated that country, to a satisfactory conclusion. But, as if to prove that there was no disunion in the Cabinet upon the subject of Ireland at least, they had had a still stronger, and more singular declaration made in another place, to which he could not allude more directly than by saying, it was a place, the proceedings in which they were duly informed of by certain organs, which made it their business to report all that took place there, although nothing at all could be known about it in the House of Commons. He referred to a declaration recently made by the Duke of Wellington, on the presentation of a petition from Glasgow, by Lord Fitzwilliam, praying the House of Lords to take the position of the Protestant Church in Ireland into their consideration, as being the ground of all the differences, and discontent, which existed in that country. On that occasion the noble Duke said—"The noble Lord says, something or other must be done. He does not state what it is to be; but it is, at all events, to involve the repeal of those laws, upon which the Reformation in this country has been founded."—"The Protestant Church has subsisted in Ireland for 300 years. It was maintained there during a century of contests, rebellions, and massacres. It was part of the compact made with the Parliament of Ireland at the time of the Union. It is the foundation upon which the Union rests; and you cannot depart from it, without being guilty of a breach of faith, worse than those referred to in other countries, worse than those pecuniary breaches of faith which have been alluded to on other occasions." Now, this vehemence of protestation was, in his (Mr. Ward's) humble judgment, not merely useless, but most impolitic. It irritated, but did not convince. It settled nothing, and could settle nothing, for no speech made in Parliament could reconcile the Irish people to a
540
system which was indefensible, because opposed to their natural rights. Besides which, they had had too many of such declarations. The Duke Wellington was not the first Duke who had spoken upon such subjects. He (Mr. Ward) could well remember a memorable occasion when a Royal Duke had taken an equally prominent part against the concession of Catholic rights—for they had to deal with the same question now, as before the Emancipation Act, though in a somewhat different shape. He well remembered that most memorable speech of the Duke York's, which had done more, in the short space of twenty lines, to alienate, and exasperate, the people of Ireland than all the treachery of Limerick, or the sufferings of the Penal Laws. He recollected that speech well, flaunting in golden letters in every orthodox bookseller's shop, and cried up as the paragon of earthly wisdom by the men, who hoped to rivet their own hold upon power by pandering to the prejudices of Protestant mobs, and Protestant heirs to the Throne. Nothing could be more solemn than the declaration of the noble Duke. He said, "Concession to Catholics would be a total change in the fundamental principle of the Constitution—a blow striking at the very root of it."—" Nobody was more inclined to toleration than his late Majesty; but there was a great difference between toleration, participation, and emancipation." "The Coronation Oath stood in the way of it, from the obligations of which the King could neither release himself by any act of his own, nor be released by any act of the Legislature." "He had imbibed these principles in his earliest youth, and subscribed to their justice, after the most serious consideration, when he attained more mature years; and these were the principles to which he would adhere, and which he would maintain, and act up to, to the latest moment of his existence, so help him God!" Had that declaration arrested the course of events? Had it stopped Catholic Emancipation? On the contrary, Catholic Emancipation was carried only four years afterwards, by that very Duke of Wellington, who now invoked the Duke of York's principles against his own,—that is, against the proper working out of those principles upon which he himself acted in 1829. The only effect of that declaration was to

541
delay a great, wise, and comprehensive measure until it lost half its utility, and all its grace. But, happily, there was a sort of fatality that appeared to attend the declarations of the Duke of Wellington. His strongest declarations were usually followed by the largest concessions; and viewing the matter in that light, he looked upon the recent speech of the noble Duke with some satisfaction. He remembered that but twelve months before the passing of the Reform Bill, the British Constitution was declared to be the most perfect ever devised by human wisdom; and Lord Ellenborough's recall was pronounced the grossest act of indiscretion on record, just three weeks before the dinner to his successor, at which the noble Duke was present. There was no want of moral courage in the noble Duke when right, but he sometimes did in the Cabinet, what he never did in the field, he took up a bad position. He had a right, therefore, to hope that the same results would follow the noble Duke's declarations in regard to the Irish Church, as had followed them upon the other questions to which he had referred. But he had a better reason still for doubting whether this declaration ought to produce any effect on the country; for it was on record that both the noble Duke, and the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), had seen the inevitable consequence of their own measure of 1829 before they carried it. Not only had they foreseen it, but they predicted it,—they painted it to the country in the strongest colours, as a reason for not doing what they afterwards did. How, then, could they complain of the fulfilment of their own prophecies? He (Mr. Ward) had quoted a speech of the right hon. Baronet, in the debates upon the Arms Bill, which the right hon. Baronet ought not to have forgotten, for it made an extraordinary impression on the country when it was delivered. He was reading, the other day, the letters of Lord Dudley to the Bishop of Llandaff, and he found it thus described by that noble Lord in his diary:—"We had an excellent Anti-Catholic speech from Peel last night—really quite capital. He said all that could be said on that side, and said it in the best possible way." And what was the most prominent argument in this much-praised speech? He would not again read the whole passage, but the gist of it was, that if the Catholics were constituted
542
like other men—if they had organs, senses, affections, passions, like ourselves—they must aspire to the re-establishment of their own Church in the place of our 'intrusive Church,' in all its ancient splendour? Is it not natural, said the right hon. Baronet, that they should do so? If I argue even from my own feelings — if I place myself in their situation — I answer that it is. And then he illustrated this by the case of Scotland, and said, that it was not until "Scotland with her Presbyterian Church, was united to England with her Episcopal Church, that all jealousies were buried in oblivion, and the political Union was complete." He found, too, that the Duke of Wellington two years later, had said (March 1819), "that if Roman Catholics were admitted to political power no doubt could be entertained, but that their first exertions would be directed towards restoring their religion to its original supremacy." Now, he maintained that there was no wish for supremacy upon the part of the Roman Catholics. All that they asked was equality with the Protestants; and how could the right hon. Baronet and the noble Duke hope to satisfy Ireland, without doing that for her, which they predicted it would be absolutely impossible to withhold, if Catholic Emancipation were granted? He would deal later with some of the other arguments to which he had referred; but first he must show the House what it was, that they were really disputing about. Fortunately, he could. do this without wearying the House with statistical details. The relative proportions of the population in Ireland were admitted; and even upon the delicate point of revenue, there was no longer any material difference; for his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) with a frankness that did him the greatest honour, and for which he begged to express his own obligations, had brought over Mr. Erck, the Ecclesiastical Commissioner, and directed him to give him (Mr. Ward) access to all the documents in his possession, for the express purpose of avoiding the differences, that had occurred last year in their calculations:—

Last year his estimate of the revenue of the Irish Church was

£552,753

Lord Eliot's

432,023

Difference

£120,730

Both of these estimates were very much

543
under the mark. He believed he might take the

Episcopal revenues as

£151,127

Deans and Prebends

34,481

Minor Canons and Vicars Choral

10,525

£196,133

Parochial tithes

486,785

Episcopal

9,515

Received by dignitaries

24,460

£520,660

Deduct 25 per cent. for rent charge

130,165

Remain

£390,495

Add Episcopal revenues (tithes deducted, £33,875)

162,258

£552,753

Glebes as valued by Ecclesiastical Commissioners

80,000

Minister's Money

10,000

Demised tithes

8,000

Total present income

£650,753

This was the sum upon which all parties were now agreed, as representing the actual income of the Establishment. Out of this income it provided for a population of 750,000 Episcopalians. This was the real number, because, in the original Census, the Wesleyan Methodists had been included, which they ought not to have been, as they maintained 300 Chapels themselves. Taking, then, the number as 750,000 Protestants, they would recollect that in England there were about 14,000,000. In Ireland there were 2,450 parishes, in England there were 10,750. With these 2,450 parishes, there were in Ireland only 1,422 beneficed Clergymen. In Ireland, too, they had two Archbishops and ten Bishops; while in England and Wales there were but two Archbishops and twenty-four Bishops, for ten times the Episcopalian population. In Ireland there was one Bishop to every 118 Benefices. In England there was only one Bishop to every 412 Benefices. In the diocese of Lincoln there were 1,259 Benefices, and in that of Norwich 1,033 Benefices—so that two Bishops superintended 2,292 Benefices, while in Ireland there were twelve Bishops to superintend 1,422 Benefices. Now, would not one Archbishop and three Bishops, at the most, be sufficient to superintend 1,422 Benefices? Again, taking the income of the Church at 650,000 l., that would show that 18 s. or 20 s. was the sum paid for the spiritual instruction of each member of
544
the Episcopalian population. But that was not all they had done for the Church. Look at the Education grants—the grants for building churches and glebe-houses. There was 1,000,000 l. for the arrears of tithes; 595,000 l. for churches; 366,000 l. for glebe houses; 1,378,000 l. for Education grants—the Charter Schools,—the Society for the Suppression of Vice,—he supposed that meant Catholicism,—and the Kildare-street Society; making a total of 3,310,627 l. laid out since the Union. Before and since the Union upwards of 1,000,000 l. had been devoted to the Charter Schools alone. These Charter Schools were intended to convert to Protestantism the youth of Ireland. They failed, however, as all such institutions must fail. They failed from the inherent vice of their constitution. They were proselytising schools. The catechism by order of the Church used in them taught Catholic children that their parents were wicked and damnable heretics. Now, what parents would send their children to be so educated—to learn to treat with contempt their religious opinions, and to curse the creed of their forefathers? And what children so brought up, were likely to turn out good subjects, or good Christians? In fact, they knew from the Returns, that hardly one in fifty of the children educated at these schools turned out well in after life. And yet upwards of a million of money had been expended upon this unnatural experiment. But this was only one of the blunders which, in an almost continuous line, from the Reformation, down to the last word in the last debate upon Irish affairs, had disfigured the policy of this country towards Ireland. Upon the last occasion, on which he had brought forward this subject, he had shewn at much length how the vices of Protestant legislation and the misconduct of the Protestant Church had been the great bars to the progress of Protestantism—he had shewn how they had neglected the language, the feelings, and the habits of the people—how they had made no attempt to satisfy their doubts, or remove their scruples—how the King's Supremacy had been made use of to rob the Church of its property at first, and then as an excuse for plundering those who did not conform to it. Some of these facts had been disputed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of Dublin, but on referring to the original do-

545
cuments he saw no cause to alter, or modify, his opinion. The 28th of Henry VIII. provided that vacant preferments should be given to those who spoke the English language, "and to none others." And though the 2nd of Elizabeth, cap. 13, modified this absurdity by allowing Latin to be used "as an alternative," though, in the 13th year of her reign, she sent over a fount of Irish types " in the hope that God in his mercy would raise up some to translate the New Testament into their Mother Tongue,—still James I. in 1620, admits, "that the simple natives were kept in darkness for want of ministers who could speak their own language." In 1684, the Convocation again ordained the use of the Irish tongue in the churches; but this remained a dead letter, for so late as 1710, there is a Resolution of the Irish House of Commons, which declares "that it is necessary that a number of ministers duly qualified to instruct the natives of the Kingdom, and perform the offices of religion to them in their own language, be provided, and encouraged by a suitable maintenance." It was clear, therefore, that the Church had provided nothing of the sort up to the year 1710. How could it? It was a Political and not a Missionary Church. It might boast of a few distinguished scholars, and real Churchmen, like Archbishop Usher, and Jeremy Taylor; but its dignitaries were mostly ecclesiastical statesmen,— worldly, jobbing, Prelates—the only rich men in a poor country, the founders of half the Irish aristocracy, by the rapacious use which they made of their advantages. Archbishop Loftus, in the time of Elizabeth was the type of the whole class. He was Archbishop first of Armagh, then of Dublin, Dean of St. Patrick, — a wholesale pluralist, — Lord Chancellor,—one of the Lords Justices, reputedly, — and, as a natural consequence, the ancestor of two noble families, Lord Lisburne, and the Marquess of Ely, for both of which he provided abundantly. Thomas Jones, who was Archbishop of Dublin under James I., was the ancestor of Lord Ranelegh. Michael Boyle Archbishop in 1663, held six parishes as sinecures, on the plea that he could not find fit persons to fill them,—built a palace,— and bequeathed an immense property to his son, who became Viscount Blessington. Charles Agar, Archbishop of Dublin in 1801, left 400,000 l. in money, and
546
his son was created Earl of Normanton. There were four Beresfords at once upon the Bench, and but two Irishmen, from the Reformation to the Union, that ever held the See of Dublin; so that the history of the Irish Church during three whole centuries, fully justifies the opinion expressed respecting it by Queen Mary, in her letter to William III., written during his stay in Ireland, in which she says, "I must put you in mind of one thing, believing it to be now the season, which is, that you would take care of the Irish Church. Every body agrees that it is the worst in Christendom." [Hear, henr.] Sir, these things are not forgot ten. Nations have long memories. The Irish Catholics have seen the Church, from the earliest times made the instrument of their own oppression; and thousands amongst them believe to this day that the Loftus family bears as its arms, a cross sprinkled with blood, because the Archbishop of that name, presided as Lord Justice, at the execution of the Catholic Bishop of Cashel. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had alluded in a former debate to the only lull that had taken place during the period to which he had been adverting, as described in Sir William Brereton's Memoirs. It was under Charles I., about six years before the Great Rebellion, when the only oath required from the Catholic was the Oath of Allegiance, and consequently there were Catholic sheriffs, and magistrates, and Members of Parliament, and juries; and to a certain extent the Catholics did enjoy the privileges of the British Constitution. But the blessing was of short duration; for James I., by the confiscation of Ulster, prepared the way for what our historians called the Catholic Rebellion. That event, however, did not arise out of a community of faith so much as out of a community of oppression. It was the Protestant colonization of the north that led to the rising of 1641, which was a struggle for land and life, not for religion. Yet the idea had been implanted here, that it was all the work of a Papist conspiracy; and the excesses committed when the English settlers were expelled, were exaggerated to a degree that a man who looked into history dispassionately could hardly believe the accounts given of them. All this led the way for that second conquest by Cromwell which placed Ireland, according to Lord Granville, in his speech upon the Union, "at

547
the mercy of a colony of English sectarians, who had sucked in with their mothers' milk a hatred of Popery, and who dealt with Ireland accordingly." And yet those very Sectarians took the Church into their alliance at the Restoration. I read the other day Jeremy Taylor's famous Sermon upon the Consecration of two Archbishops and ten Bishops in Dublin, preached before the very man who had destroyed Episcopacy in England, and beheaded their Sovereign, yet now consented to adopt the Church as a political instrument in Ireland. It was so used both by the Crown and the Parliament. The Crown used it to corrupt the Parliament, as I showed last year, by the correspondence of Primate Boulter and the Marquis of Buckingham;—the Parliament used it as a plea for an Anti-Catholic Crusade, whenever the "Hewers of wood and drawers of water" were becoming too strong for them. It was not the Church however, for which Cromwell's followers cared. Protestantism with them meant the forfeited estates, and the partial resumption of them by James II. and the Parliament of Dublin, led to the Penal Laws and the violation of the Treaty of Limerick. For Catholic humiliation became necessary to Protestant safety. The Penal Laws never had a religious character. Religion was a mere mask. No conversions were made or thought of. The sole object was to keep one sect down, and to exalt the other; and the Irish people was divided by them into two distinct races, Spartans and Helots,—a nation of slaves,—an oligarchy of tyrants! This is the clue to all those mysteries of iniquity, perpetrated by Irish magistrates and Irish Courts of Justice,—those local Popish plots—those judicial murders, by packed juries and perjured informers, like that of Father Sheehy and Edmund Sheehy,— tragedies which nothing but the madness of self-interest can explain, but in all of which unhappily, religion was made the plea, and the Church an actor. Indeed, the clerical magistrates were, in general, the most active, and the least scrupulous, for a Church in danger, like a king in danger, is always a tyrant. It conceives everything to be justifiable, when struggling for its own existence. So it was in 1798. So it is still. Time has modified some of the worst features of the system, but the spirit still continues; and though the Union has mitigated many abuses, it
548
has produced others. It began with promises disgracefully broken, and it ended by making Ireland the battle-field of English politicians. When the struggle whether the promises made to the Catholics by Mr. Pitt should be kept or not, was decided by the No Popery cry in 1807, Ireland was treated with the most insolent apathy. Abuses long admitted to be intolerable were cherished, until the country was driven to the very verge of rebellion. Tithes were not touched till 1822. "The galling blister of the Vestry Cess," as the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had himself called it, was not removed till 1833; and to this hour, the pledge given by both Houses of Parliament in the debate upon the Union was left unredeemed, unless indeed it were maintained, that a Protestant Church supported by a Catholic people, was not "a just cause of complaint," and that its removal would not be "a well considered measure of improvement." He admitted that this was once the feeling of the great majority of the people of England. Prejudice, ignorance, the respect for authority, and a great fear of misrepresentation upon religious subjects, had long induced most people to look with considerable apprehension on this question. Ten years ago he had stood almost alone upon the subject. But there had been a great change since—a change as marked, as it had been steadily progressing. Even in that House they had heard strong opinions upon the subject expressed in strong language. The noble Lord the Member for Sunderland bad stated his views very broadly to the country. The noble Lord the Member for London had most unequivocally expressed his concurrence in the principle of equality. All those who had voted with that noble Lord must entertain a feeling that it was necessary that the Irish Church should be dealt with. And they must be pretty sure, too, that in this respect their constituents thought with them. All this showed the progress making in the public mind upon the question. Views which would have been pronounced bold and rash, had they been enunciated some years ago, were now everywhere passing current, and they were approved by many who did not dare to speak their sentiments with equal freedom, because party ties, and a desire to preserve party consistency, hindered many from arriving at this most desirable consummation. He might refer here also, as an

549
additional evidence of this change, to the opinion of the Edinburgh Review—a great party organ—one which was entitled to high consideration—and in this case to none the less, as he might venture to inform them, because the article from which he was about to quote had received the entire concurrence and sanction of the present Archbishop of Dublin. The Edinburgh Review now adopted almost all the views expressed by him (Mr. Ward) last August. It recommended the substitution of the congregational for the parochial system,—a reduction of two-thirds of the Episcopal Establishment,—a large endowment of the Catholic Clergy, which he did not now think practicable,—and the complete regeneration of Maynooth as an educational institution. It ranked the Church, in short, as the first of the "moral evils" of Ireland, and as one of the main causes of its "national evils," by the just discontent which it engendered; — and it summed up the result of its observations with admirable conciseness in the following passage:—
"No one, whatever be his party, whatever be his religion, has been able while he read the last sentence, to prevent his thoughts from turning to the provision made in Ireland for the religion of the people. That the Episcopal palaces, the Episcopal estates, the Chapter estates, the Parsonages, the Glebes, and the Tithes of the whole country should be given over to one-tenth of its population; that another tenth should receive a regular provision for its Clergy from the Imperial revenue; and that the remaining four-fifths should obtain no public aid in supplying their spiritual wants, except a trifling annual vote for a Seminary; that the endowed minority should be the richest, and the unassisted majority the poorest portion of the community; that the minority should be the intruders into an endowment of which the majority were the ancient founders and possessors—all this some may think an injury, others an insult, and others, among whom we find ourselves, may think it an insult and injury combined; some may suppose that it is the unhappy but necessary link by which Great Britain and Ireland are united; others that it is the wedge that is to separate them; some may believe that it is one of the outworks of the Church of England: others that it affords the platform from which that Church can be most easily attacked. But no British Statesman, whether Tory or Whig, Conservative or Radical, however he may think it ought to be dealt with in practice, dares to defend, or even to palliate it in principle. No one ventures to affirm that if the past could be recalled, he would propose such an institution
550
—no one would tamely submit to the imputation of such folly and such injustice—no one, in a word, conceals his regret that our ancestors were guilty of such an absurdity and such a crime. If such are the feelings of bystanders, what must be those of sufferers? If Protestants are filled with shame and remorse, what can be expected from Catholics but indignation and hatred?"
Were these terms too strong? He really thought that the best proof of the justice of the complaints made against the Church in Ireland was the frankness of the admissions of those who persisted in withholding the remedy. One of the most remarkable speeches made in the debate last year, so prematurely and discreditably closed, was that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The hon. Baronet made large admissions —immense admissions. He agreed with him (Mr. Ward) that the neglect of the native language was "the sin of England, and consequently her curse." The hon. Baronet acknowledged that there were gross abuses in Church and State. He gave up Primate Boulter; he thought worse of Primate Stone. He admitted that the King's supremacy had been perverted by almost every Viceroy, up to the Union, for political purposes. With the Cromwellian settlement he said justly that the Church of England had nothing to do, "for it was the triumph of dissent." The Union Bishops he gave up as absolutely indefensible. The only historical point, on which he and the hon. Baronet differed materially was the treaty of Limerick, the guilt of violating which, he said, did not lie with the Church, because Dr. Dopping's doctrine, "that no faith was to be kept with heretics," was repudiated, on the following Sunday, by the Bishop of Meath, and the Doctor's name struck off the list of the Privy Council, a proper punishment for his indiscretion. But if the Parliament practised what Dr. Dopping preached, how were the Catholics the better for it? And it did so. No grosser instance of broken faith was upon record. The Catholics stipulated for all such privileges as the laws of Ireland conceded to them, or as they enjoyed in the days of Charles II., when no oath was required but the oath of allegiance. The Parliament, by a new law, imposed another oath which no Catholic could take without renouncing his religion, and then punished with the Penal Laws all who

551
refused it; and that was what the hon. Baronet defended. But was this the way to reprobate "a scandalous doctrine?" The noble Lord, the Member for Bandon, was equally large in his admissions as to the non-residence of the Clergy, and the not using the revenues of the Church for spiritual purposes, and the entire neglect of the religious instruction of the people. The noble Secretary for Ireland was complimented by the noble Lord upon the able manner in which his (Mr. Ward's) exaggerated statement of the Church revenue had been refuted; but the fact was, that both the noble Lord and himself were completely under the mark, as had been shown that night. But the noble Lord's own statements were not the less valuable, because his compliments were injudicious. There had been built, according to the noble Lord's statement, from the Reformation down to 1726 but 141 glebe-houses in all Ireland. In 1800 only 295; in 1820, 680; being an increase of 473 glebe-houses in twenty years. All this was a complete confirmation of his charges. What was the state of the country for 300 years before these improvements? The hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University consoled himself by saying, that although many arrangements made at the Union continued to interfere with the growing improvement, within the last thirty years the change was quite wonderful. There were hardly any non-resident clergy, and all were more earnest, and regular, in the discharge of their duties, so that they were no longer liable to the charges formerly levelled against them. He was sorry to disturb the comfortable tranquillity of the hon. Baronet's conscience. But it did so happen that he got very curious complaints from Ireland. His desk was a receptacle for Irish Church grievances. He had a placard sent him the other day—the genuineness of which could not be disputed, for it was taken from where it had been stuck up on the walls of Kells—it was the announcement of a sale of " the genuine effects of the late venerable Thomas de Lacy, the Archdeacon of Meath," and among the genuine effects," he found " forty thorough-bred horses, and mares, from three, to seven, years old;" " and also these justly celebrated and well-known sires, Sir Edw. and Sir Hugh. Their reputation as hunters and steeple-chasers were such as
552
to render all comment unnecessary." All these were the genuine effects of the Venerable Archdeacon of Meath. Here they are (continued the hon. Member holding up the placard;) here are all their names and designations duly set forth. Besides the thoroughbreds there were "thirteen capital working horses and five Spanish donkeys, three of them in foal." Besides all these he had the announcement of a sale of hounds in Dublin. There were "thirty couples of beagles, the handsomest and of the best blood in Ireland;" and then there were thirteen pair of greyhounds "well-known in Meath." All these were the property of the same reverend gentleman. Now, he thought that this did not savour very much of an apostolical age. He feared that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, would find that there was yet some small room for improvement. But here he would beg leave to read a letter which he had received from a Catholic clergyman who had sent him over these advertisements, to show the House the feelings which such things could not fail to produce in the minds of the Irish people:—
"Chapel. House, Kells, Ireland, April 18, 1844.
"Respected Sir—Permit me to send you herewith a placard (regarding the late Archdeacon de Lacy's auction), which (placard) has been actually posted up in the public streets of this town, illustrative as it is of the wealth lavished by the State on the unemployed unwanted clergy of a miserable minority of the Irish people. Would I, then, desire for myself, or my Order, a share in the ' State bounty?" So far from it, that I do most solemnly aver that I would prefer the unlimited perpetuation of the present outrageous monopoly of the Protestant Establishment to the contamination, and dependence, that must necessarily result from any connection of the Catholic Church of this Kingdom with the State, such as could possibly obtain the sanction of an English Legislature. Let the Stale, standing as it should, towards the people, 'loco parentis," perform in their regard the functions of a wise and just parent, and conciliate the lasting affections of all by the impartial application to purposes alike useful to all, of those funds, of which the State has at once the dominion, and administration. In a country, such, alas! as Ireland is, there would be no difficulty to discover such purposes; the only difficulty being to select from among many eligible, those, which would be most so. Such is the doctrine, not only of the very obscure and humble writer, but of the entire Irish Catholic Prelates and Priesthood, suc-

553
cessors though they be, and rightful heirs, too, of those who once enjoyed the entire property in question.
"One word more, Sir. The late Archdeacon received from the State compensation for his clerical services fully adequate to the entire receipts of the united Pastors of half this extensive Diocese. Now, I unhesitatingly assert, that obliged as I am, in common with all the Roman Catholic Priests, to sit in a cold damp chapel, without a spark of fire, from ten, to fourteen, hours a-day, during at least eight months of the year, occupied in the solemn, and salutary duty of auricular confession, hearing, and instructing, and consoling, and correcting, the humble penitent, I have thus done more laborious work in one year than the said Archdeacon during his entire life, prolonged as it was.
"Pray, respected Sir, pardon this trespass, and believe me to remain, with unfeigned respect, your very humble servant,
"N. M'EVOY, R. C. Rector.
He could not deny that these sentiments were perfectly natural. When the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) argued that the Church in Ireland was not a grievance, and talked to him of the apostolical age, he (Mr. Ward) must take the liberty of telling him, that so long as the clergymen of the immense majority of the Irish people could point to this scandalous anomaly in legislation, which left him to discharge his sacred duties neglected— distrusted—and vilified by a party press, yet risking his life, whenever fever visited his neighbourhood, at the bedside of his humblest parishioner, and passing his days in a chapel unlighted, unwarmed, and too often not half protected from the wind and weather—while he saw the whole provision made by his ancestors for the faith, to which he himself belonged, lavished by the State upon some member of a sinecure Church, who squandered it in the very wantonness of earthly luxury, it was in vain to think of reconciling the people of Ireland to such a system, or of convincing them that there was any legal, or moral obligation, that compelled them to submit to it. He was quite ready to admit that Archdeacon Lacy was an extremely kind, hospitable, liberal-minded man, and very much liked in his neighbourhood. It was of the system he complained, and not of the individual, whom nature intended for a fox-hunting squire, and whom our policy converted into a bad Archdeacon. But was this the system which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government wished
554
to see perpetuated in Ireland? He thought not, from the tone of his speech on the Dissenters' Chapels Bill—a wise and useful measure, a measure most honourable to the Government—one, to which he gave his cordial support, and which he did not support by his voice, as well as vote only, because from the superfluity of arguments on one side, it was wholly unnecessary. But the right hon. Baronet could not have forgotten his speech on the blessings of religious harmony at Tam-worth. He had drawn the picture of "a happy family" there. An Unitarian chapel in one corner of the cage, and a Roman Catholic in another, with the Established Church, according to the caricature of H. B., as the cat in the middle, keeping the peace between them. The right hon. Baronet should recollect, however, that he was not only the Representative of Tarn-worth, but the Queen's first Minister. Was Tamworth to be the rule, and Ireland the exception? Why not make his Tamworth principles co-extensive with the empire. [Sir R. Peel: "hear, hear."] He understood that cheer. The Established Church met with no opposition from the other religious sects in Tamworth. Why? Because it was the Church of the majority; but let him reverse the rule, and give the funds now properly appropriated to the use of the majority, to the Unitarian, or Catholic Chapel, and Ireland in miniature would be at his park gates within a fortnight. But we were told that there was a bar to any adjustment of this question by the act of Union, and the measure of 1829. He utterly denied the accuracy of such a statement. In 1829 the Catholics were never consulted. It was thought beneath the dignity of the English Government to do so, and the oath and the Act were both framed without their concurrence in any way whatever. If there was any compact at all, it was between the Tory party in this country favourable to Emancipation, and that section which was opposed to it. Such an arrangement could impose no such thing as a national obligation. As to the case of the Union, principally relied on by the Secretary for Ireland, it was infinitely stronger, for not only was there no compact against concession, but a distinct understanding—a distinct compact, he might say—that concession would follow. Every assurance that could bind

555
an honourable mind was given by Mr. Pitt to the Catholics, that, if they consented to the amalgamation of the two Parliaments, the first step of the United Senate would be to grant Emancipation. That Mr. Pitt was sincere, he proved by his resignation, when he was prevented from fulfilling this engagement. He meant the Union to be what it never was, not merely an incorporation of the two Parliaments, but an amalgamation of the two people; a virtual rescinding of the Act of Settlement, by the reconciliation of the House of Hanover with its Catholic subjects. Emancipation and the payment of the Catholic clergy were promised by Lord Cornwallis, and whoever looked at the Union debates would see that it was the general belief that both these concessions might be made safely. In the Address of the English House of Commons it was said that the Union was to be "complete and entire," and to be founded on "equal and liberal principles;" while Lord Grenville, speaking in the House of Lords on the part of the Government, distinctly held out Catholic Emancipation as one of the first, and most beneficial, consequences. "A free admission of the Catholics into the Irish Parliament," he said, " might lead to the subversion of the Constitution. They were too numerous—too powerful. They must be the preponderating influence, if they had any influence at all. But in the Imperial Legislature there could be no fear of any such preponderance. They would merge in the general mass of English and Irish Protestantism. In no other way could the animosities of these rival parties be allayed, or Ireland restored to perfect tranquillity." Lord Minto went farther. He rested, emphatically, the whole case of the Union upon the Emancipation of the Catholics. He assumed that it was only by an united Parliament that they could ever be restored to their political rights, or that laws could be framed for all classes of the King's subjects, in a spirit of equal justice and impartiality. He recommended, therefore, the introduction of an explicit Article into the Act of Union, recognising the claims of the Irish Catholics, and providing for them effectually; and when forced to withdraw this proposal, he used these remarkable words, "If any political peculiarities of the present time should render it impracticable to engross these whole-
556
some provisions in the written treaty itself, he would rather repress his wishes for the immediate accomplishment of this most desirable end, than expose this great transaction to needless and unprofitable hazard by unreasonable pertinacity and impatience, and would be content to leave it to the mature deliberation and impartial judgment of the Imperial Legislature." These declarations were either sincere, or the most atrocious instance of political duplicity that ever disgraced a national compact. He, however, believed them to have been sincere, and that the" peculiarity of the times" was George III.'s madness, which induced his Majesty to part with Mr. Pitt rather than allow him to fulfil his engagements! And what was Mr. Pitt's conduct? He authorized the Marquess of Cornwallis, in 1801, to communicate to the Catholic Bishops the fact, that the Ministers had quitted His Majesty's service, "finding insurmountable obstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body; but that they might with confidence rely on the support of all those who retired, and of many who remained in office when it could be given with a prospect of success. Mr. Pitt could not concur in a hopeless attempt to force on then, the consideration of the question, but he had retired from His Majesty's service, considering this line of conduct as most likely to contribute to its ultimate success." Yet there were men, up to the present day, who went to dine at Pitt Clubs, and prostitute the name of Pitt by coupling it with Protestant Ascendancy. Lord Feversham, the other day, boasted of his steady adherence to Mr. Pitt's principles, yet gave "Protestant Ascendancy" from the chair, and proclaimed "the legislative independence of Ireland to be indissoluble, while we adhered to that great fundamental principle to which we owed all the blessings enjoyed by the country." Mr. Pitt, at all events, thought there was a greater, and a better, principle—" religious equality." He looked to that, when he spoke of that "vision of peace, and conciliation, which Providence did not permit him to realise. He most firmly believed that nothing else could arrest that torrent of evil passions which had desolated Ireland;" and he said distinctly, in one of his replies to Mr. Sheridan, " I see the case so plainly,'' and I feel it so strongly, that no apparent or probable

557
difficulty, no fear of failure, no apprehension of loss of popularity, shall deter me from making every exertion to accomplish the great work, on which, I am persuaded, depend the internal tranquillity of Ireland, the general interest of the British Empire, and, perhaps, the happiness of a great part of the habitable world." "As to the Church Temporalities, it was notorious that the Fifth Article of the Act of Union, as first drawn, contained the words, 'Saving to the church of Ireland all the rights, privileges, and jurisdictions thereunto belonging;' and that these were altered into ' Doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,'" as they now stood, for reasons stated by Mr. Pitt himself, in his speech on the 21st of April, 1800, when he said,
"In the Union of a great nation with a less, we must feel that we ought not to be influenced by any selfish policy; that we ought not to be actuated by any narrow views of any partial advantage. We must refute by our own conduct the idea that we have any other object in view than that of promoting the mutual advantage of both kingdoms. We must show that we wish to make the Empire more powerful—and more secure, by making Ireland more free and more happy. These, Sir, are the views,—these are the only views,— with which I could ever have proposed this measure; and it is with these views alone that it can be rendered effectual to its object, and establish mutual harmony, and confidence between the two nations.' Upon the article relating to the continuance of the Church of Ireland, and of England, and of Scotland, he observed, ' I shall only say this upon so interesting a subject, that the prosperity of the Church of Ireland never can be permanent, unless it be a part of the Union to leave, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some provision in this respect as a fence, beyond any act of their own that can now be agreed upon. It may be proper to leave to Parliament an opportunity of considering what may be fit to be done for His Majesty's Catholic subjects, without seeking, at present, any rule to govern the Protestant establishment, or making any provision upon that subject."
But supposing that he (Mr. Ward) was entirely wrong in his argument respecting the Union,—that Mr. Pitt had never contemplated Emancipation, or the payment of the Catholic Clergy,—that Lord Cornwallis had given no assurances, and contracted no moral obligations, on the part of the Government,—still the present difficulty would remain the same, and he must now ask the right hon. Baronet how he
558
meant to deal with it? The Church was the last remnant of the old system, and the right hon. Baronet clearly foresaw, many years ago, that the question could not be dissevered from Catholic Emancipation. He emancipated the Catholics with this full conviction. He said, that if they "had the passions and feelings of men, they would use their political power to remonstrate against it;"—" that natural right, and historical precedent were with them?" and that the Union with Scotland would never have been completed, but for the concession of equality in religion." How, then, did he now mean to deal with this difficulty? He was too clear-sighted, and too right-minded to be sitting there as a mere puppet, leaving agents to decide whether Ireland should be governed by law, or held by military occupation? Did he mean to give up all hope of conciliating and to fall back on the " No Popery" cry? He had a host of voluntary advisers, of whose counsels he was, perhaps, in happy ignorance, but with which he (Mr. Ward) was more familiar, because he was curious in such matters. There was a Rev. Gentleman often alluded to in that House, and on whom the Secretary for the Colonies had pronounced a glowing eulogium—he meant Mr. N'Neill. He was not now quite so important a person as he was four or five years ago, before the present Government came into power; but he was still a man of considerable local influence, and he exercised it largely in behalf of the two Conservative Members for Liverpool. Well! he found that the Rev. Hugh M'Neill, had been addressing the Liverpool Protestant Operative Association, so late as December 1843, and on this question which was headed, "Some instruction in Scriptural politics, or in other words in practical Christianity," he said,
"The Christian duty in this country has been grievously neglected; nay more, the principles on which it rests have been grossly and extensively violated; so extensively, that every estate in the realm, except the Crown, has lost its Christian character. Hence our troubles, hence our divisions, hence our dangers. I entertain as unfeigned a repugnance to penal statutes as any Liberal politician in the kingdom; but I confess that I am compelled to come to the conclusion that the British Constitution must be destroyed, unless some political disabilities be again imposed upon the Roman Catholics. The grand point is, an encouraged and protected Christ-

559
ian mission! Without this, with its appropriate results, there can be no permanent peace between the two countries."
That was one of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would act upon this advice. Then came another luminary, who wrote a work entitled: "Ireland: its Ecclesiastical estate considered with reference to its political troubles," "By one of the Priesthood." This gentleman whose name is Glover, describes himself as "long a resident in Ireland, and one who, after years of thought upon the subject, believes that the remedy proposed—not here to take higher ground—will not only answer the end designed, but it will, in truth, make all the theories which have been started by others for the amendment of the condition of Ireland, and the improvement of the relationship existing between it and other portions of the Empire, as practical, and practicable, as they are under existing circumstances, vain in the present and illusory in prospect." Mr. Glover then proves "that the agitation in Ireland, though political in its manifestations, has its root in religion." That the key to it is Episcopal rule. That all our difficulties may be traced to the fact, that there is now a two fold Episcopal rule; "one, the Catholic national witness for Christ, the other, the un-Catholic, anti-national witness for Rome;" and that until men can be brought to one mind on the subject of religion, " Ireland must still be a disgrace to itself, to England, to Christianity, to the world." "There are," he says, " two millions on one side, seven millions on the other. This is the great problem. How is it to be solved? By striving to make the seven millions as are the two millions; in other words, to render Ireland rightly religious and loyally contented; to make it, as it ought to, and we trust yet will be, the ornament— instead of the shame—of Christianity." Mr. Glover then affirms that the Catholic Church is a huge phantom, based upon popular credulity and priestly imposture; that it dates only from the 17th century; that the Protestant Clergy, or "priesthood of the national way," are the sole possessors of the due and unbroken order of Episcopal succession, and consequently "the true representatives of the Apostles, of the ancient bishops of Ireland in general, and since that is a point to be insisted upon, of St. Patrick in particular;" and
560
he calls upon the Government to undeceive "the poor dupes of a false and unreal priesthood, authoritatively," by a Royal Proclamation to be published in English, Irish, and Latin, declaring the new religion against which they have been taught to rail, to be in very truth the old faith, not the less old or pure, because preached in the English language. There is hope, it seems, great hope, if the Government will only do its duty in Ireland, by telling the people which is the true Priesthood, for the " Irish Papist is not the same irrational being the English Dissenter is;—"he who chooses his own God, by exercise of his mere will, may, consistently enough, it must be admitted, ordain his own Priest. The Irish believe in a priesthood; in one priesthood, and not in any other, or in the efficacy of the ministrations of any other. They hold a right principle, however wrongly they apply it; for the men whom now they follow, they follow as, and because they think they are, the priesthood of God. Show them that they are not, prove to them that they are not, convince them that they are not—that they are, on the contrary, mocking them, cheating them, robbing them, — robbing them of their money, but, more than all, of their spiritual rights and rites, and the same men who now cling to them with cringing veneration, will be the first to incline to serve them as the Israelites did the priests of Baal." Yet Mr. Glover, a little ashamed, I hope, of this uncharitable suggestion adds—
"The reader is requested to believe, that he who writes this, loves or desires to love, all men; he pities Dissenters, whether Papal or Protestant, equally; and while he deplores their position, trembling for their deceivers who make gain to their bodies out of the souls of their dupes, he grieves over their error."
And as a proof of this, he purposes to open Maynooth College as a sort of Refugium peccatorum, to the dispossessed Catholic clergy.
"Morally speaking, they are utterly unworthy of all consideration;—but we spare them. And to show them how heartily even we feel towards them as men and fellow-citizens, notwithstanding the evil they have done and yet are doing us, we would smooth the way for them by which honourably to enter the priesthood; that is, by shewing them by reference to the case of the priesthood in 1549, the possibility of honourably conforming, and by promising ordination to such as

561
shall desire it; that so they might, by future good conduct as priests in holy church, make amends to man, while they atone, as best they may to God, for the evils that His church and His people, in the days of their ignorance, have suffered through their misguidance."
Sir, I doubt whether the plan of Mr. Glover will appear more practicable to Her Majesty's Ministers, than that of Mr. M'Neill. I doubt, whether the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, will put the slightest faith in the conversion of Ireland by a Royal Proclamation in three languages with his name at the bottom; and I, therefore, again ask the First Lord of the Treasury which he means to do? Will he adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and put by law, a more stringent interpretation upon the Catholic Oath? Will he deny to Catholics the right of supporting reforms in the Protestant Church in Ireland, even when proposed and recommended by Protestants? Does he mean to fall back on the Catholic Declarations of 1757, and 1792? Can he forget that they were conditional, and that the conditions on our part, were never granted; In 1757, the Catholic Petition was absolutely scouted; and in 1792, Lord Westmoreland refused to receive the Petition from court, because it expressed a hope that some further relaxation of the penal laws would be conceded, though in the very next year he was compelled by the advice of Mr. Pitt to carry a much larger measure of relief, which the world attributed to the Victories of Dumourier? Did the right hon. Baronet mean then, to adopt the suggestions of Mr. Montgomery Martin—[Sir R. Peel: I don't know what they are."]—a man, by the way, who came over to London to set up a Repeal Newspaper, with a subscription from Mr. O'Connell in his pocket, but who now proposed to punish with banishment and the confiscation of his property every man who avowed himself a Repealer? Or lastly, did the Government rely upon the issue of the State Trials, for the tranquillization of Ireland? Was it satisfied that it had secured peace by its momentary triumph over the "convicted conspirators?" There could not be a more unsafe prop to lean upon. Sir, I have watched closely the state of feeling in Ireland since Mr. O'Connell's confinement, and I see nothing but a deep, sullen, dogged feeling of dislike to England, and distrust of her justice. There is a general belief that if Mr. O'Connell were
562
an Englishman, and had been tried in England, he would have been acquitted: That he is in prison, because he is an Irishman, and was tried in Dublin, I see no signs of discouragement or despondency on the part of the Repealers;—no disposition to ask unworthy favours of the Crown, even in order to obtain the release of a man, whom in spite of some faults— and I do not believe that he has greater faults than any other man would have had, who had taken an equally prominent part in so long apolitical struggle—History will rank as perhaps the most eminent man of his age and country. Sir, such feelings as these, awaken deep resentments and strong sympathies. I have no fear of any immediate outbreak—there will be no violence—no disturbances. The Irish bide their time, but let there be a war in Europe, and unless their present feelings can he changed, the struggle will be not for Repeal, but for Separation! Well, Sir, the sympathies of Ireland are not with us. Are those of Europe? No! Ireland is our Poland, and what we feel for the Poles is felt for the Irish upon the Continent. Look to every organ of public opinion, not merely in Catholic Belgium, or Catholic France, but in Protestant Prussia, or Switzerland, or Saxony, and you will find that those most inclined to wish us well, are most earnest in urging upon us a total change in our Irish policy. The wisest essay on Irish affairs that I ever read was one published lately in the Bibliotbèque Universelle de Génève; and it pronounces the position of England, as regards our Catholic subjects, to be absolutely untenable. In Prussia there is the work of Venedey exciting an absolute horror of our Irish policy. No wonder. They cannot understand our miserable inconsistencies—our broad principles—our pusillanimous practice. They see us enacting ignorance for half a century in the name of a Reformation whose boast it is to have substituted rational conviction for blind belief, in religious matters;—robbing the conquered Catholics by ex post facto laws, of rights, which every German has enjoyed since the Peace of Westphalia? What was the Peace of Westphalia? Why is it never named except with reverence and affection by any German writer? Its territorial arrangements have been scattered to the winds by the decay of old powers and the rise of new, but no time can rob Germany of its one great

563
boon—religious peace founded upon religious equality as citizens. How can they sympathise with England in its exclusive policy, or in supporting exclusion by a code so cruel, that Judge Jebb remarked of it, "you might track Ireland through the Statute-Book like a wounded man through a crowd—by blood!" They see us, at once profuse and niggardly, voting 800,000 l. a-year for the emancipated blacks, and haggling here about an annual vote of 8,000 l. a-year for the Clergy of seven millions of emancipated Catholics. Risking peace—strength—respect abroad —tranquillity at home—the integrity—aye, the very existence of the Empire—rather than do that which the right hon. Baronet himself twenty-seven years ago, pronounced to be inevitable? How can they respect principles of action at once so puerile, and so iniquitous? The King of Prussia lays the first stone of the Catholic Cathedral at Cologne, amidst the acclamations of his Protestant subjects. The Queen of England cannot admit a distinguished Catholic to her Councils, without Liverpool and Exeter Hall, denouncing her as a Jezabel. I call upon the House to put a stop to these anomalies, as discreditable as they are dangerous. I pledge no man by this vote to a specific plan. I ask simply a pledge that the question of the Irish Church shall at last receive from the Commons of England, in all its bearings upon Irish rights, Irish wrongs, and Irish liberty, a calm and dispassionate investigation. It is the root of Irish discontent—let it become the cradle of Irish tranquillity, the pledge of a reconciliation, which can no longer be deferred without the utmost peril to our existence as an Empire. Sir, we may depend upon it, Ireland will have her rights, but it is still within our power to say whether she shall derive them from our justice, or from our humiliation.—I say, let justice concede what no power can permanently withhold. There is but one way to avert Repeal, and that is, to consummate in time the great act of religious and national emancipation.
Lord Eliothad stated on a former occasion his reasons for resisting such a Motion as the present; but he considered it his duty to make some remarks on the speech of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman's speech was not so explicit as that which he made last Session. He only asked
564
for a Committee, which could lead to no practical results. The hon. Gentleman's whole argument amounted to this, the Protestants bore a small proportion to the population, therefore the Temporalities of the Church should be taken from them. He admitted his premises; he denied his conclusions. He contended it was not a mere question of numbers. No one who had listened to the eloquent and admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh upon the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, could have forgotten the exposition which he gave of the importance of prescription. No one who heard it could avoid believing that prescription was of the weight which he attributed to it. It was a principle recognized by the laws of ancient Greece and Rome, and by those of all the most ancient states of the East, as well as by the jurisprudence of modern Europe, and every one must be satisfied this was a principle which ought not to be lightly treated; but with reference to this subject they had other grounds to go upon independently of prescription—they had in support of the Church Establishment the sanction of the Legislature. The hon. Member referred to the Act of Union, and to the Act of 1829; but in his reference to the Act of Union he omitted to refer to the 4th article of the Treaty of Union, in which there was a special provision made for the presence of four Irish Spiritual Peers in the Imperial Parliament. That article of the Treaty which the hon. Member omitted to allude to was of great importance, as showing the light in which the Protestant Church of Ireland was then looked upon. He had also stated that Mr. Pitt had altered certain words in the Act of Union as it was sent from Ireland—that Mr. Pitt had substituted for the words jurisdiction and privileges, which were the original words, the words Government and discipline; but when the hon. Member stated that, he did not succeed in showing that Mr. Pitt entertained any intention of interfering with the Church Establishment. It would be impossible to infer from that substitution of words that there was any intention to interfere with the Established Church in Ireland; and if any argument were required to show that, he might mention that in reference to the Church of Scotland, on a former occasion, the words doctrine and discipline of the Church of Scotland were used, and no one ever said that there was reserved any disposition to alienate the revenues of the

565
Church of Scotland and appropriate them to the Episcopalian Church, or that such an alienation and appropriation would not be a breach of the Act of Union. In order to indicate the view which was taken of the subject of alienating Church property in Ireland at a former period, he should advert shortly to a speech which he had happened to read on that day, which had relation to the subject. In 1811, June 11, Mr. Parnell, in bringing forward his Motion on the subject of Irish tithes, said:—
"It may, I know, be said, that if the concession which is now sought for is given, the people will not rest satisfied, but go still further, and further, and further, till they have destroyed the Established Church; but if this argument shall be made use of on this occasion, I should be inclined to reply that the Protestant Church of Ireland is fully secured from all such attempts by the Act of Union, not merely by the letter of it, which declares it to be one and the same as the Church of England, but by the very nature and essence of it. This measure was proposed by Mr. Pitt for the avowed purpose of obtaining two great objects, the first the advancement of the power and the security of Great Britain by a union of the two Legislatures; the second, the remedy of the defects of the internal system of Ireland. These defects were, on the one hand, an Establishment of Church and State for the exclusive benefit of one-tenth of the people; and on the other, a people deprived of their constitutional rights through fear of the concession of them being detrimental to the Establishment. To remedy these defects, Mr. Pitt proposed the Union, by which the Establishment was to derive the security by consolidation with the Protestant Establishment of England; and the people were to be placed in a condition which would enable the Legislature to concede to them their constitutional rights, and redress of the grievance of tithes."
That was the opinion of Mr. Parnell; that showed the opinion which he held with respect to the objects that Mr. Pitt had in view, and he concurred in that opinion. Indeed he could not remember to have read in all the debates on the Union any indication of an intention either of the Government or of any party in Ireland, to destroy or weaken the Protestant Church in Ireland. The Legislature of Ireland was, at that time, exclusively Protestant, and he was satisfied that no attempt would have been successful in carrying the Union into effect, unless the Legislature were firmly persuaded that the Protestant Church would not be interfered with—unless an assurance had been given that the Church Establish-
566
ment in Ireland would not be touched, the Legislature would not have been at all likely to agree to that measure. With regard to the Act of 1829, there could be no doubt that it was either understood or implied that the Protestant Church of Ireland was not to be touched—that it was not to be weakened or overthrown. It might, indeed, be said, that the Catholics of Ireland had made no such compact, as a condition of the Act of 1829. If there had been no such compact made by the Catholics, he would ask, were not the opinions which had been expressed by the most eminent of the Catholic hierarchy to be admitted as possessing any weight? Was not the testimony of the Catholic Peers and of the Catholic hierarchy before the Committee of 1825 deserving of the greatest weight and attention. Those individuals did not entertain any idea of touching the Protestant Church Establishment; they all, lay and clerical, concurred on that point. All the Liberal Members of that House were of the same opinion; and their concurrence, he might say their unanimity of opinion was relied on by the Parliament and the people of this country, when they agreed to the Act of 1829. He was satisfied that all the exertions which were made in favour of the Catholics would have been unsuccessful, if it had not been for the feeling which such an unanimous opinion produced, that the Irish Protestant Church Establishment should not be interfered with. When the hon. Member for Sheffield introduced this subject on a former occasion, he had, in reply to it, quoted the speeches of several Gentlemen, in order to shew the opinions formerly held with respect to the Established Church in Ireland; and as he had then gone at such length into that portion of the subject, he should not now again refer to those speeches; but there were two important speeches to which he had not directed attention on the last occasion when this question was discussed, and which he should now advert to as shortly as possible. The first of these was the speech of Grattan on March 4th, 1823, on Mr. Hume's Motion with respect to the Irish Church. Mr. Grattan then said—
"Inquiry was certainly necessary; he should, therefore, support the Resolutions, without agreeing in all the doctrines advanced by the hon. Mover, He should never support any principles of spoliation; but he was of opinion, that the officers of the Church in Ireland, and its revenues, ought to be regulated. By the present system, Ireland had been made a Catholic country; for there were not now

567
more than 400,000 or 500,000 Protestants in Ireland."
In 1824, May 6, also upon Mr. Hume's Motion on the same subject, Mr. Plunkett said—
"The hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Motion had consumed the greater part of the time which he had felt it proper to devote to its support, not in the discussion of the merits of the Protestant Church of Ireland or her clergy, but of those of the Roman Catholic priesthood; and really when the hon. Gentleman coupled the expression of his approbation of that priesthood with the exposition of his plan for pulling down the revenue of the Protestant Church in that country, and of transferring and delivering it into the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy (for such was the scope of the proposition), the House would give him leave to say that he deprecated the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of their cause more than he should lament his hostility to it. For himself he had ever been, and to the last hour of his life should continue to be unalterably the advocate of his Roman Catholic brethren; but in doing so, he would ever respect established rights and recognised institutions, and while he vindicated the claims of the Catholics, he should carefully abstain from offering any wrong to the Protestant Clergy—any encroachments on their property—any aggression on their sacred functions. … The hon. Gentleman evidently thought that Parliament were at liberty to deal with the property of the Church exactly in the same way as if it were a tax on any other property of the State, and this opinion he grounded upon a supposition of public necessity. Now, that the property of the Church might not be interfered with, as well as the property of the State, in a case of public necessity he would not assert. But be it observed, that upon the same principle, the private property of every man in the kingdom was equally liable. He knew very well that both the property of the Church, and the properly of individuals must yield to the exigencies of the State—to those the property of the hon. Gentleman himself, as well as of every other Member who heard him, must give way; but he would maintain the property of the Church was as sacred as any other."†
These were the opinions of Mr. Plunkett, subsequently Chancellor of Ireland and Lord Plunkett, and they fully bore out the view which he (Lord Eliot) took of the intentions of those who advocated the claims of the Catholics at that period; and having referred to those speeches, he was sure it was scarcely necessary to quote Mr. Canning's speech on the same subject which had been already frequently quoted; neither
* See Hansard, vol. viii. (New Series) p. 409.
† Ibid vol. xi. p. 570, 571.
568
was it necessary for him to refer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) to bear him out in saying that Mr. Canning would not have consented to such a measure as Catholic Emancipation if he were not sure that it would not interfere with the property of the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland. If there could be any doubts as to the view which had been taken of the subject previously to the Act of 1829, the speeches which he had alluded to would show them; but there was still another speech to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, namely, the speech of Lord Althorp, when an Amendment was made upon his Motion to give an additional Member to the Dublin University. In speaking upon that Amendment, Lord Althorp said;—
"He did not think that Government could fairly be accused of keeping up the exclusive system in Ireland, by conceding an additional representative to the University of Dublin. He would fairly and candidly confess that he thought that a member should be given to the University, on the ground that it was an exclusively Protestant body, because although it might be very well not to have an exclusively Protestant representation for Ireland, it would be the height of injustice not to guard against the preponderance of an interest at variance with that of this Established Church. He hoped that hon. Members would give their support to the Government in the event of a division, for he thought it very essential to the success of the Bill, that no alteration should be made in it which might have a tendency to injure the establishments of the country."*
That was the language of Lord Althorp, in 1832, only three years after the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act; and from that speech it was quite evident that the noble Lord and his Colleagues could not, with such views, agree to any transfer of the property of the Protestant Church to the Roman Catholics. The hon. Member for Sheffield had during his speech frequently referred to the byegone history of the maladministration of the Government of Ireland, and the appointment of offices in the Church of Ireland of men who, if they were not a disgrace to that Church, had not duly and efficiently discharged their duty. It appeared to him that the objections which the hon. Member made did not cast blame so much upon the system which had been in existence, as upon those by whom the system had been administered. In fact the hon. Member had himself admitted that at the
* Hansard, Vol. xiii, (third series) p. 607.

569
present day no such complaints existed as those to which he had directed attention as having existed in former days, and that the members of the Church in the present day were an excellent body of men, and very different from those to whom he bad alluded. The hon. Member dwelt at some length upon the case of Archdeacon de Lacy, but he did not think that it was an example of the conduct of the class to which that gentleman belonged. It appeared, however, that Archdeacon de Lacey was a very charitable and beneficent man, although somewhat eccentric in his character; and, in addition to his income from the Church, he had considerable private property. It was true, indeed, he had a larger stock of horses and other animals than clergymen usually possessed; but he had also a large private property, and was a very charitable man to all the poor around him, spending, in fact, a great portion of his income in acts of charity. The hon. Member had misunderstood what he had said on a former occasion with respect to the feeling which Roman Catholics might entertain on the subject of the Act of Settlement guaranteeing that a Protestant Sovereign should occupy the Throne of this country. What he said was, that the Protestant character of the State made it an essential consequence, that so long as the Act of Settlement was in existence, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Regent of the Kingdom, and the guardian of the person of the Sovereign, should be of the Protestant faith; and so long as the Act of Settlement was in existence, that distinction between Catholics and Protestants in that respect must exist; so that if the Roman Catholics believed that the Protestant Church of Ireland was a badge of inferiority, they must also look upon the Act of Settlement as a badge of inferiority. That was all he had said on a former occasion, and he still maintained that the character of the Constitution of this country was essentially Protestant; but although the Act of Settlement might he said to make that distinction, yet he did not suppose that any hon. Member would come forward and propose to repeal the Act of Settlement. There was one view in which the residence of the Protestant clergymen in Ireland must be looked upon as very advantageous. Absenteeism had been very much complained of in Ireland, and under those circumstances the residence of a body of men, eminent as the clergymen of the Church Establishment were for piety, and virtue, and charity to their
570
poorer neighbours, must he looked upon as calculated to do a great deal of good. That charity which the property of the Protestant Church of Ireland allowed them to dispense, was of very great advantage to those around them in want of such assistance, and there were none who received more benefit from it than their poor Roman Catholic neighbours. With regard to the disposition of the property of the Church Establishment in Ireland, the Roman Catholics, and particularly the Roman Catholic clergy, repudiated the idea of their Church obtaining any benefit from the revenues of the Protestant Church Establishment; so that it appeared to him they were desirous merely to take it away from its present purposes, and not to apply it to their own. [Mr. M. O'Connell: And apply it to secular purposes.] So much benefit had been conferred by the residence of clergymen of the Church of England, that he knew instances where regret was expressed by Roman Catholics at the abolition of dignities of the Church Establishment in consequence of the habit of the resident clergy of dispensing hospitality and charity amongst the poor in their neighbourhood. With regard to the proposition of a State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, whatever might he the opinions as to that, it was not now the time to go into the subject. However he might think that this country as a Protestant State could not establish the Roman Catholic faith as an integral portion of the State, yet he was favourable to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy; but it was impossible to entertain that question now, as the Roman Catholics, and particularly the clergy, had absolutely stated that they were opposed to any such endowment. Whether they looked to the rights of the Church Establishment being held now so long—whether they looked upon it as sanctioned by the Legislature—it was evident that many assurances had been given to this country, that in the event of Parliament consenting to Catholic Emancipation, there would be no attempt to interfere with the Church Establishment; and whether they looked at it with regard to public expediency, and to the advantage of having men of education and virtue living in the most remote and secluded districts of Ireland, or to vested rights and to prescription, they would find that to alienate any portion of the revenues of the Protestant Church Establishment, and to apply it to any other than Church purposes, would be

571
unjust and inexpedient. He (Lord Eliot) saw no reason why he should agree to the Motion. If discussion were the object of the hon. Member, he had attained it by bringing the question before the House. It was a proposal which would encourage expectations that Parliament he trusted would not bear out, and he called on the House to express its opinion on the Motion by rejecting the proposition by a large majority.
Mr. Rosscould not believe the Protestant Church could suffer from any alteration with respect to its temporalities in Ireland. He was of opinion that it was indicating a very poor opinion of the Reformed Church, and of her principles, to suppose that she could be injured by any such change. He was a Protestant; he was as much a Protestant as any man in the House who heard him, as far as protesting against what he conceived to be the errors of the great majority of his fellow-countrymen; but he did not hold that his faith depended on the endowments of the Church, and he believed that if all her endowments were swept away, it would not affect the faith or spiritual condition of the Church, for he did not see any necessary connection between her emoluments and her doctrines. It was said that the question of the Church Establishment was one which did not affect the pockets of the Irish people, for the landlords paid the whole amount; hut he did not agree in that statement, for pressure must necessarily come upon the tenants. It had been also said, that the property of the landlords who were of the Protestant Church contributed principally to the support of the Church; and that therefore it could not be a grievance on the Catholics; but that was not the fact, for the Protestant landlords could not make any more special claim than the Catholics to the property which had been granted to the Church. If it were true that the property was possessed by the Church distinctly, what then became of the statement that the Protestant landlords supported the Church, and not the Catholic tenants. But he was prepared to maintain that if the pockets of the people were not at all affected, there were other objections to the present position of the Church Establishment. One objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield was, that it had been canvassed again and again, and it had also been said that he had not proposed anything specific by his Motion. Now, to that he would answer, that it
572
appeared to him a more suitable course for the hon. Member to bring forward the Motion, and leave the Government to propose anything specific which they thought proper, with a view to provide a remedy for the existing state of things. There was one great original error in relation to this subject to which he traced all the misfortunes of Ireland—it was an attempt to force upon the people of Ireland a faith which they did not entertain. It had indeed been said by a noble Lord, that the Irish clergy accepted the Reformation; but without arguing that question, he would say, that whether they accepted it or not was of little consequence, so long as the people did not accept it; for the clergy were no more the church than the servants were a family, and the people of Ireland had always stood firm in supporting their own opinions. Governments should always remember, that the less Caesar meddled with the things belonging to God the better. It was high time for the House to turn its serious attention to this subject. It was true that the Irish people would, there was every reason to hope, attend implicitly to the directions they had received to remain tranquil, and abstain from tumult; but the British Legislature would do well not much longer to strain the patience of that people, or they might have reason, when too late, to regret, deeply regret, that they had not attended to the advice given them by the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Shawsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Ross) had concluded by expressing a hope that did not seem likely to be realised—at all events, during that debate—namely, that the House would devote their attention to the subject of the Church in Ireland. There was evidently a weariness and inattention pervading both sides of the House, prob. ably arising out of the same subject having been so frequently discussed, and the certainty of the rejection of the hon. Member's Motion; but still be would entreat their indulgence for a short time, and he would confine himself principally to facts. The hon. Member for Sheffield had on that night, as on former occasions, led the attack upon the Irish branch of the Established Church. He as the representative of a constituency containing a large portion of the Irish Clergy, did not hesitate, and did not fear to enter the lists with the hon. Gentleman; confident,

573
however, only in the truth and justice of the cause of which he ventured to come forward as the humble defender. The tactics of the hon. Gentleman and the other assailants of the Church had been considerably altered in the last and the present Session, and he was glad of it—
"The open foe might prove a curse,
But the pretended friend was worse."
The former professions of regard for the Church's welfare were now laid aside. The mask of friendship was removed. It was no longer a question of degree—a consideration of "the more or the less"—they heard no more of Surplus or Appropriation Clauses. The Reform that had been avowed was boldly put forward as the destruction that had been intended. Things were called by their right names— and the issue tendered to the House and to the country was the simple alternative whether, after a possession of 300 years, the Protestant Church in Ireland was to be subverted, and her property confiscated?—or whether, in the fourth century after the Reformation, the Imperial Parliament was to sever the Reformed Religion from all connexion with the state in Ireland, and to establish the Roman Catholic Church in its stead? The hon. Gentleman had promised to be, and he had been, very plain and candid. The hon. Gentleman had last Session, as that night, advised him not to haggle for terms, or that he would not get so good again. He would be as plain and candid in return, and tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not desire to see the Church a haggler for any terms, but that she should take her stand upon the high ground of truth and right. So far as he might be considered on that occasion as her humble representative, he would not treat with the hon. Member for Sheffield as a negotiator in her behalf. He had heard the hon. Gentleman's terms, and in the name of the Church in Ireland he utterly and indignantly rejected them. He would not follow the hon. Gentleman through his long and elaborate and carefully got up history of the Irish Church from the Reformation to the period when the hon. Gentleman himself was constrained to admit the whole character and conduct of that body had been altered. At the time to which the hon. Gentleman had directed his observations there were, perhaps, no Churches in Christendom—and certainly the Church
574
in England was not one of them—which would not exhibit some circumstances, or the conduct of some of their individual Members which, if raked up for the purpose, would reflect discredit upon the religion they professed. That part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman he considered to furnish the best answer to itself; for if the misconduct and the worldly-mindedness of the heads of the Church were then such as the hon. Gentleman had described, that would sufficiently account for what he had designated its failure in Ireland—without attributing it to the grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman had so anxiously laboured to place it —and he was willing to admit that it was chiefly owing to the mal-administration, mismanagement, and neglect of the Irish Church after the Reformation that what he believed to be the purer and truer faith of the Reformed Church had not won more converts from the Roman Catholic body. The hon. Gentleman said that he had last year questioned the facts of his history—the House having been counted out, he had but little opportunity of doing so—and there was only one remarkable instance in which he recollected he had asked the special leave of the House to allow him to contradict one of the historical facts stated by the hon. Gentleman, viz.—that up to that time no Prayer-book of the Church of England had been printed in the Irish language—whereas, the fact was as he then stated, that in the year 1571 a fount of Irish types having been for the first time introducted into Ireland, by Walsh (Chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and afterwards Bishop of Ossory), who
"Obtained from the Government an order that the Prayers of the Church should be printed in that character and language—and a Church set apart in the shire-town of every diocese where they should be read,"
The Prayer-book was the first book ever printed in Irish—as appeared in Mant's History of the Church of Ireland, vol. 1, p. 293—and the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge had circulated thousands of copies of the Prayer-book, in Irish, within the last twenty-years. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Archdeacon de Lacy, saying it was a part of the system of the Church which he totally denied; it was a very peculiar exception—an old gentleman having a large private fortune, which he spent according to his own fancy, giving as he

575
believed, the entire of his clerical income to the poor. One of the old gentleman's peculiarities was, to keep an immense number of cows; but the use he made of them was, to supply milk gratuitously to the whole poor of the town of Kells, near which he resided. He would neither defend the Union, which had since been dissolved—nor yet put forward the late Archdeacon as a model for clerical imitation; but this he would say, as, indeed, he understood the hon. Gentleman to admit, that the Archdeacon was a gentleman of the kindest and most liberal disposition, living on his benefice and dispensing bounty to all around him with an unsparing hand— having peculiar means to do so, from having come into possesion of a private fortune, which had since passed to his heir. Then, as to the auction bill, which some neighbouring Roman Catholic clergyman had thought it worth while to send to the hon. Member, and which the hon. Member expected would produce a great effect upon the House—why, no doubt, after the death of the Archdeacon, it was drawn up in the best autioneering style, perhaps by the renowned Mr. Robins, or else, by some Irish ape, who could as well describe the Spanish ass The Roman Catholic priest could have mentioned Members of his own order, at least as fond of greyhounds and hunters —and as regarded the Church, the answer was, the Union was now separated, and there were two incumbents where one had been. The hon. Gentleman himself admitted the great improvement in the Church within the last twenty years. With the permission of the House, he would shortly state the present circumstances and condition of the Irish branch of the Established Church, proving thereby that the improvement was much greater than the hon. Gentleman allowed—that the laws then in force were carrying all friendly reform to its utmost extent—and that great injury and grievous wrong would follow, and imminent danger to the Church and State both in Ireland and that country, if the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was for one moment to be countenanced by them. First, he would say, that whatever hon. Gentlemen on the other side urged on the score of abstract theories and mere points of honour, no reasonable man could contend that the Church in Ireland, under its present circumstances, and the altered state of the
576
law within the last ten years, was a practical grievance to the occupying tenantry or Roman Catholic population in that country. His noble Friend (Lord Eliot) had truly stated that they did not contribute one farthing to its support. For the sake of peace, the Church had consented to pay the Church-rates from its own property; and he might observe, that he had not opposed any part of the Church Temporalties Act, except the suppression of the ten Bishoprics, which he thought had been an injury to the Church and the localities where they had resided, without having benefited or pleased any one. And when the hon. Gentleman compared the number of Irish with the number of English Bishoprics, did the hon. Member or would any Churchman seriously contend, that it would not be a great advantage to the English Church, if it were possible, to increase her Bishoprics, seeing that many of the dioceses were so extensive as to render it impossible, within the compass of human strength, for any one Prelate to afford them adequate episcopal superintendence. The clergy had voluntarily relinquished a fourth of their income in consideration of the landed proprietors, nine-tenths at least of whom were of their own persuasion in religion, assuming the responsibility of the payment of the remainder; and the consequence was, that all the trouble or annoyance or loss, such as they might be, of the collection on the one hand, and the pay mention the other, was transferred from the occupier, generally a Roman Catholic, to the landlord, generally a Protestant, and all pecuniary dealing between the Protestant clergy and the Roman Catholic population entirely put an end to. He fully admitted to the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) that it was not out of the landlords' property the landowner paid the clergy. The title of the Church to their own property was paramount. It belonged to the Church by law established in connection with the State, the State having the power, in the nature of a trustee, to control and regulate that property for the benefit of the rightful owner; but the State had no right, even though it should use the might, to alienate any portion of that property to other than ecclesiastical purposes. With regard to the amount of present revenues of the Church in Ireland, he did not materially differ from the hon. Gentleman. His object was perfect accuracy, without either

577
adding to or taking from the real property of the Church. Death and other changes from time to time must make some alteration, according to the moment the return was taken, and the hon. Gentleman had confounded the gross with the net income. He (Mr. Shaw) had allowed the deductions made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1837—for he considered the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners had cut them down too low against the clergy, and particularly in not allowing poors' rates imposed by an Act of Parliament; and in the light he (Mr. Ward) viewed Church property, that was, for the sake of transferring it to other objects, he clearly must only deal with the net available income. Still it was gratifying to him that upon that fact of figures there was no substantial disagreement between them. To begin, then, with the income of the beneficed clergy. He made their net income 320,350 l. 19 s. 10 d. The entire income of beneficed clergy and their assistant curates taken together, he made 377,050 l. 12 s. 5d. He had likewise taken an account of the entire future Church property, when every source should have been realised, including the perpetuity purchase money, and that was taking it at the greatest disadvantage to the Church; be allowed, in round numbers, for the permanent reduced Bishoprics, about 60,000 l. a-year; the clergy 370,000 l. the balance of deans and chapters ultimately remaining at 20,000 l., and the ultimate property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners applicable to the building and repair of the churches, in lieu of the former Church cess, as calculated in 1836 by Mr. Finlaison, at about 100,000 l. a-year, making in the entire as the total future church property of every description in round figures, as nearly as possible, 550,000 l. a year, that being the entire charge for the care of the churches, things requisite for the celebration of divine service, the maintenance of twelve bishops, and the support of about 2,200 clergymen ministering to the spiritual wants of their own communion; and as the best and almost only resident gentry in the remoter districts of the country, administering to the temporal necessities of the distressed and destitute of all creeds without distinction. The average income of the benefices being about 320,000 l. amongst 1400 would be as nearly as could be 225 l. to each beneficed clergyman; and the curates
578
included, the income would be about 370,000 l. amongst about 2,200 clergymen, leaving them an average income of about 170 l. a year. He hardly thought it could be said that this sum was too much for an educated gentleman and his family; and he could show there would be in the end no undue inequality of income. A uniformity of income he would not approve. He believed the hon. Gentleman to have considerably underrated the members of the Established Church. The Commissioners of Public Instruction returned them at 851,064. There was a prejudice against the commission and the inquiry at the time, and many did not make the return. Some of the Wesleyan Methodists considered themselves as belonging to the Church, and such only, he apprehended, had so returned themselves; and from the best sources of information be estimated the members of the Established Church at above 1,000,000, so that the average would be about one clergyman to 500 persons. As regarded the present condition of the Church in Ireland, they heard, indeed, charges brought against the Irish clergy, as rich unionists, plethoric pluralists, bloated sinecurists, non-residents, and so forth. Now, in all these respects he was bold to affirm that the Irish Church would bear a favourable comparison with ,any church in existence. As to unions, he would not weary the House with a detailed enumeration of the various statutes by which they were in progress of dissolution. Suffice it to say that under the Church Temporalities and other Acts, the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council were empowered not only to separate all Unions, but to deal with every living above 800 l. a year, and distribute them as they thought fit. Since the passing of the Act of 1833, fifty-three Unions had been dissolved. In a few years no Unions would remain that it was practicable and desirable to dissolve; but in some cases it was not so. In the city of Cork, for instance, there were parishes under ancient divisions—so small, that one consisted of the ground on which a single sugar-house stood, another of a distillery. There were parishes wholly inappropriate that paid nothing to an incumbent—others, from particular exemptions, scarcely anything: in such instances the bishops were obliged to unite these with parishes paying tithe or now rent-charge. But, while the Church was taunt-

579
ed with such Unions, they were among the poorest and most laborious benefices. As to sinecures, a single one would not remain; fifty had been abolished since August, 1833. All pluralities were abolishing as they became vacant, and the present Primate had not granted a faculty to hold one since 1828; so that they were fast dropping in, and thirty-two had been removed since the Act of 1833—eighty-one only existed in all Ireland. Non-residence, without absolute necessity, he hoped would soon cease to exist, as it was every day becoming less. In the 389 incumbents returned by the Commissioners in 1837 as non-residents, there were included great numbers who could not procure residences on their livings, but resided close to them and performed the duty; others, dignitaries and incumbents, who resided and did duty on other benefices, and these would all drop in. Out of 345 so reported, there remained but 109 now actually nonresidents, and of these the greater number were absent from illness or other unavoidable cause. He had learned this striking fact—that in the diocese of Armagh, the third Report on Ecclesiastical Revenue returned sixteen out of eighty-nine beneficed clergymen non-residents; while there was at present but one out of ninety-eight non-resident, and he resided on another benefice under a very old faculty. In the dioceses of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin, fifty out of 180 had been returned as nonresident, and there were at present but twelve, or rather seven; for, five out of the twelve did duty elsewhere. When he (Mr. Shaw) had spoken of the average income of the Irish clergy, he said that the inequality of income would not, after the Church Temporalities Act had come into full operation, be greater than the necessary gradations of such an establishment required; in corroboration of which he would then remark, that of ten benefices returned by the Commissioners as above 2,000 l. a year, he found upon investigating the particulars that they had already been reduced on an average about one-half—that they would be still much reduced on the next avoidance. He knew a living accepted by a fellow of Trinity College which had been rated at 1,800 l. a year, now reduced to about 800 l. A gentleman of information and great accuracy, who had examined the ten suppressed Bishoprics for the purpose, found that there was but one benefice among them in ecclesi-
580
astical patronage that exceeded 800 l. a year. When the Church Temporalities Act had its full force there would not remain one living in Ireland worth 1,500 l. a year; and he did not believe there would be ten so high as 1,000 l. It was alleged that the Church in Ireland had no support within itself, and was merely kept up by the factitious aid of the State; but so far from the endowments and public revenues of the Church in Ireland being larger than were requisite, private voluntary subscriptions were had recourse to, and freely given in Ireland to meet the wants of the Members of the Church with respect to Church accommodation and additional clergymen. Thus, in the diocese of Armagh, fifteen new churches had been lately built by private subscriptions. In the diocese of Down and Connor, twenty-two churches had been lately built by private subscriptions. In the diocese of Dublin, seventeen churches had, within a few years, been built by private subscriptions; and in every diocese a great number of school-houses were licensed by the Bishops for performing Divine Service, in default of there being churches for the accommodation of the people. It appeared, from a return made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in the month of March last, that since August, 1833, there had been in Ireland 181 churches built or rebuilt, fifty-six of which were by private funds, and sixty-five churches charged. The sum contributed by private societies and private individuals for the building and enlarging of churches in Ireland within the last ten years exceeded 95,000 l. Also, within the last five years a society had been formed, of which he was a Member of Committee for providing means of support for additional clergymen. Subscriptions amounting to 2,000 l. a-year were given to that Additional Curates' Society, by means of which thirty-nine additional clergymen were employed in parishes where the income of the rector was too small to enable him to pay a curate, and the Church population so great or so scattered over an extent of country as to require the services of more ministers than the endowment of the Church can supply; and these additional curates, be it observed, were not chiefly stationed in the north of Ireland, but in the south and west and midland counties. The Primate alone gives about 1,700 l. a-year in augmentation of curates' salaries. The num-

581
ber of schools supported by or under the immediate superintendence of the Bishops and Clergy in Ireland was 1837, containing 102,528 scholars, and there were thirteen diocesan classical schools. Such, then, was the Church, so constantly vituperated in that House, described as a nuisance, an ulcerous sore, a very pest to society. It had formerly been the habit to assail the Irish Church under the guise of friendship, affecting to desire her amendment, but now that every improvement which law could make had been effected, that sinecures, pluralities, unions, and non-residence were in rapid progress of annihilation, that the Roman Catholic occupier had been relieved from Church-rates and Tithe, and every practical inconvenience; now, as he had before observed, the insidious profession of regard for the Church's welfare was laid aside, and the hon. Gentleman opposite boldly and undisguisedly cried aloud for her destruction. Me denounced such conduct as unjust and ungenerous, and fraught with the utmost danger in the present slate of Ireland, calculated to inflame that hatred between races and animosity between religions which, by the prudence and good sense of the more moderate of both parties, had happily been much allayed, but which the more violent in that country were labouring to revive, and greatly abetted, he could not but feel, by such motions and speeches as were made in that House. [Cheers.] What the public mind in Ireland wanted was repose—what the people wanted was employment; but in Ireland the deluded peasantry were told that their destitution was allowing to the Legislative Union, and in that House, but with as little foundation, and almost as mischievously, that it was to some point of honour or abstraction connected with a church which did not cost them a shilling—he verily believed seldom a thought—and the abolition of which, if it could be accomplished to-morrow, would not afford them a meal. Truly, when they asked for bread, to make such propositions as the present was giving them a stone. Such a course could not serve the Irish people, nor would it conciliate their agitators. But it might peril the attachment and estrange the affection of those who had ever been the firmest and the fastest friends of British connexion in Ireland. Let the House do what was right and just without reference to consequences; but was it. just or right, or rea-
582
sonable, or to be tolerated, that the Protestants of Ireland were now to be told— yes, it was such motions as these that provoked and forced him (Mr. Shaw) to draw distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics that he would gladly avoid. He did not want to raise the cry of "No Popery" in England; it was contrary to all his previous habits and opinions; but if they raised the cry of "No Protestantism" in Ireland, then he would boldly meet it and fearlessly resist it. Yes; then he asked, were the Protestants of Ireland to be expected patiently to bear a proposal for the destruction of their Church? In common with a large body of them, he had always desired the civil equality of his Roman Catholic countrymen; but it was under the fullest persuasion that they would then have been contented, as every generous principle and the solemnest obligations gave promise that they would. He warned that House not to trifle with the feelings of the Irish Protestants; the humbler classes of them were at. that moment exposed to great temptations. The most insidious efforts were making to woo and win them to repeal—and it was not safe to wound their feelings and repudiate their long and faithful attachment. Above all, the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland had the greatest cause to complain. They had for years borne with unexampled patience the severest privations. Their families had pined in want before their eyes: they had not the means to educate their children, or preserve their life insurances. They might be said literally to have carried their lives in their hands, still faithfully and zealously labouring in their high calling—and now, that they had purchased peace at the sacrifice, all of a quarter, many as he knew of half and more than half, of their incomes, were they threatened with the destruction of that Church for which they had suffered so much. But they would still be ready to bear and suffer all things in her cause. He spurned, on their behalf, the offer of respecting their life interests, as a paltry bribe—but it would never tempt them to betray the sacred trust reposed in them, not for their own personal advantage, but, as he sincerely believed, for the best interests of true religion, and the truest happiness of all classes and all creeds in Ireland. He rejoiced that the Motion, which was avowedly for the subversion of

583
the Protestant Church in Ireland—had been met by the manly resistance of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted he would not live to see the day when the Ministers of a British Sovereign would venture to entertain such a measure. Sure he was that the day was as distant as the fall of the greatness and the glory of England, when her people would permit it. He would, of course, give his cordial opposition to the proposal of the hon. Member, in whatever shape he might bring it forward.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman came down to make a speech in apology for the Irish Church, it was somewhat strange that he should attack Gentlemen on the opposite side for constantly bringing before the public the condition of that Church, which according to his own admission, was now merely coming into a better condition than it had been in before. There was not now a single convert more to that Church than when it was first planted, and he was fully prepared to believe that the mal-administration and misgovernment of that Church were quite sufficient to prevent persons from joining it. But there was something still more strange in the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for pity towards that Church, on the ground that there were now actually no more than eighty-one pluralities connected with it. Why, if it were not for these appeals few would have believed that any one could be found bold enough to defend a Church having as many as eighty-one pluralities, while the number of benefices was only 1,400. There was another incredible fact—that there were only 109 clergymen not living on their benefices. There could be no better authority than the Champion of the Church, for the fact that one-fourteenth of the beneficed clergy were absent from their trusts. He could assign one very conclusive reason why there should be so many absentees. He (Mr. Redington) lived in a parish in which there was not a single Protestant, and in the whole union not more than thirty attended the parish church. But was it not monstrous, when the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield merely asked of the Commons of England, to whom the appeal had too long been made in vain, to examine into the condition of the Irish Church—that the demand should be resisted on such
584
grounds? His feelings would not permit him to enter upon a declaration of his opinion as to the manner in which this course of proceeding would be received in Ireland. It seemed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed to adhere to that policy which he had pursued throughout his whole career; and he (Mr. Redington) believed he would pursue it with as little success. He, as a Roman Catholic, whose emancipation the hon. and learned Gentleman had uniformly opposed, stood there an example of the error and inefficacy of past policy. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say, that the Roman Catholic peasantry of Ireland did not pay the tithe; with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he must say the contrary was the fact, and in both instances when alterations were made in the tithe system, the additional amounts of tithe were imposed by the landlords upon the tenants. He must guard himself against the possibility of its being supposed that he advocated this Motion as one which was likely to lead either directly or indirectly to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church as the State Church of Ireland, or to the payment of the Catholic Clergy by the State. If he stood alone in that House, he should record his vote against such a proposition, and one reason why he should do so was, that he had not seen the payment of the State Church or Clergy tend to the benefit either of the Church or the State. He could not think this Motion would be refused by the Government. It might be reiterated that the Protestant Church in Ireland was guaranteed, and that it must be supported, but it was vain to suppose that that could long exist in Ireland, the resemblance of which was not to be found in any other country on the face of the earth. It was vain to suppose that in a Catholic country, such as Ireland was, the State could continue to give a niggardly allowance of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. a year for the imperfect education of the people, and impose a heavy tax upon them for supporting the poor, and, in addition to that, to keep up the monstrous burthen of tithes, and maintain the enormous revenues of the Irish Church. Such a system could not stand. The cause which the hon. Member for Sheffield now brought forward was the cause of justice. It might be resisted now, and in future years; but as sure as

585
there was justice in heaven, such a cause must ultimately prevail.
Debate adjourned.
House adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat first.—Viscount Sidmouth, after the death of his Father.
BILLS. Public.—1a. New South Wales, etc. Government; Marriage Act Amendment.
2a. St. Asaph and Bangor Dioceses; Vinegar and Glass Duties.
Reported.—Copyhold and Customary Tenure Acts Amendment.
Private.—1a. Lady Le Despencer's Estate.
2a. West Croft (Nottingham) Inclosure; Nottingham (West Croft Canal) Improvement; Stratford (Eastern Counties) and Thames Junction Railway; London Gas Light Company.
Reported. — Stone's Estate; Sidmouth and Collumpton Road; Pulteney Town Harbour and Improvement.
3a. and passed: Leeds and Bradford Railway; Swansea Harbour.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of London, from Staines, against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.—By Lord Lyttleton, from Members of the United Church of England and Ireland, for Restoring the Powers of the Convocation.—By the Bishops of Salisbury, Exeter, and Winchester, and Earls of Galloway, Devon, and Powis, from Pydar, and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Marquess of Downshire, from the Royal Dublin Society for Legalizing the Proceedings of Art Unions.—By the Earl of Malmesbury, from Christ. church, and 2 other places, for Protection to Agriculture. —By the Earl of Kinnoul, from Perth for Legalising Marriages solememnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.—By Lord Lorton, from Guardians of the Roscommon Poor Law Union, against the Poor Laws (Ireland).

SANATORY CONDITION OF THE LOWER CLASSES.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that before proceeding with the Order of the Day, he would take that opportunity to put the questions to his noble Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, of which he had given notice yesterday, relative to the promised Report on the Sanatory Condition of the Lower Classes. He had on several occasions called their Lordships' attention to this subject; but still its very great, indeed its paramount importance, would justify him, he conceived, in again bringing it forward. He should, therefore, in the first place, inquire of the noble Duke (Duke of Buccleuch) opposite when the Report of the Commissioners respecting the Sanatory Condition of the Lower Classes in the metropolis and other large towns was likely to be laid on the Table. He must also observe, that from the answer which he received from his noble Friend the last time he submitted this matter to the House, he was very doubtful whether that Report would be accompanied with any recommendations from the Commissioners for the adoption of immediate remedies to the evils which were admitted on all hands to exist in connection with this subject. He had put this question at the commencement of the present Session, and was informed by the noble Duke, that such a Report as he had alluded to was in progress, and that he hoped it would shortly, with all the necessary information, be laid before their Lordships. At a later period he repeated the question, and further, whether the Report would contain any recommendation of means calculated to re-
480
move the evils complained of? On that occasion the noble Duke accounted for the delay in the production of the Report, and founded his defence of it on the difficulty of dealing with the subject, and on the consideration of the expense which must necessarily attend extensive alterations in the existing system. He need not repeat what was then said by the noble Duke, but he must now contend that it was of the utmost importance that another year should not be allowed to pass over their heads without some effectual steps being taken to meet those evils which were perfectly well known to exist. A Report had been formerly presented on this subject, and he believed that all further evidence that had been adduced proved the melancholy accuracy of the statements contained in that Report. That Report dwelt strongly on the fearful loss of life which was caused by the want of proper drainage and ventilation in the abodes of the poor. It was calculated that a loss of 50,000 lives annually occurred in the metropolis and other large towns, occasioned by diseases which might be prevented by ordinary care, and the enforcement of well-considered sanatory regulations. With respect to the subject of expense which had been raised, that Report contained a calculation bearing directly on that very point. That calculation, it was true, referred only to one particular town, but the principle was of general application. In the evidence appended to the Report, Mr. Lewis, the minister of a large parish in Dundee, was asked a question as to the annual cost which was incurred in that town by fever cases from these causes? He said, in reply, that putting out of consideration the sacrifice of human life, and the loss that was occasioned by the destruction of man, regarding him as a mere machine, the annual cost for the town for the fever cases with which the poorer classes were afflicted was not less than 25,000 l. Therefore the cost for this town alone, for the last four years, when the subject was first brought before Parliament, was not less than 100,000 l. He would strongly urge those noble Lords who had not read the Reports already published to do so, for he could tell them that if they did so they would find proved to demonstration that the condition of the poorer classes residing in the great towns had been for some time past annually deteriorated by the want of the appliance of some of those remedies which he had so often recommended them to adopt. It was stated

481
on the authority of Dr. Arnott and Mr. Chadwick, that if reference were made to the state of the prisons when first examined by Mr. Howard, the description given of them was nothing in comparison to the state of some of the wynds in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the cellars of Manchester and Liverpool, and to some districts in Leeds and some parts of the metropolis. In his opinion, with so much evidence, with so many facts before them, the delay of the Government, in endeavouring to remedy these evils, was wholly unnecessary. Much valuable information had been collected by the Commissioners on this subject, and every person who seriously viewed the subject must be satisfied that something ought to have been done before this. He thought he might add as a certainty, that all the reasons which had been advanced in support of delay might have been met and disposed of by the attentive exertions of well-informed and experienced persons within a quarter of the time that had been now consumed. They were in possession of all necessary information for legislating upon these evils, and for not acting upon this the Government were clearly responsible. He begged leave to ask another question. His noble Friend slated on a former occasion, with regard to the Buildings Regulation Bill, that although in the first instance it was intended to be confined to the metropolis, to see how it worked, and that if it was successful in the metropolis it should be extended to other towns, his noble Friend distinctly stated that he was not prepared to extend this Bill to other towns during the present Session, but that he would do so, most probably, next year. Now this Bill had been brought forward in the House of Commons between three and four months ago, and it had not been proceeded with. He would, therefore, ask whether this first specimen of legislation on this subject, which was only a trial, was to be proceeded with, and whether there were any hopes that this Bill would come up to that House in time to give any attention to it during this Session? His questions then were these—1st, When the Report on the Sanatory Condition of the Poor would be presented? 2nd, Whether it would contain any suggestions of a remedial nature, which could be submitted to the Legislature and carried into effect this year?—and 3rd, Whether the Metropolitan Buildings Bill was likely to come before their Lordships this Session?
The Duke of Buccleuchsaid, no person
482
was more sensible than he was of the great evils with respect to the sanatory condition of the poor that existed in the metropolis and elsewhere; but he was equally sensible that it was more easy to discover the existence of these evils than to devise remedies which could be practically carried into effect. They ought not to act in a matter so beset with difficulties without great caution and deliberation. As an illustration of this, he would mention that a Private Bill had received the sanction of the Legislature for the improvement of a large town in 1842—he alluded to Leeds; but that act, which was intended to have done much, had turned out to be a mere dead letter. A most able report and survey of this town had been made by Captain Vetch, and, above all, as to an extended plan of sewerage. It had, however, been determined by the authorities there that a small portion of the town should have sewers immediately, and an attempt was made to carry this into effect; but this had been done in such an unfortunate manner, in consequence of the ignorance or carelessness of the persons employed in the execution of the work, not following the directions contained in that report and survey, and not paying due regard to the levels, that for a very considerable distance up some of the sewers the water flowed back, the drainage failed, and the money expended was thrown away. This showed the necessity of proceeding cautiously. With regard to the Report, he must observe that this was not a Parliamentary Commission, and it had not to report to either House of Parliament; but it was a Commission appointed by Her Majesty, to whom the Report would be made, and no doubt the document would be communicated to that House. The Report was in a state of forwardness—it was in point of fact at the present time under revision, but he could not fix a period within a few days when it would be ready for presentation. He must observe, also, that there were a great many details which it would be requisite to embody in the Appendix, which were not yet ready. He could not hold out to his noble Friend that there was much prospect this Session of bringing forward measures which could be carried, founded on the Reports of the Commissioners. There was no doubt, he believed, entertained as to any want of attention or anxiety on the part of either the Commissioners or the Government, to carry out remedial measures for the benefit of the

483
poorer classes of those large towns; but it should be recollected that it was a task of extreme difficulty to devise measures to meet these evils—measures which should be effectual not merely in appearance, but in reality. It was most difficult to estimate the amount of the expense that must be incurred, and how that expense was to be defrayed. It was also a matter which required great consideration as to the mode in which the provisions of a measure on the subject should be enforced, and as to the supervision under which the means of enforcing the regulations should be placed. The noble Marquess was aware that at present there were several General as well as Local Acts for improvement of large towns, under which little or nothing had been done. He believed that if they had been carried out properly, and as far as they might be, many of the present causes of complaint would not be found to exist. As to the miserable condition of dwellings in cellars, to which the noble Lord alluded, he would refer him to the town of Liverpool, with respect to which an Act had been passed which touched on the subject. It appeared that 22,000 of the poorer classes of that place resided in cellars, from which they would be ejected on the 1st of July, if the Local Act to which he had just alluded was carried into effect. Now, under this Local Act no provision had been made for the future residence of this large class of persons, and they might be turned out of their present abodes, with no roofs under which to place their heads. He mentioned this as an instance of the nature of the difficulties with which they had to contend. With respect to another question of the noble Marquess, it was not in his power to say whether, in the first Report that would be presented, he hoped, in a few days, any specific remedy would be pointed out to meet those evils. As to the Bill introduced into the other House by a noble Friend of his, as to Metropolitan Buildings, he should state that since it had been introduced, it had been extensively circulated amongst builders and other persons of experience on the subject, and many valuable suggestions had been received in consequence, and many of them had been adopted with the Bill, and it had been reprinted with them. He trusted that the Bill would pass during the present Session of Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbycould not say that the explanation of his noble Friend was at all satisfactory. He felt assured,
484
from the tenor of his noble Friend's reply, that these crying evils would be allowed to continue, without an attempt at remedy, until next Session.

ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR DIOCESES BILL.
The Earl of Powispresented petitions for the repeal of so much of the Act of the 6th and 7th William IV. as relates to the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, from the minister and inhabitants of the parish of Alnwick, in Northumberland; the rector, freeholders, and other inhabitants of the parish of Llangyniew, Montgomeryshire, the minister and congregation of the Welsh Metropolitan Church, Ely Place, Holborn; and the town of Tonbridge in the county of Kent, and its vicinity. His Lordship then said, that in rising to propose the second reading of the Bill of which he had given notice, he could hardly perhaps have had a more favourable opportunity of conveying to their Lordships the great interest which was felt throughout the length and breadth of the land upon the subject matter of this Motion, than that which had been accidentally afforded to him by the petitions which he had just had the honour to bring before the House, all of which he had received within the last four-and-twenty hours. Never, since he entered into public life, had he fell greater anxiety than he did now to discharge the duty which he owed to those who had intrusted him with their petitions. He could assure their Lordships, nobody could feel more sensibly the difficulty which any individual Peer had to encounter, who had to introduce to their Lordships' notice an important Church Question, and to find that he was to be opposed to two noble Lords of the greatest weight and consequence in the country, and to whose opinions the House was accustomed on such topics to defer. He need hardly say, that one of those to whom he alluded, was his noble and illustrious Friend near him (the Duke of Wellington). To him, upon any occasion, it was most painful for him to be opposed. The other was the most Rev. Prelate who presided over the Church (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and whose conduct and character had gained for him the esteem and respect of all classes, even of those who had the misfortune to differ from him in opinion. He must therefore entreat their Lordships to extend to him upon this occasion that indulgence which he had before experienced at their hands, and to believe that he had not brought forward the mea-

485
sure he now pressed upon them without the most urgent desire and full concurrence of that part of the country with which he was connected. It was his duty to satisfy their Lordships, that he did not appear before them inconsiderately or without good grounds. With this view he would draw the attention of their Lordships to two documents which he held in his hand; both urging him to persevere in his efforts, and to apply again to the House to avert the union of the two sees. The one was an address from the Dean and Chapter of Bangor, the other an address from the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph, signed also by other clergy of the diocese assembled at the meeting of the Church Societies at St. Asaph. The latter document he would take the liberty of reading to their Lordships, as it would serve to show the sentiments of the clergy of North Wales, and to prove that they regarded the matter with no common feelings. The other was from the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph, urging him to persevere in his efforts, which proved that they regarded the matter with no common feelings. The following would show their sentiments:—
"May it please your Lordship,—We, the undersigned, the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph, beg respectfully to express our grateful sense of your exertions in behalf of the primitive constitution of the Church in North Wales. The impending measure, which threatens to deprive us of our ancient Bishoprics, has been deprecated by Welchmen of every description and with every variety of motive. Men of the world have exclaimed against the practical loss to our country; men of antiquarian and national feeling have protested earnestly against a breach in those institutions hallowed by historical reminiscences which are a people's best inheritance; while the Clergy and others, who have learned to consider the constitution of the Church as a blessing and a sacred thing, have seen, with feelings too painful to be expressed, her very rulers and friends demolishing the ancient bulwarks and withdrawing the shepherd from the flock. Nor should it be forgotten that we have to contend against unusual difficulties of language and of prejudice; that we have been labouring for many years to stem an overwhelming tide of dissent; and when we looked to our English brethren for sympathy, if not for assistance in the arduous struggle, they began to destroy the very bulwarks and defences that remained to us. Under these circumstances, it was reserved for your Lordship to come forward and express the almost unanimous opinion of your country, and of a large part of the Church throughout England, in deprecation of such a measure; it was your
486
good fortune to convince those open to conviction by the weight of your arguments, and to conciliate those most opposed to the temper in which they were urged.
"We beg your Lordship to believe we are not unmindful of those services; nor can we refrain from associating in your claims upon our gratitude the Viscount Clive, the heir, we trust, of your virtues as well as of your rank, who has given such early and such decided proofs of his attachment to our country and our Church.
"Permit us to hope that, should this measure be persevered in from mere compliance with what is expedient for the moment, you will again come forward to defend the precious relics of our national glory, our Apostolic Church, and her ancestral altars; and may your exertions be crowned with that Divine blessing which, we trust, from the sacredness of the cause, it is not presumptuous to expect.
"But whatever may be the result, our admiration, our good wishes, our prayers, for your continuance in every good work, are most justly your due; and it can never be a matter of regret for you to have linked your own name and that of your family to the history of the British Church, and to have interwoven them at the same time in the best affections of your countrymen.
"Given under our Chapter Seal,"
The same feeling pervaded the whole of North Wales, and it was not limited to the higher Clergy alone. All equally partook of it. In the course of the present Session he had received petitions from every county in North Wales, as well as from two counties, Pembroke and Cardigan, in South Wales, and from Cheshire, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Sussex, Hants, Kent, York, and Northumberland; sufficient, in his opinion, to manifest in a striking manner, the feeling that pervaded the Clergy throughout England. He would now proceed to state the grounds on which he ventured to claim their Lordships' attention to the Bill for Repealing the Union of the two Sees of North Wales. He was not asking them to take any unprecedented step. Soon after the passing of the Act of 6 and 7 Will. IV., it was found desirable to repeal so much of it as related to the union of the See of Sodor and Man with the Bishopric of Carlisle. The passing of this measure so soon after the enactment which it was to repeal, and before that enactment had taken effect, proves that in that case the Act was not considered infallible. Why should not their Lordships now grant to the inhabitants of North Wales, what they had

487
accorded to the inhabitants of the Isle of Man, when by so doing they would be consulting the wishes of the Clergy and laity in all parts of the Empire? Since last year he had received fresh information, founded upon the actual working of the Act in another Diocese, in which its provisions had been carried into execution—information which gave him additional grounds for pressing this Motion upon their Lordships' attention. The case to which he alluded was that of the Dioceses of Gloucester and Bristol, which had been united by the 6 and 7 Will. IV. Remarks were made in their Lordships' House last year, which conveyed to the united Dioceses information, that persons high in authority amongst their Lordships, believed that the Legislature had united the Sees of Gloucester and Bristol with the almost unanimous consent of the Church; that no complaint had been made of any evil arising from their union; and that the government of the Church was there carried on to the general satisfaction of the inhabitants. The reverse of this was so decidedly the case as respected the feeling of the Clergy of the united Dioceses, that they immediately resolved to address the Lord Bishop of the Dioceses, through the medium of the Rev. R. W. Huntley, who had been their Proctor in convocation, in the following terms:—
"We feel it to be an imperative duty to express in some way, our decided dissent from these statements; we therefore request you, as one of our Proctors in convocation, to take the earliest opportunity of waiting upon the Lord Bishop of these Dioceses, associating with yourself such of the Clergy as you may think convenient, and of stating respectfully to his Lordship, that this union has never had our consent, and that we believe it to be disadvantageous to the Church in these Dioceses, notwithstanding his Lordship's constant, laborious, and self-denying exertions, to encounter the heavy additional responsibilities imposed upon him, by which he has deserved the affection and gratitude of the Church in general; and for which, we also beg of you to express to him particularly our most dutiful thanks and lasting obligations."
But in order fully to convey to their Lordships the extent to which the feelings thus expressed prevailed in the Dioceses, it would be well to add the following postscript, from a letter of Mr. Huntley's, dated August 10th, 1843.
"I ought possibly to add that of the Clergy, who in their letters to me, from various reasons decline to sign the circular, the whole with the exception of about three, consider
488
the union of the sees to have been disadvantageous."
He would now call their Lordships' attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the causes of the disturbances in South Wales, and he would remind their Lordships, that those Commissioners ascribed as the principal cause the inefficiency of the Church in that part of the country. It had been stated that the poorer Clergy took no interest in the matter, and were quite indifferent whether the sees were united or not. He should endeavour to obviate that objection by reading an extract from a Petition from an obscure Chapelry, which appeared to him to express powerfully and well the sentiments universally entertained by the Clergy throughout North Wales. It was from the Minister and inhabitants of the Chapelry of Nerquis, in the parish of Mold, in Flintshire. The extract which he wished to read was the following:—
"That your Petitioners finally deprecate the intended union as an act of spoliation of a portion of God's vineyard; and, therefore, though they acknowledge the great need of an Episcopal See at Manchester, they humbly but earnestly pray your right hon. House to Repeal so much of the Statute 6 and 7 of his late Majesty as provides for it, by means of such union; a provision which, while it contemplates a good at Manchester, loses sight of the evil consequence to North Wales; is founded on human expediency, not on holy principle; and, looking on one side to the honour of God, casts off, on the other, the fear of His anger, for dishonouring and crippling His Church."
Having these reasons, then, for offering himself to the notice of the House, it became now his duty to allude to some Parliamentary grounds which he thought existed why their Lordships should accede to his Motion. It was objected to him last year that he had used somewhat strong expressions in describing the Act which had resulted from the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as unconstitutional. He should endeavour to avoid that objection upon the present occasion, but he would remind their Lordships, that both that House and the other House of Parliament had been in the habit of paying the greatest possible deference and attention to all cases where individual interests were concerned. If a small portion of land were taken away from an individual for the sake of making a turnpike-road or a railway, or a canal, notice was to be given in such a way as to enable

489
the owner of that land to be fully possessed of the intentions of the speculators, and when the measure by which such an individual would be affected was introduced into either House of Parliament, every protection that could be given to him was conferred upon him by the Legislature. The Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament were framed with a view to this object. The detailed progress of a Bill through each House of Parliament gives repeated opportunities to any of Her Majesty's subjects who may be aggrieved by its provisions, of having their objections considered, and their complaints, if just, rectified. But what was the case in this instance? The Act had undoubtedly passed which gave the Commissioners the power, with the sanction of the Crown, of uniting the Dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. This power was executed without any knowledge of what was going on (until the case was decided upon) on the part of those most interested in the subject—the inhabitants of North Wales. This was not a question whether half an acre or an acre of private property should be applied to a public work—it was a question affecting the religious principles of the inhabitants of North Wales. These were unprotected by the usual guards of Parliamentary proceedings. The decree had issued from the private chamber of the Commissioners, which deprived North Wales of its Bishopric; unknown in the principality, till it appeared with the force of law—and that, it was intimated, was to be irrevocable. He (Earl Powis) avowed, that he looked upon that Act and its consequences as being altogether so unusual, that he conceived he was fully entitled to request their Lordships to accede to the prayer of the numerous Petitions which he had presented upon the subject, and to remember the hardship that was imposed upon one Bishop, in consequence of the difficulty of travelling and attending to the spiritual interests of the whole of the mountainous country comprised in the six counties of North Wales. He was aware that the Union of Sees had taken place before, and he was aware that such an union was in some cases justifiable. He held in his hand a statement of one of the right Rev. Commissioners, on those cases which had occurred where the Union of Sees was justifiable—a statement which in his opinion must produce upon their Lordships the same effect which it had produced upon his own mind, viz., that this was not one of those cases in which
490
such a union was either justifiable or necessary. It was the portion of a speech addressed to their Lordships upon the subject of the Irish Church by the most Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and was, he (Earl Powis) said, equally applicable to and conclusive in the present instance:—
"I will advert very shortly to the proposal for reducing the number of the Bishops. It is said that Bishoprics have been frequently united and frequently disjoined, and that when the Sees are inconsiderable, they may be very properly united together. I am not inclined to contest either of those positions; but one circumstance is left out of consideration, which is this-—that in former times the union of Bishoprics was frequently made ex necessitatis causâ, because the revenue of one Bishopric was insufficient to maintain the Bishop: therefore, they were united, and the right still exists to grant Sees in commendam. They were united for the mere purposes of property. But your Lordships cannot fairly raise upon so small a basis such a sweeping measure as the one now before you, more especially in a country where the Bishops are the principle residents, and who, living under those moral restraints which persons so high in the Church must always observe, cannot fail to be most useful in their several districts."
It had been said that there was a certain degree of inconsistency in his calling upon Parliament so soon to repeal an Act which it had so lately passed. Upon that subject, however, he would beg to read an extract from another Archiepiscopal authority, one of the ablest logicians of the day, the Archbishop of Dublin, in a letter to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In referring to the charge of inconsistency and vacillation which was urged against those who proposed an Amendment to a recently enacted law, his Grace wrote—
"I can conceive an objection being raised by some of those who supported, and by some even of those who did not support, that bill, that 'since it is passed, it is better to let matters alone, and that it would argue inconsistency and vacillation to alter without paramount necessity a recently enacted law.' This is what may perhaps occur to some minds at a first hasty glance; but further consideration will show, that the inconsistency would be on the opposite side. Any one indeed who should have voted for diminishing the number of Bishoprics as thinking that a good in itself would of course be inconsistent in voting for the re-establishment of one. But those who assented to it professedly on the ground that though an evil it was necessary, in order to avoid a much greater evil, would be inconsistent if they did not gladly avail themselves

491
of the opportunity of re-establishing a Bishopric without incurring the apprehended evil. A minister who imposes war taxes, not on the ground of taxes being a good in themselves, but to meet a pressing necessity, would be considered inconsistent, not if he removed those taxes when the necessity had ceased, but if he continued them."
But even if there would be inconsistency he would ask their Lordships to bear in mind that it would be by no means limited to the repeal of this Act. Greater inconsistencies had before occurred. What could be greater inconsistency than this?—they objected to clergymen holding a plurality of livings—they took steps to put an end to that occurrence, and how did they follow it up? Why, by uniting two Bishoprics in such a manner as to make every clergyman in the country aware, that the principle which they universally acted upon with regard to the parochial clergy, was to be violated whenever it suited their purpose in the case of a Bishop. By their union of these two Bishoprics they got a certain income which they would take out of the Principality and apply to other purposes in a different part of the Kingdom, and he certainly could not see that that in any degree added to the merit of the case. Bishop Bedell, when endeavouring to persuade his clergy to renounce their pluralities, took a course so opposite to that which Parliament and the Commissioners had sanctioned in the proceedings to which he was objecting, that it might not be un-instructive to their Lordships if he should set before them the manner in which that exemplary Prelate dealt with the subject, by precept and example. Burnet in his life of Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore gives the following account of the course taken by him and its results; and to let them see that he would not lay a heavy burthen on them, in which he would not bear his own share, he resolved to part with one of his Bishoprics. For though Ardagh was considered as a ruined See, and had long gone as an accessary to Kilmore, and continues to be so still; yet since they were really two different Sees, he thought he could not decently oblige his Clergy to renounce their Pluralities, unless he set them an example, and he renounced his own, even after he had been at a considerable charge in recovering the Patrimony of Ardagh, and though he was sufficiently able to discharge the duty of both these Sees, they being contiguous and small; and though the Revenue of both did not exceed a com-
492
petency, yet he would not seem to be guilty of that which he so severely condemned in others: and therefore, he resigned Ardagh to Dr. Richardson, and so was now only Bishop of Kilmore. The Authority of this example and efficacy of his discourse, made such an impression on his clergy that they all relinquished their Pluralities. The Arguments that arise out of interest are generally much stronger than those of mere speculation, how well so ever it be made out, and therefore, this concurrence that he met with from his Clergy in so sensible a point, was a great encouragement to him to go on in his other designs. There seemed to be a finger of God in it, for he had no authority to compel them to it, and he had managed the minds of his Clergy so gently in this matter, that their compliance was not extorted, but both free and unanimous. For, one only excepted, they all submitted to it; and he being Dean exchanged his deanery with another, for he was ashamed to live in the Diocese, where he would not submit to such terms, after both the bishop himself, and all his clergy had agreed to them. He would take the liberty of alluding to one circumstance more, though it was not necessary to strengthen his case. The population of North Wales was not so large, it was true, as that of some other benefices; but it was increasing in a very rapid degree. The district of North Wales in 1801, when the Population Act passed, contained about 250,000 souls; and in 1841 the population of the six counties of North Wales was 396,000; an increase of more than half, and this increase was going on progressively. The district over which this population extended comprehended 3,000 square miles. If population alone was taken as a guide, it was not possible that justice could be done to Wales. There was a great difference between having 10,000 persons located in one parish, and 10,000 persons located in ten different and widely-extended parishes; it was impossible that the same Ecclesiastical staff could discharge their duties of inspection. He knew that the activity of the Welsh Clergy might do a great deal, but they would lose the benefit of Episcopal superintendence; they would want that willing hand which contributed to schools and maintained religious institutions, and that willing head which afforded advice, countenance, and authority to their proceedings, and in depriving them of this, their Lordships would be

493
inflicting on the Principality an evil which would be severely felt. In conclusion, he left the matter in their Lordships' hands. By the Bill of last year, Parliament had given some assistance to the Principality in canonries; that increase of Ecclesiastical endowments had not been conceded by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but was owing to the favourable consideration given to the prayers of his countrymen by his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He regretted that this subject had not been taken up by one who possessed more weight than himself, and who was more capable of doing justice to it; but he had undertaken to bring it before their Lordships because he felt its great importance, and the difficulties under which the Welsh Clergy would labour, unless their Lordships and the other House of Parliament gave a favourable consideration to their prayer. He left the matter in their Lordships' hands, with the earnest hope that their Lordships would listen to the petitions of the numerous bodies which had addressed them, and in the firm conviction that no measure would pass this House which would give more satisfaction. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
The Duke of Wellington: I assure my noble Friend that it is with the utmost pain I find myself under the necessity of again offering myself to your Lordships, in order to reply to the able speech which he has made to you on this subject—a subject so interesting to him and to those persons whose cause he has so ably advocated; but I beg leave to remind your Lordships that the Motion of my noble Friend is one for the second reading of a Bill to repeal an Act of Parliament passed no less than eight years ago. The arguments of my noble Friend, and the documents he has read, and the various petitions he has presented to you, of which my noble Friend has stated the substance, would have been all very proper and ought to have been taken into consideration eight years ago, when the Act passed which my noble Friend now calls upon you to repeal; but since that Act passed various measures have been carried into execution, which that Act authorized and enjoined; and I think my noble Friend should have done a little more than move to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act in question; he should have provided means
494
and machinery for carrying into execution the objects which that Act had in view, and which will no longer exist when this Bill shall become law and that Act is repealed. Now, I beg to recall to your Lordships' recollection what the Act is which it is the object of this Bill to repeal, in what manner it passed, and the object of it. Early in the year 1835 a Commission was issued, called the Ecclesiastical Commission, for the purpose of revising the Revenues and Property of the Church, and the extent of the Dioceses—in short, all those circumstances with relation to the Church which could have a tendency, by alteration and amendment, to improve the action of the Church, and render it, if possible, more beneficial to the country, and to a greater degree an object of veneration of the people. In the course of a reasonable time after this Commission passed the Great Seal, the first Report was made, I believe on the 17th of March, 1835, and that Report is the one which proposed the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. That Report was no secret; it was laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament; it was notorious to the whole world; it was discussed by the public in the same way that such questions are discussed in this country, and there can be no doubt that all the objects of that Report were notorious throughout the country. It happened, that in the discussion of that Report, and of the measures recommended in it, the Bishops of those very dioceses were present—I don't mean when the measures were adopted and carried into execution by Act of Parliament — that was the Report by which the recommendation of the union of the two sees was first made, and the transfer of benefices in commendam to increase the revenues of small livings; but I say that the Report, as involving the principle of the union of the two sees, was adopted with the knowledge of the Bishops of the two sees. This Report recommending the union of the two sees was made, as I said, in March, 1835, and in the Session of 1836 a Bill was introduced to carry into execution the objects of that Report (and there were also other Reports), which Bill was as little opposed in either House of Parliament as any Bill, I believe, that was ever introduced. I remember, having a seat in the House at the time, sitting then on the other side, that I supported the Bill, and it was gene-

495
rally supported in this House. The Bill was brought in by the late Ministers, and it was generally supported in Parliament, and received the approbation of Parliament, and it passed in August, 1836. Under this Bill, Her Majesty in Council was authorised to make arrangements to carry into execution the measures recommended in those Reports, and Her Majesty accordingly, by her Order in Council, advised by the noble Lords sitting opposite, did give directions to carry into execution the measures recommended in the Reports or authorized by Parliament, and provided means for the establishment of a Bishopric of Ripon and a Bishopric of Manchester, as recommended by the Report, for equalising the salaries and emoluments of the different sees, for providing incomes for the dioceses of Manchester and Ripon, for providing a sufficient income for the dioceses of Llandaff and St. David's, in Wales, and for the various measures which the different Reports had advised to be carried into execution. This Order in Council is dated in 1838, six years ago, and at this time, Her Majesty having issued these Orders, which have been carried into execution, and regularly registered, as required by the Act of Parliament, my noble Friend comes down with a Bill to repeal the Act which is the foundation of all these measures and gives the means of carrying into execution that Order in Council which Her Majesty had authorised and indeed required to issue three years previous to her having issued that Order in Council. Now, my noble Friend has argued this question as if the matter was now in our power, and nothing had been done; as if your Lordships had now to consider whether or not the sees should or should not be united; but I say, if my noble Friend comes forward with a Bill to repeal the Act of 1836, on which the Order in Council of 1838 was founded, he ought at least in his Bill to have provided all the means and machinery for carrying into execution those measures for which Her Majesty's Order in Council under the authority of the Act, had made provision. On this point my noble Friend has been silent, and his Bill is entirely silent. But the Act of Parliament and the Order in Council go further, and provide not only pecuniary means, but also for that which is a very important point to enter into your Lordships' consideration — I mean the political situation of
496
these two Bishops, the Bishop of Ripon and the Bishop of Manchester. The Act provides that two new Bishops shall be appointed, and that two of those who had formerly seats in this House should be withdrawn, and this is provided for by the union of the sees of Bristol and Gloucester, and St. Asaph and Bangor, leaving the same number of Bishops in the House as before the Act. I think my noble Friend has not adverted to this. Here is a Bill to repeal the Act of 1836, and he should see how far his measure will go—that it will make an organic change in the constitution of this House, in the number of spiritual Peers. But the Bill of my noble Friend contains no provision on this point; no provision for the manner in which the Bishops shall be called to take seats in the House; no provision for rotation, supposing one is to be always absent from the House; no provision for any of those points which must occur to every one who reflects upon the consequences of having more Bishops than heretofore in the House. Considering the necessity there is of attending to all these points, and how necessary it is that they should be brought under the consideration of your Lordships, before you give your assent to this measure, and the difficulty in which you will place Her Majesty in Council if you agree to the second reading of this Bill until my noble Friend shall open to you what he proposes to do upon all these points. I think the motion for the second reading should be suspended until you hear in what mode my noble Friend intends to provide for these objects. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Bishop of Bangorsaid, he was sorry to find himself opposed upon this question to the most rev. Primate, for whom he felt so great a respect and attachment; but he must upon this occasion do his duty and oppose the wishes, not only of the most Rev. Primate, but of Her Majesty's Government. He thought that the noble Duke's speech would have the effect of inducing their Lordships to think that the measure proposed by the noble Earl was intended to repeal all the measures carried by Parliament for the regulation of the different Bishoprics of the kingdom. But the noble Earl did not intend to interfere either with the principle or the force and order of that Act; all they wished to repeal was so much of the Act as pro-

497
vided for the future union of the dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor; with the other parts of the Bill they had nothing to do; they did not interfere with the general principles or the general machinery of that Act. He had hoped that both the most Rev. Primate and Her Majesty's Government would have taken this matter into their earnest consideration, and have come to a different conclusion; that they would have been themselves the persons to bring forward such a measure as this, and that it would have received their Lordships' support. The measure of uniting two independent dioceses, older than that of Canterbury and other dioceses—of abolishing two ancient sees and forming one new one, was repugnant to all religious feeling and contrary to the practice of the best ages. The desire of the Church in these times was not to unite dioceses, but to form new ones out of those which were too extensive. This feeling was not extinguished in the great body of the Church of England, if not of the laity. It could not fail to be in the recollection of the House that a great number of petitions had been presented to Parliament on the subject of the measure then before their Lordships; they would also remember that those petitions proved the existence not only of a strong feeling amongst the clergy respecting the union of those dioceses, but a very strong feeling amongst the laity also. Men, whether lay or clerical, appeared to be decidedly opposed to the measure of union, or rather, he should have said, to the extinction of both sees, and the formation of a new diocese. In expressing their hostility to that extinction, they were acting upon the principles in which they had, to a man, been brought up. They had been brought up as members of the Church of England, they would continue to be members of the Church of England; and, influenced by the feelings which always governed the members of that body, they declared their opposition to the Bill which went to effect the union. The noble Duke had gone over the whole history of the Act of 1836 as well as the Reports of the Commissioners, and their Lordships would probably see from what the noble Duke had said, and be able at the same time to infer from their own recollection of the facts, that at the time when the measure was first laid before Parliament it would have been vain for any one to think that he could, with any hope of success, throw impedi-
498
ments in the way of that Bill. Those who now opposed the measure felt as strongly then, and were as numerous then, as they were at present, but they had not then the same confidence in their own strength which they felt at present, and at that time they withdrew from the contest, lest their efforts should be encountered with ridicule and contempt. In considering the Bill now before their Lordships it was material they should bear in mind that, whether it were carried or rejected, it was a measure which would not interfere with the general purposes which the Commissioners had in view. He need scarcely repeat to their Lordships that he objected to the continuance of the union, for it appeared to him that nothing but a strongly apparent necessity could justify its maintenance. It was true that so long as he and his right Rev. Friend existed, no complete union of the sees could take place; but supposing that even up to the period of their decease the union were not prevented, still he had no doubt that the noble Earl would be prepared to stand forward and press this measure—he trusted to a successful issue. In the mean time, so long as health and strength remained to him, he was determined to avail himself of every opportunity that offered to urge upon the attention of Parliament the considerations which opposed themselves to the existence of this union. The diocese to which he now belonged was one over which he had presided for a period of fourteen years, and he sincerely hoped that the evils by which it was now threatened might be averted. Assuming that the union were carried into effect, he should say that whether the future Bishop fixed his residence at Bangor or at St. Asaph, one portion or the other of the diocese would sustain a great loss. The clergy residing in one part of the diocese must lose the frequent opportunities which they now enjoyed of communicating with their Bishop, and even in a temporal point of view the removal of the Bishop must be regarded as a great evil. It was removing from the district one who might be considered in the light of a country gentleman of considerable property, and it necessarily directed that which would have been his expenditure into a different channel. As to the new Bishopric, he did not deny the necessity of creating it, and he had no doubt that funds would be found for the purpose. In his opinion the necessity for a Bishop of Manchester created no necessity for extinguishing the ancient dioceses

499
of St. Asaph and Bangor. He knew it had been said that twenty-six or twenty-seven Prelates having seats in that House were quite sufficient to represent the Church of England; but he begged to remind their Lordships, that at a time when the Temporal Peers were by no means so numerous as at present, the Lords Spiritual, including the Mitred Abbots, were not less than forty in number, who had seats in the House. After the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII., he created six additional Bishoprics. The diocese of Westminster had been abolished, and he professed himself at a loss to understand why Manchester should not be called into existence in lieu of Westminster. He begged the House to consider that a strong, holy, and most religious feeling penetrated all classes in England with respect to this question. The continuance of those sees was an object dear to the affections of the people of Wales—even those not friendly to the Church were of one mind in reprobating the measure which went to unite the sees; they regarded it as injurious to their national feelings. He hoped then that the House would have due regard to the deep and solemn sentiments with which the people viewed this question. They did not ask themselves whether or not dioceses should be regulated by square miles or even by population statistics; they did not admit that dioceses ought to be circumscribed by arbitrary circles—that they were matters of arithmetic, or of pounds, shillings, and pence. There was a deeper and a stronger feeling than that of mere pecuniary considerations; and he hoped their Lordships would do him justice to remember that he had no personal interest in the result.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he was aware that a feeling in favour of the Bill prevailed, not only in North Wales, but generally throughout England and Wales. But as to the arrangement being an insult to the people of Wales there was not the least ground for considering it in that light. The new diocese could not be created without the proposed union, and however great the respect which he entertained for antiquity, he could not he insensible to the claims of 2,000,000 of men as opposed to those of 350,000. The supposed injury to North Wales had been strongly spoken of, but in his opinion no injury whatever would be effected by the recommendations of the Commissioners
500
—there would in fact be no extinction of any Bishopric, but a combination of two dioceses, with a view to the formation of another Bishopric where it was more wanted. With the aids that were now available there would be nothing to prevent the due administration of the united dioceses by one Bishop. Under the new arrangement, although there would be only one Bishop for St. Asaph and Bangor, yet he would be assisted by four Archdeacons, two for each diocese, and with this assistance, and the aid of rural Deans he submitted that 260 livings, and a population of 400,000 souls, might be fitly managed by a single Bishop. From his experience, he thought that by perfecting the establishment of Archdeacons and rural Deans, and improving the means already available, they would do better for the Church than by the multiplication of Bishoprics. He knew that an increase of the number of Bishoprics was desired by many friends of the Church, but as at present advised he did not see the expediency of such a measure, and he thought the advantage was questionable. He trusted that he had said enough to justify himself and the rest of the Commission for having originally proposed and since supported this measure; and he should refrain from troubling the House further.
The Bishop of St. David'ssaid he did not think that the question had been placed as yet on the right, the true, or, at all events, the strongest footing; important elements had been left out of consideration. He looked upon the mode in which the question had been dealt with as a specimen of the manner in which Welsh questions affecting the interests and the feelings of the Principality had been usually disposed of by the Government and Parliament. The consideration of the disregard that had been shown to Wales, he could assure their Lordships from his own knowledge, had formed a ground of dissatisfaction and discontent throughout that part of the Principality with which he was acquainted, and he believed he might say throughout the whole of it. That this was not a delusion he was firmly convinced; in his opinion, there was a great deal of ground for it. He considered the present state of South Wales, that state which bad resulted from the disturbances which took place there last year, as an instance of the disregard with which Wales bad been treated; because he knew that previous to the breaking out of those

501
disturbances, strong representations had been made to the Government of the danger of the increasing evil; but those representations had been disregarded. He did not mean to charge the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Home Department, with want of courtesy; all had been done with the right hon. Baronet's usual amenity of manner; but substantially, disregard was shown to those representations. One point to which he would speak with reference to his own diocese was the want of efficiency in the Establishment, arising from lack of funds. In that diocese a great want had been felt of the means of training young men for the Church. A college, as many of their Lordships knew, had been founded to meet this deficiency, chiefly out of the savings of the parochial clergy. The institution had attained some degree of efficiency, and to some extent fulfilled the purposes of the founders, but it still far from adequately dealt with the evil. It might, indeed, be set forth as an example of the apathy of Government to matters connected with the Principality. Something, it was true, was given annually, but not more than one-tenth of what was voted for the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. Application had been made for an increase of the allowance to the Welsh College, but the Government had refused to increase the grant, and no step of any kind had been taken by them on behalf of the institution, or to remedy the defect he had referred to. In his opinion not only the Government and Parliament, but the nation at large, were in the habit of estimating too lightly the importance of that portion of the community. It had been forgotten, and at the same time this had also been forgotten, that that remnant of a once powerful people were separated by but a narrow channel from 7,000,000 of people who claimed a common origin with them, and who had not always been in the most composed state, or possessed with feelings of full satisfaction with the Government of this country. He considered this arrangement of these dioceses as a specimen of the treatment to which the Principality of Wales had been subjected, and which he had been endeavouring to illustrate. A most remarkable miscalculation and over-sight had been committed with reference to this measure—it had been based upon a miscalculation altogether—if the question had been considered in its proper light they would not at that moment be discussing it. This See of Bangor which was to be sup-
502
pressed, or extinguished, or, if they would, merged in the other See of St. Asaph, had been treated as if it were one of twenty-six—it ought to have been considered as one of four. Had this fact been properly attended to, he was of opinion that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have endeavoured to discover some other mode of settling the question. He wished to know where they intended to stop in the application of the principle they were then discussing? Should their Lordships consent to this measure they would be asked to extend it further. The population of this country was continually on the increase, and another Bishopric in the West of England might be required. If the creation of a Bishop for Manchester made it necessary to abolish the Bishopric of Bangor by uniting that diocese with the diocese of St. Asaph, and they wanted to make a Bishop of Leeds, would their Lordships consent to the consolidation of the Bishoprics of St. David and Llandaff? The simple question for them to consider was whether any step which they had yet taken was to be viewed as irrevocable? He thought that some of their Lordships would think that such was the case. He trusted that the possibility of being charged with that bugbear "inconsistency" would not prevent that House from pursuing any course which might be thought just in reference to the matter under consideration. There was always room for an honourable retreat. With reference to the Bishopric of Manchester, there could exist only one feeling among their Lordships—every one felt that the establishment of that Bishopric was most desirable—every individual would like to see the creation of the Bishopric, instead of its being a matter of speculation. The only point of regret in connection with it was, that it should be purchased at such a price. That Bishopric, when erected, would he, not a monument of the glory, strength, and liberal spirit of the English Church, as it ought to have been, but a memorial of its degradation. If the future Bishop of Manchester ever took his seat in that House—should he be a man of right feeling, and considered the steps which had been taken in order to seat him in that House—he could not avoid having emotions of a very uncomfortable character, especially when he felt that he was filling an usurped place, and had displaced one who ought to be there. He did not think that they had gone too far not to be able to retrace their steps. But his belief was,

503
that this measure had originated in an oversight, from inadvertency, and from considerable ignorance of the real state of the Principality of Wales. But if it should now be consummated, it would have been so in the light of day, with the clearest knowledge, and with all the facts, and statements, and arguments which ought to have prevented, and which would, in his opinion, have prevented, if they had been laid before the parties, this Bill being proposed. Still, although he thought reason, sound policy, and wisdom, were on the side of the noble Earl's Motion, he could not, when he saw the kind of opposition that appeared to be enlisted against it, but feel a very deep misgiving as to its success. There was, however, another kind of opposition, perhaps more formidable, but which every one must respect, whatever might be its cause—an opposition connected with qualities and actions which all must admire —for every one must admire the glorious characteristic of an English soldier, which had given rise to the saying that he never knew what it was to be beaten—one might easily conceive that the noble Duke, who had contributed so much by his illustrious actions to perpetuate that quality, that he, the hero of so many fields, would not consent to be foiled even on this matter; but he (the Bishop of St. David's) would take the liberty of saying, that if the noble Duke succeeded on this occasion, it would not be one of his most glorious or useful victories; but, on the contrary, it would be another example of the melancholy truth, that it was much easier for the greatest and best of men to commit an error, than to acknowledge it.
The Bishop of Lincolnnext addressed the House, but in a very subdued tone of voice. The right rev. Prelate was understood to say, that it was impossible not to be struck with the disproportion and inequality which existed between the extent of some of the Episcopal Dioceses and the population of these diocesan districts. With reference to what had fallen from the preceding speakers on the subject of the new Bishop having a seat in the House of Lords, he would observe, that the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), who was no mean authority on this matter, had said that it was essential to the union between Church and State, that the Bishops should have a seat in the highest branch of the Legislature. He (the Bishop of Lincoln) did not mean to give a decided opinion on that subject, but it
504
might become a question whether, if they created a new Bishop without entitling him to a seat in the House of Peers, they might not be adopting a course likely to weaken that union.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, it was with deep regret that be found himself on this occasion opposed to the noble Duke and to two right rev. Prelates, for whose high character and position he entertained the warmest estimation; but he could honestly say, that he never gave more cordial and warm support to any motion than that which he was prepared to give to the proposition of his noble Friend, who, by his honest, zealous, and patriotic conduct, in bringing; forward this subject, had gained for himself, most justly, the esteem and respect of all who were connected with the Principality of Wales, and he (Lord Winchilsea) would also add, of all who were desirous to promote the religious interests of that part of the country. He regretted most deeply —with all deference to the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—that, when they felt the imperious necessity of establishing another Bishopric, they had not boldly asserted the urgent necessity of the case, and that they had not endeavoured, while granting this great boon, to avoid inflicting a serious injury. Could any one contend that the destruction of this ancient Bishopric in North Wales, would not do great violence to the feelings of the people of that district. Was it politic, he would ask, on the part of the Legislature, to treat their wishes and feelings with indifference? He thought they ought to take into consideration the condition of Wales and the comparative poverty of the great majority of the parochial clergy of the Principality. Was it no inconvenience to a poor clergyman, that if he wished to take the advice or opinion of his Bishop, he must travel thirty, forty, or fifty miles further than he would have had to go if the two Bishroprics of St. Asaph and Bangor were retained intact? He believed, that if the feeling of the people of England could be ascertained, it would be found decidedly favourable to the establishment of a Bishropric of Manchester; and that they were also desirous that the Bishop of that place should have a seat in that House, and this being the case, why should they not at once act upon principle, and create one at once, instead of waiting twenty, thirty, or, perhaps, even

505
forty years. Although the Motion of his noble Friend might not be successful on this occasion, he had only to persevere, and at a future time his efforts would be crowned with success.
The Bishop of Londonsaid he agreed in opinion with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that if an appeal could properly he made to the people of this country, it would he found that they were desirous that a Bishopric of Manchester should be created, and that the Bishop of that diocese should possess a seat in that House. But he (the Bishop of London) must say that, before they acceded to the Motion of the noble Earl, they ought to have some further guarantee for the erection of a Bishopric of Manchester. If he could he assured of the creation of such a Bishopric, with the proper dignity of a place in that House, he would at once abandon the position which, as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he now felt called upon to maintain; but he could not consent to relinquish the security they had already obtained for the establishment of that Bishopric until they obtained some other equally valid security. The motives which had induced him to support the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on this subject had been stated so clearly and intelligibly by his right rev. Friend, whose Colleague he then was, that it was unnecessary for him to detain the House by entering into any explanation on that point. He had felt that the only means of attaining an object which he considered essential to the well-being of the Church—the provision of Episcopal superintendence of that vast district of which Manchester was the capital—was by the union of the two Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor. At the period to which he was alluding it was considered that there was no prospect of obtaining by any other means the establishment of a new Bishopric, the holder of it having a seat in that House; and he had conceived that the appointment of a Bishop without a seat in the House of Lords would have been a step fraught with danger to the present constitution of the Church. This consideration still operated upon his mind, and induced him to withhold his assent from the proposal of the noble Earl—unless, indeed, he could be satisfied that if the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor were not united, a new Bishopric would be created, and that the Bishop would have a seat in the House of Lords. He was not prepared to say that he was
506
absolutely convinced a Bishopric might not safely be created, the holder of which might, for a time at least, remain without a seat in that House; but on the other hand, he was not satisfied that such an experiment would be unattended with danger. He thought the right rev. Prelate who had addressed their Lordships with such great eloquence and effect, had censured somewhat severely the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He hoped the right rev. Prelate did not mean to question the motives and intentions of the Commissioners, whatever might have been the wisdom of the course they had pursued. The Commissioners had taken every means to ascertain the effects, advantageous or disadvantageous, which might be expected to result to the Church from the adoption of their recommendation. They had been assisted in those inquiries by a gentleman of the principality of great experience and intelligence; the matter had been repeatedly-discussed; and, though the learned and excellent gentleman to whom he alluded had expressed some doubt, in the first instance, as to the propriety of the union of the two sees, he eventually came to the conclusion that this was the least objectionable mode of proceeding. He had himself communicated privately with several intelligent persons connected with North Wales, and it was considered by them that the business of the united sees of St. Asaph and Bangor might be transacted by one Bishop, with the aid of a competent number of Archdeacons and rural Deans. It had been charged against the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that many of their recommendations had been made in the grossest ignorance. Now, why did not those who made this charge come forward at the time and give the Commissioners that information which they possessed? It was not only competent for them at the time to have come forward to give evidence, but it was their bounden duty to do so. As the Commissioners had been offered no such evidence, they were bound to support the measure which had been brought into Parliament at that time, for the purpose of carrying the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners into effect. It was true, he admitted, that now a different state of feeling prevailed, not only in the Principality, but throughout the country at large. He admitted that a strong and deep feeling prevailed throughout the great body of the clergy in favour of the measure proposed by the noble Earl; such a feeling

507
did not prevail when the Commissioners made their recommendation, a duty which they had discharged at the time with great reluctance. He hoped, that on account of those recommendations, their Lordships would not accuse him, and the other Bishops with whom he acted, of being influenced by any love for the suppression of Bishoprics, of the union of Sees, for they had only consented to that proposal, because they believed that greater good would be done to the Church by adopting that proposition than by any other plan which they could adopt. He admitted the feeling that now prevailed amongst the great body of the clergy on this subject, but, until he saw what provision was made for a Bishopric of Manchester, he would not consent to forego that security which their Lordships and the other House of Parliament had given towards obtaining that object. If their Lordships rejected the Motion of the noble Earl, and adhered to the recommendation of the Commissioners, which their Lordships had themselves assisted to carry into law, still there would be grave questions connected with the Bishops of England to be considered. They would have to consider, so far from settling this question, whether it might not be necessary to establish new Bishoprics. Before he concluded, he wished to make one remark. He hoped the right rev. Prelate, (the Bishop of St. David's) would excuse him if he said that, in speaking of the mode in which the Celt was treated by the Saxon subjects as they were the subjects of one Crown, and members of the same Church, he thought that it was not wise to use language of a kind not calculated to promote that good feeling which it was desirable should subsist amongst all the different parts of the kingdom. He hoped that, in considering for the Church of the Principality they would consider them as members of the Church of England, and they would agree to no measure that was not calculated to promote their true interests. He (the Bishop of London) felt it be his duty to resist the Motion of his noble Friend.
The Bishop of St. David'ssaid, in explanation, that it had not been his intention, in the observations he had made, to charge the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with anything like injustice, or a denial of justice. As to the other point to which the right rev. Prelate, who had just sat down, had alluded, his (the Bishop of St. David's) statements were purely of a historical nature. He had merely repeated
508
what had been said by others—statements which had appeared in print, and had been matter of public notoriety.
Lord Vivianwas understood to say, that he believed there was a very strong feeling in the country against the establishment of a new Bishopric; but he did not think that, among the laity at least, there was much objection to the junction of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it was quite evident from the speech of the right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), that he thought the union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor would be in itself an evil, and that he would be rejoiced if he found that he could relieve the people of Wales from the threatened mischief, and yet be assured of the means of establishing a sufficiently endowed and dignified Bishopric at Manchester. Now he thought that as the right Rev. Prelate seemed to entertain these opinions, he might be expected to give his support to this stage of the present Measure. Supposing this Bill was allowed to go into Committee it would be part of the duty of that Committee to devise means for securing provision for the See of Manchester, and if in Committee the right Rev. Prelate failed in securing that provision, then he might surely and consistently, refuse to vote for the next reading of the Bill. He had been rejoiced to hear the observations of the right Rev. Prelate, because he was the first speaker who had given him any hope that the proposal of the noble Earl would eventually be successful. Even although strong arguments might have been adduced against that proposal, he still had hope; for strong arguments urged against a principle which he believed to be just, and sound, and wise, never would induce him to despair of the ultimate success of that principle. He continued to entertain a hope, even when able and wise men used good arguments against a good measure, that they would themselves be convinced by hearing better and stronger arguments:—but when he heard no argument which, as he conceived, deserved the name of argument, urged against a Measure which in his conscience he believed to be just and necessary — when he found wise and good men say, "We will not assent to this proposal; we insist upon its being cast out, and we have power to enforce our determination," then he did despair for a time, but only for a time; for, where a cause had justice and wisdom on its side it was sure to be ulti-

509
mately triumphant. He must not, however be supposed to intimate that those who had addressed their Lordships in this strain were incapable, in a good cause, of urging the best and soundest arguments; but he conceived that, in the present case, their cause was radically bad, and not a syllable deserving of the name of argument had been adduced against the proposal of the noble Earl. What bad been the language of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), whose political sagacity and plain good English sense always contrived to get at the bottom of any question and to find the soundest reasons for supporting any Measure which he thought it their Lordships' duty to adopt. If he had not at the time noted down the words of the noble Duke, he could scarcely have believed that he would have made such a statement. The noble Duke said, that the House must remember, if they agreed to the Motion of the noble Earl, that they sanctioned a Bill the object of which was to repeal an Act of Parliament eight years old. What, was this anything very new in the history of British legislation—was it so monstrous a thing for Parliament to be called upon to repeal an Act which had been in existence for such a time? But he would ask their Lordships if the Bill of his noble Friend was a Measure for the repeal of an Act of Parliament? He must say, he thought the noble Duke was labouring under some most extraordinary hallucination. Why, this Bill, if it were passed, would, it was true, touch a small portion of an Act of Parliament; but it related to but an infinitesimal portion of that Act. He could not adequately describe the insignificance of the fraction which would be struck off the Act by this Measure. Now, he wished their Lordships to recollect what that Act was, and what was its nature. It was not the result of deep, grave, and serious deliberation upon the great variety of important questions which would be affected by its provisions. No; it rested upon different grounds. In the preamble it recited a long report from the Commissioners, containing he did not know how many recommendations of different natures, which were, it was said, "expedient to be adopted." These were the grounds on which it was brought forward—the expediency of adopting certain recommendations of the Commissioners. Was it true he asked their Lordships, to say, that the wisdom and forethought of Parliament had been exercised in deciding upon these 50 or 100
510
recommendations? Did their Lordships really think that these grounds were adequate to sustain such a Measure as the present? If some noble Lord, or if he himself as one opposed to the Measure, had risen in his place and asked their Lordships whether they were prepared on the instant to adopt a whole string of propositions, every one of which required grave and mature consideration, how would the question have been answered? Supposing that he had further asked the House, were they prepared to consider and remedy the inconveniences which might arise from the hasty adoption of these recommendations, would he have been told that they could not do so, and that their powers were circumscribed? Why, he should have laughed had such an answer been given to him. But, apart from this, let their Lordships look how this Act of Parliament had been dealt with, and let them consider if it had been treated as a thing so sacred that they should shrink from touching it. Why, scarcely two years had passed since one most important proposition, relating to the Bishopric of Man had been introduced, and the noble Duke had not been quite correct in his statements on that subject. Much greater changes had since taken place, in giving to the Commissioners power to carry into effect those most important alterations. Parliament should, however, use its most deliberate opinion. Indeed, it had done so on one point already, for when in Committee he had taken the liberty of moving an Amendment which would have the effect of changing in a great measure the nature of the Commission, which composed as it was of persons sitting merely at the pleasure of the Crown, he considered a monstrous innovation;—it had been his fortune, as it might be again on the present occasion, to be in a minority. Since that time, however, he had had the great gratification of seeing the Government, both Houses of Parliament and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners adopting the course he had ventured to recommend. That gave him much confidence, and he felt that experience was with him, when he said that good measures no matter how much opposed or how long resisted, must ultimately be successful. The present question might be deferred for one, or for two, or for three years, but that was merely a consideration of time. He lamented that his right rev. Friend in his able speech should have thought fit to allude to the strong feeling excited on this

511
subject, and to consider it as not connected with the real merits of the case; and more than that, to state that there was more of strong feeling than of argument with the noble Lord. However, that no doubt was his right rev. Friend's conviction, and he did justice to himself in stating it, though he (the Bishop of Exeter) could not share it with him. The right rev. Prelate had no right to ask the House to refuse to read that Bill a second time for the reasons he had assigned and from what his Lordship had stated in his opening speech, he hoped for his vote on that side of the question. He would now state to the most rev. Prelate who had preceded him, and he hoped he was free from all feeling of presumption in differing from the arguments advanced by him in his speech to their Lordships. That most rev. prelate had said that more feeling than reason had prevailed in the discussion, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) certainly thought that on one side that was true, though he would not then compare the weight of argument on either side; but further he had said — and he confessed it gave him much pain, and would have given him much more if he could have believed that the most rev. Prelate had uttered the sentiment as the result of his sincere and deliberate conviction—he had said, that it would be no real injury to North Wales to be deprived of a Bishop, if well supplied with archdeacons. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would sincerely grieve, if he could for one moment believe that his most rev. Friend entertained that view of the case, but he believed that in uttering that opinion, the mind of the most rev. Prelate had been influenced not by argument, but by something more powerful even with the best of us, and under the influence of which men were but too apt to say that which upon deliberate reflection they were sorry for. That rev. Prelate was, he was sure, the last man in that House to say that it would not be a very great evil to deprive any portion of the realm which had a Bishop at present of his fostering care and guidance. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would ask their Lordships if it were any reason to deprive one part of the kingdom of the benefit of a Bishop's superintendence, because another portion of it was without that blessing? If it were true that that superintendence was a great benefit, why were the people of St. Asaph and Bangor to be deprived of it? As well might they say, looking to the distribution of rank in dif-
512
ferent counties in England—"We will take some of those Staffordshire or Kentish Earls or Dukes, who are so numerous, and transplant them into Lancashire where they are so few." That method of reasoning would be quite as just in one case as the other. On the same grounds they had an efficacious way of equalizing charities, for instance, in which some counties were very rich, and others very poor, and according to this principle nothing was more easy, for they had only to say, "We will take of such and such Surrey charities and give them to Westmoreland," and the thing was done. But there had been something further in the most rev. Prelate's speech which he had heard with great pain. The most rev. Prelate had spoken of the multiplication of Bishops as a great evil in itself. [The Archbishop of Canterbury was understood to dissent.] Well, then, he rejoiced to hear that it was not to be regarded as an evil, and would omit further reference to what he conceived had been the right rev. Prelate's sentiments upon this subject. There was, however, another passage in that speech which he had heard with much pain, and that was where the most rev. Prelate said, that Bishops should not be brought into collision with their clergy upon small matters, which should be left to the Archdeacons and Deans, but only on questions of importance. Now, he was sure the most rev. Prelate would not say that Bishops were to be regarded merely as criminal officers. [The Archbishop of Canterbury was understood to deny that he had made use of the expression attributed to him.] He did not wish to speak to order when he considered who the individual was whom he addressed, but he had taken down the words alluded to, and however he might have mistaken, he certainly had not misrepresented them. He rejoiced that the most rev. Prelate did not adopt that sentiment, and he knew that no one had ever sat in that House who was a better example of what a Bishop should be than was his Grace, and he appealed from the Prelate hastily addressing their Lordships in that House, to the Bishop administering and presiding over the affairs of his Diocese. He appealed from his arguments to his works. He heartily rejoiced that he had mistaken his Grace's meaning. The office of a Bishop was to support, to assist, to advise his Clergy, to encourage and superintend them in their work, to partake with them the odium or measures which they, unassisted, might not always

513
like to adopt—to warn them gently when going wrong — to correct and point out their errors; but when wilfully following up a course of wrong, to punish and rebuke them. His most rev. Friend, in justification of his intended vote, said that he saw no means of obtaining a seat in that House for the Bishop of Manchester. That must be the only difficulty, for they were told, that as to the revenue there could be no impediment, and that whenever a Bishop of Manchester might be appointed, there the funds would be ready for his disposal and maintenance. Now, as to a seat in that House, he certainly did not wish to undervalue it, and was sure that the rev. Prelate who had laid such stress upon it in his argument did not regard it too much, but he looked upon it chiefly as a pledge of the union between Church and State. For his own part, he did not think there would be much injury done by the introduction of another Prelate in that House, and he did not think that there was a Member of it who would not cheerfully see a twenty-seventh Bishop added to their number. Supposing, however, they did not think so, and that the other House of Parliament would not agree to such a proposition, he, for one, was not at all anxious on the subject, except for the precedent, for if there was once the example of a Bishop without a seat, it might become more general. If the country were so little alive to the advantages derived from the presence of the Bishops in that House (and he was perfectly certain that they sat there with the good will of the country), and if the general opinion of the people continued so long and permanently, he would not wish to see right rev. Prelates sitting there one moment longer, nor could they, if that opinion prevailed, sit there with advantage either to the Church or the country. They sat there, however, because the country felt that they ought to sit there; and he would tell their Lordships if the time should ever come when the great body of the people were convinced that there should not be a House of Lords, they might rest assured that the House of Lords would not long exist. He was not at all frightened at this bugbear of a Bishop without a seat in Parliament. Great—enormously great —as were the advantages accruing to the State by the presence of the right rev. Prelates in that House, as an acknowledgment of the Great Being through whom "Princes decree justice," as advisers and counsellors at the discussion of religious
514
questions or matters relating to Church Government—great as were the advantages to the rev. Prelates themselves of seats in that House, whereby their minds were liberalized, and they were the better enabled to administer and govern their dioceses —great as were all these reciprocal advantages, he considered them as utterly nothing when compared to the vast, the paramount necessity, of having a due number of Bishops for all religious purposes of the Church. Until there were Bishops enough, he thought they should not be afraid of adding to their number, because, perchance, it might endanger their seats in that House. He heartily thanked the noble Earl for having brought forward that Motion, and he ventured to conjure him, if he should be defeated (as from the authority of those opposed to him he feared he would) to press this question upon the House another and another year, again and again, until he should have succeeded in extorting that consent from their Lordships, which wisdom, justice, and piety, so imperatively demanded.
The Duke of Wellingtonexplained that he had reminded their Lordships that this Bill would not only repeal the union of the two sees, but also that part of the Act of Parliament upon which the Orders in Council had been founded.
The Archbishop of Canterburyalso wished to explain what he had said upon two points adverted to by the right rev. Prelate. First, he was represented to have said that no injury would be done to North Wales, because several Archdeacons would be appointed; what he did say was, that he thought in a diocese containing a limited number of parishes, and a limited population like that of North Wales, one Bishop with the assistance of four Archdeacons, was fully competent to the management of the affairs of the Church. As to the other point, he thought he should have reason to complain of the right rev. Prelate, but that if any misapprehension as to his meaning could exist, he ought rather to be obliged for the opportunity of giving this explanation. He was stated to have said, that he considered the multiplication of Bishops an evil; now he said nothing of the sort. What he said was this, that it was not expedient that Bishops should be brought into collision with the Clergy upon every trifling matter; and that his experience had proved to him that in the management of a diocese it

515
was much better that the Bishop should not interfere in a variety of small matters, which the Clergy themselves could much more efficiently arrange.
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, that he was glad that the course of the debate would spare him the necessity of entering at any length upon details which had been already so ably treated by those who had previously addressed their Lordships' House. Indeed, he would have been content to give a silent vote, but that the circumstances in which he was himself placed made him approach the subject with something of a peculiar and personal interest. For the question before the House was one relating to the union of two Bishoprics, and upon that subject he had the result of some experience of his own to offer to their Lordships' consideration. He had most reluctantly, most unwillingly, most entirely contrary, not only to his own feelings but to his own better judgment, been induced, at the instance of those to whom he thought such deference was due, and by a supposed state of necessity in the Church for which he was told no other remedy could be devised, to undertake the care of another diocese (the Bishopric of Bath and Wells), in addition to that which was more properly committed to his charge. Whatever might be the case with other unions, to which reference had been made, but upon which subject he did not wish to enter, he could assert that the union in which he was concerned was satisfactory to no man. To himself it was a burden which distracted his attention from his own more proper duties—which overweighed his spirits and destroyed his energies—a burden from which he most heartily desired to be free, and respecting which he had in vain petitioned for such relief. The members of the Church in his own diocese might justly complain that there was diverted from them a portion of that care and over sight which they otherwise would have, whilst the Clergy and members of the Church in the diocese so unwisely placed under his charge deeply felt, as he knew, that they were deprived of the care and oversight of a Bishop of their own, resident amongst them, and able to attend to their interests in a manner which he could not do. After such experience, he could not refrain from earnestly pressing on their Lordships not to persist in carrying into effect the union of other dioceses, which would, in all probability, be alike burdensome to him upon whom the duties of the office devolved, and
516
unsatisfactory to the members of the Church in both dioceses. In reference to the subject matter immediately before their Lordships, he greatly regretted to find they were met by an opposition which would most probably be fatal to the Motion which the noble Earl had so ably brought forward. Nevertheless he did not regret, far from it, that it had been brought forward, and that this subject had been again discussed, for each time it was considered some progress was made, and the way was further opened for the ultimate accomplishment of their wishes. When this measure was first brought forward the only ground then advanced for the union of the sees he did not say the only ground in the minds of the proposers of the measure; but the only ground which they openly declared was the necessity of thereby obtaining funds for the endowment of a Bishop of Manchester. He could not but consider it as one great step that that which was originally the sole ground and necessity, was now, he believed, finally and for ever disposed of; for, after the discussion of that evening, he did not believe that they would ever hear again, from those who were acquainted with the facts, that there was any necessity for a diversion of the funds from the Bishoprics of North Wales in order to enable them to endow a Bishop of Manchester. He had last year stated to their Lordships a principle on this subject which he thought a just one, and to which he still adhered. It was this: that when the question was that of raising the Collegiate Church of Manchester from its present condition into that of an Episcopal See, the proper quarter to look to for funds for that purpose was the property of the Collegiate Church itself, so far as it would go. He still adhered to that principle; and he believed that an inquiry into the revenues of the Collegiate Church at Manchester would show that no inconsiderable portion of the funds required might fairly be derived from that source; though, owing to the incorrectness of the returns made by the late Warden to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he was not in a condition to show what the amount of these revenues were, or what proportion could rightly be deemed applicable to the endowment of the proposed Bishopric. But, even if there were nothing whatever to come from that quarter, it had been stated, and justly, that there were in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves funds for the endowment of a Bishop of Man-

517
Chester, without any reference to the Bishoprics of North Wales; and he would put this in a point of view which seemed to him to he not without some importance. Their Lordships were aware that the Act of his late Majesty, to which reference had been made, established certain charges upon the more largely endowed sees in order to provide certain payments to be made to those of more slender endowments, which charges were calculated upon a septennial return of the revenues of those sees up to the year 1835. But the Act further provided that the revenues of all the Bishoprics should be subject to a septennial revision, and the charges and payments altered according to each successive return. The period had now arrived for making a second return, and if that return were complete, it would be a very important element in taking into account what means were, or in progress of time would be, in the bands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the endowment of this or other Bishoprics. Those returns had not yet all been made; but he had examined those of fifteen of the twenty-six sees, and though they were not yet revised, and therefore might be subject to error, still he would mention to their Lordships that of those fifteen sees he found that only four fell short of the amount at which they were estimated seven years ago, and that by no very great amount, whilst the other eleven all exceeded, and some considerably, the Return then made; so that he might venture to say that the Returns of those fifteen sees when the new scale of charges and payments took effect, would place in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a surplus beyond that which they already had of not less than 10,000 l. a year; and he had no reason to suppose but that when the Returns of the other nine sees were taken into consideration, that amount would be rather increased than diminished. Now, what were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to do with those funds? They were not at liberty to apply them to any purpose they pleased— to the augmentation of small livings, for instance—but they were by the Act specifically limited to the augmentation of poor Bishoprics. If their Lordships rejected this Motion they would place the matter in this position—they would in effect say, "You shall not use these funds for that purpose, but they shall remain idle, because we are determined that the revenues of the Bishopric of Manchester shall be derived
518
from the poor mountains of North Wales." Even if there were not the funds elsewhere, the inhabitants of North Wales might justly object to the taxing their poverty to fill up the wealth of another district. And therefore in any case, he thought that the noble Earl and those who acted with him, members of the Church in the dioceses of North Wales, would be perfectly justified in refusing to listen to that argument. But to those who took a more general view of the subject, it was doubtless of great importance to know that if the revenues of North Wales were spared, means might be found in other quarters of supplying the deficiency. The further point of a seat in their Lordships' House was doubtless one of great importance. The noble Earl last year, and again this year, had made a proposition on that subject, and, though he did not say it was certainly the best proposition, still it was one to which he was quite willing to give his assent if he were told that the question lay between a Bishopric of Manchester being established under such an arrangement as that, or the indefinite, or at least very distant postponement of that measure, until the period should arrive which was marked out by the act now sought to be repealed. The immediate establishment of that Bishopric was the object he had at heart. The other point, of the exact manner in which it might be endowed, or the arrangements which might be made as to a seat in that House, were questions of detail, and as such he was willing to leave them open for consideration. But the other question was one upon which his opinion was decided. It was his opinion, that if they would enable the Church to discharge—as he was sure they wished it should—the sacred duties intrusted to it,—if they would enable the clergy to watch over the flock committed to their care, and to lead back those who had gone astray,—it must be by bringing the system of the Church in its integrity to bear upon those who now, in too many instances knew it, but in name. And in order to this, it was most needful to put forward the Bishops in close connexion with the people, as a visible centre of unity, governing and guiding and counselling with those committed to their charge; not to establish them as remote powers, unseen and little known, and therefore too often exercising but a small portion of the influence which should properly attach to their sacred office. That was what

519
he considered was the great and real question which should he brought before their Lordships' House, and which he wished to see engage the attention of the Executive Government. That was the question which the universal voice of the Church was pressing upon their notice. It might be that that voice made but little impression upon their ears on account of the feebleness of the organ by which it was expressed; it might be that the Government might refuse to recognise it, because it had not come to them through those channels which they were alone accustomed to consider as authorised, to speak the sentiments of the Church; but, however, that might be, he would venture to say that the real opinion of the Church was in this matter expressed by the noble Earl, and those who with him advocated the repeal of this measure. Of all the petitions that had been presented to their Lordships, had there been one unfavourable to the Motion now before the House? He entreated their Lordships to remark the manner in which his right rev. Brethren would record their votes that evening. There were five of them who stood upon this subject,—he would not say committed, for he would not use a term which in any degree might be considered as invidious— but who as having been included in that Commission, on the recommendation of which that Act was founded which it was now proposed to repeal, stood in a position somewhat different from the rest of the right rev. Prelates. He indeed would that they could see how with the change of circumstances, there was room for the change of opinion too; and he had observed some strong indications that at no very distant period such would be the case. But he entreated them to consider the votes of those who were altogether free upon this question; and to judge from them what was the opinion on this subject of those who had at least the best opportunity of forming a judgment respecting it, and were under the most sacred obligations to consider the question in no light or careless spirit. Did they think it was without much pain and reluctance that his right rev. Brethren and himself stood forward upon this occasion in opposition to those whom they were generally accustomed to follow, with no ordinary deference? Did they think that they would take this course, but that they were compelled to do so by a strong conviction of their duty? Whatever might be the re-
520
sult of this Motion—and he could not but fear that the strong influence of the noble Duke and the Government might decide the votes of the majority of their Lordships—he was reluctant to believe that the Government would long continue to refuse to entertain the proposition of the noble Earl. He was reluctant to believe this, because he was sure that such a course would greatly tend to shock the feelings, to disappoint the hopes, and to shake the confidence of those who were disposed to look with a better hope to the present Administration. Greatly would the Church rejoice to see the rulers of the country rise to a sense of the deep responsibility which was cast upon them, and at least allow that church fully to develope, by her own means, her own resources, and effect that which could be done without throwing any additional burthen upon the public. Greatly would the Church rejoice to see the responsible advisers of the Crown strong, not only in administrative ability—not only in financial resource—not only in the support of either House of Parliament, but strong too in those higher qualities which were best calculated to engender the confidence, to conciliate the feelings, and to command the respect of a Christian people. The Church would, he repeated, greatly rejoice in seeing an Administration strong in that faith, which could look for a blessing upon righteous endeavours in that hope, which could animate to meet difficulties for great objects; and in that enlarged Charity for the souls of men which could see it to be the Statesman's noblest prerogative to aid in the maintenance of true religion, and which would recognise in the efficiency and influence of the Church of Christ, the only sure foundation alike of social order, as of eternal peace.
The Earl of Harrowby: When acting on that Commission he had seen good reason to concur in many of the arguments which had been urged in favour of the union of the two sees, and had thought that, if such a union were to be adopted at all, those were the two upon which the operation might be most safely attempted. When, however, impressions against the arrangement continued so strongly after the lapse of eight years, in the Church as well as without, he felt that it was impossible not to vote for the second reading. He believed that some other arrangement might be given as to the institution of the Bishopric of Manchester. At any rate, if

521
the Bill was read a second time that night, the opinion of the country might be obtained, and he had no doubt that some arrangement might be made to provide sufficient funds for the creation of the Bishopric of Manchester, without the suppression of the two ancient Bishoprics, the continuance of which was an object of much anxiety, not only to the inhabitants of the Principality, but to those of many other parts of the country.
House divided: — Content 49; Not-Content 37; Majority 12.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned.