Sitting of 27 May 1856

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—3° Annuities (No. 2).

ALLEGED EVICTIONS IN IRELAND— CASE OF MR. POLLOK.
On Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Friday—
SIR MICHAEL SHAW STEWART 698
said, that it was with very great reluctance that he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the petition of Mr. Allan Pollok. He regretted that he should hare had to do so; but that gentleman had been placed in such a position in Ireland by the imputations with regard to his management of his property and treatment of his tenants, that he had found himself compelled to appeal to Parliament for redress. He (Sir M. S. Stewart) admitted that he was a friend of Mr. Pollok, and avowed that he regarded him with respect. Against Mr. Pollok, however, the most serious charges had been made; he had been held up to execration by the public press to an extent of which hon. Members might not be aware; not only in Ireland, but in Scotland, where statements most derogatory to his character had been publicly circulated. If he (Sir M. S. Stewart) believed those charges to be true, he certainly would not stand up to defend Mr. Pollok; but convinced as he was that Mr. Pollok was accused most unjustly and most cruelly, he should be ashamed of himself if he had not the courage to rise in his defence, and endeavour to remove the prejudice which had been created against him, by making a simple statement of the facts. He regretted that he had not been aware of the nature of the charges against Mr. Pollok at the time the petition which contained those charges was presented, as that would, of course, have been the most appropriate occasion for his vindication. The accusations against Mr. Pollok were summed up thus in the petition that had been presented against him;—that he had purchased, in 1853, property comprising 7,000 acres, with about 500 tenants and 2,500 souls upon the estates; that he had been guilty of a series of indiscriminate evictions, and of causing wholesale depopulation of the country; and the petitioners prayed the House to interfere and save them from extermination. Now, there were two estates of which Mr. Pollok was proprietor in the county of Galway. As to the first, called the West Estate, when he purchased it he proceeded to make arrangements with the tenants for their giving up occupation of their tenements on receiving compensation; all but nine acceded to these arrangements, and these nine had certainly been evicted, but they were immediately replaced in their houses as "care-takers," and were now in Mr. Pollok's employment, except two, who had

699
voluntarily left. In the advertisement of the property comprising the other estate, put forth by the authority of the Incumbered Estates Commissioners, at whose sale Mr. Pollok bought it, it was stated that there were no leases, and that the greatest portion of the land was held by tenants from year to year, and he was told that this would be a great advantage, as it would enable him to settle the estates as he pleased. When Mr. Pollok obtained possession of this estate, he endeavoured to make the same arrangements as on the other estate, and the tenants were at first ready to enter into such arrangements, but had afterwards been deterred from so doing, and had refused to give up their holdings. Upon this, Mr. Pollok had resorted to legal proceedings—not to eject the tenants from the country, but to show that he was legal owner, and had legal rights. Owing, however, to informalities, these proceedings had not been carried out; and, therefore, on the estate the tenants were almost in the same position now as they were when Mr. Pollok purchased it. It had been said that Mr. Pollok had "exterminated" the tenantry. But he was prepared to prove that this was very far from being the truth; so far from the population upon his property having diminished, it had increased not less than 25 per cent since he had it, and was one-fourth greater now than when he purchased the property—the best possible proof of the falsehood of this charge. It had been said that if the system Mr. Pollok pursued were continued, the country would be depopulated, and that the only way to prevent him from pursuing it would be to make him support all the poor upon his property who were driven to resort to parish relief. But the fact was, that on the estate where Mr. Pollok had been able to carry out his plans, not one person had been compelled to seek such relief. He (Sir M. S. Stewart) had numerous letters from clergymen of the Church of Ireland, from landowners, land agents, and others resident in the vicinity of Mr. Pollok's property, and they testified strongly in his favour. He would not read those letters, but there was one document to which he must call the attention of the House. It had been said that the population on Mr. Pollok's estates had been exterminated. The fact was, that on one estate the population had increased from 1,200 to 1,500 souls since he had it; and the following was a memorial
700
agreed to by 742 persons upon the estate:—
"Honoured Sir,—Having seen and heard of so many false statements made in London as to your conduct towards us, we have deemed it our duty to write to you how much we are grieved at such a report, as we can satisfy the public that the reverse is the case. Most of us were tenants of yours at the time you became proprietor of the West estate. When we gave up our holdings you dealt liberally with us, and have found us liberal employment, at higher wages, and more regularly paid, than we have experienced before. We are all comfortable, contented, and happy, and should be very sorry if a stop were put to the present system of management. We return you thanks for your regular and good employment of our labour, and remain your humble servants."
(Signed by 742 persons.)
He (Sir M. S. Stewart) had shown this to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), who had brought the petition against Mr. Pollok before the House, and the hon. Member who had stated that Mr. Pollok had "exterminated" his tenantry would be happy to find that the persons exterminated were thus happy and contented. It was said, that although the tenantry might now be contented, yet that it was intended to turn the property to grazing purposes, and that that would entail the removal of the tenants; but he (Sir M. S. Stewart) would call the attention of the House to the farm buildings which Mr. Pollok had erected on his estates. He had made it his business to inquire particularly into that subject, for, although he was a friend of Mr. Pollok, he would not say a word in his defence he did not believe to be true. Now, he had been informed by persons well qualified to judge, that the farm buildings on Mr. Pollok's property were superior to anything in Ireland or Scotland. Any one would see at once that such farm buildings would become useless if the land were turned into pasture. Further than this, Mr. Pollok had erected a vast number of cottages on the estates and was building more. He was anxious to show that Mr. Pollok was not indeed, as he had been represented—
"A monster reared on Scottish soil,"
and he would, in a word or two, just state who that gentleman was. Mr. Pollok was certainly possessed of vast wealth, which he had, however, acquired in a very honourable way, and he was not a man to use his wealth merely for the purpose of making others miserable. He was possessed not only of the estates in Ireland which he had purchased, but of an estate

701
in Renfrewshire, which had been in his family for a great many years, and he was universally regarded as a good neighbour and a practical agriculturist. He was not the man to resort to legal proceedings to exterminate his tenantry uselessly and cruelly. If Mr. Pollok were only met in the same spirit which he desired to evince towards his tenantry, there would be no complaint, but the people of Ireland would only be too happy to have a few more landlords such as Mr. Pollok. He thanked the House for their attention; but it was only just to Mr. Pollok that this explanation should be given.
MR. M'MAHONentreated the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, as it was he who had brought forward the case of the conduct of Mr. Allan Pollok. The subject was one of considerable difficulty, as he was a total stranger to the county of Galway, to the petitioners whose case he had been requested to bring forward, and to every one connected with the estates of Mr. Pollok. In bringing forward the Motion he did not, therefore, make himself responsible for a single fact. He quoted from the petition of the tenants of Mr. Pollok, which had been presented to the House twelvemonths since, which many Scotch Members had seen, and which he had great difficulty in getting printed, observations being made by some Scotch Members of the Printing Committee, which he had perhaps better not mention. Upon two or three occasions he had postponed the Motion, in hopes that Mr. Pollok and his tenants would come to some amicable arrangement; but when the assizes were approaching, and these unfortunate tenants might have been evicted, he should have laid himself open to the charge of betraying their interests had he longer abstained from bringing the matter before the attention of the House. He would state nothing of his own knowledge. ["Oh!"] He begged the House to decide upon the admissions made by both parties. He did not know that Mr. Pollok would rest the defence of his conduct with regard to the tenants of Ballynakill upon the management of his West estates, and the statement as to the West estates had certainly come upon him with surprise. Mr. Pollok stated in his petition that he was charged with intending to evict by wholesale the whole tenantry of his estates. It was a grave and serious charge, and why, instead of this special pleading about the management of the Cornborough and West
702
estates, did not Mr. Pollok say he did not mean to evict these 500 people on Ballynakill? With regard to the Cornborough and West estates, occupied by 246 tenants, Mr. Pollok had made a clearance of every tenant, except a few who held leases upon lives, and he admitted that he had now in hand the whole 1,200 acres of which those estates were composed, with the exception of about 200 acres so leased on lives. The petition of Mr. Pollok would lead the House to suppose that no dwellings on those estates had been destroyed; but from a letter received on Saturday from the Rev. Father Derry, parish priest of Ayrecourt, it appeared that as many as two-thirds of the houses had been at once levelled to the ground. If that were so, what had become of these 246 tenants? He could believe that Mr. Pollok, coming from Scotland, where there were numerous manufactories and plenty of work, was not half so conscious as persons better acquainted with Ireland would be of the positive ruin which followed eviction in that country. It was his own statement, however, that when he took the estate, there were 246 tenants upon it, and in compensation for all these evictions on the West estate, Mr. Pollok had erected nine farmsteadings, twenty cottages, one corn-mill, and one mansion-house. Instead of the 246 tenants, there were now only a number of labourers. The West estate was one of the best managed in Ireland, and even during the famine the tenants paid their rents; when they were evicted none went to the poor-house, and that of itself was an admission that they were a respectable class of tenantry, and not poor squatters or cotters whom it would be undesirable to keep on the property. With regard to the petitioners of Ballynakill, Mr. Pollok alleged that they had paid no rent. Mr. Pollok purchased the estates in December, 1853; he commenced ejectments in the spring of 1854; no rent was then due, and no opportunity had been afforded the tenants of making payment. There was not a single allegation that Mr. Pollok ever expressed his willingness to receive the rent. The rent would be paid now if he would accept it. The tenants were ready to pay it. Why was not the hon. Baronet authorised to say Mr. Pollok would accept it? The reason was that if he had offered to receive his rent it would have been considered as a waiver of ejectment. Mr. Pollok wanted the land and not the rent. Mr. Pollok gave the

703
House to understand that the people upon his estate were quite happy and comfortable; but if that were so there would have been no necessity for an increase of the police force. Mr. Pollok said that any additional police force upon his property had been paid for by him. Now, the Irish constabulary were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and it was worthy of inquiry whether a special portion of that force ought to be placed at the disposal of any private gentleman for the purpose of enabling him to effect evictions. He (Mr. M'Mahon) had brought the conduct of this gentleman before the House on the ground that it was calculated to disturb the public peace, and Mr. Pollok had given a proof that this was the tendency of these evictions by increasing the police force at his own expense. He hoped that he should be encouraged to bring this subject forward again, and that such proceedings as those of Mr. Pollok would not be tolerated or encouraged by the House. He trusted that Mr. Pollok, in mercy to these people, and out of consideration for the peace of society, would abandon his proceedings, and come to reasonable terms with his tenants, who were ready to meet him upon a fair understanding.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman left the House to infer that the Scotch Gentlemen upon the Printing Committee had allowed national feelings to influence their proceedings. He was acting with those hon. Gentlemen, and he could not believe that any such idea had occurred to the Scotch Members of that Committee. The sole reason why the Committee hesitated to print the petition of the tenants was that it contained language that was unparliamentary. If any one had acted from national feeling, he would rather say it was the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. M'Mahon). If he had taken the trouble to get up his brief with a little more care, he would have acted a more friendly part towards those whom he represented, and more justly towards a gentleman whose conduct and character would not justify the aspersions of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. M'MAHONhad not imputed to the Scotch Members that they had acted from national feeling—one of them, indeed, had expressed himself in strong terms upon Mr. Pollok's conduct. He had purposely stopped himself when adverting to the Scotch Members of the Committee.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he
704
could not help expressing his regret that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, when unable to contravene the main facts alleged by Mr. Pollok, in his petition, and in the printed papers, had not met the question with greater frankness, and admitted that he had been led to make, unintentionally, erroneous statements. There could not be a stronger contrast than in the course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Sir M. S. Stewart) and the hon. and learned Gentleman. The former hon. Gentleman had come forward in a manly manner, and had brought forward this question with a propriety, a moderation, and a good feeling which had been acknowledged on all sides of the House. He (Sir John Pakington) had made himself acquainted with these papers, and his conviction was that Mr. Pollok deserved to be ranked amongst the greatest benefactors of Ireland. He was sorry that a gentleman who had done so much to mitigate the demoralisation which prevailed in portions of that unhappy country should have been exposed to so much obloquy. If he recollected rightly, on a former occasion he had understood the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown to have expressed feelings strongly adverse to Mr. Pollok; but he trusted that after what had taken place to-night, both the noble Lord and the House would be convinced that Mr. Pollok was not amenable to the charges brought against him.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had expressed no opinion whatever with regard to Mr. Pollok; but he did express his entire concurrence with what had fallen from an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House as to the system of depopulation which Mr. Pollok was charged with having exercised, without expressing any opinion whether that charge were just or not. He rather thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, whom he did not see in his place, did express an opinion with regard to Mr. Pollok, but certainly, he (Viscount Palmerston) did not.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he would join the hon. Member for Northumberland in assuring the House that the Printing Committee were most anxious to meet the views of every Member, and that it was only the strong wording of the petition that prevented them from printing it. The right hon. Gentleman in the chair was consulted on the subject, who said

705
that the petition might be printed, if necessary, for the use of Members alone.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, this was a question on which no special pleading should be resorted to on either side. Since the question had been mooted in this House he had had an interview with Mr. Pollok, and that gentleman had evinced such a thorough and rightminded sense of his duty towards the people on his property that he (Mr. Moore) scarcely thought it necessary to make any remarks on Mr. Pollok's vindication. The case, however, was this:—Mr. Pollok had taken possession of a large property; he had converted the inhabitants into farm labourers; but he paid them well and treated them handsomely. Mr. Pollok had adopted the system of high farming on a large scale, and no doubt, as long as the great expenditure which he had entered into continued, the people would be well paid and comfortable; but, like most other gentlemen who had tried high farming, he was becoming tired of the system, and was about to relet this property in large farms. The question then arose what, if the land should be laid out in grass cultivation to any great extent—as would probably be the case—what would become of the people who had been dispossessed? Such a system was, in his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, highly dangerous to the population of the west of Ireland. He hoped, however, that the ultimate result would be an arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
MR. A. HASTIEsaid, it was a mistake to suppose, as had been done, that the tenants on the estate in question had all been in comfortable circumstances before Mr. Pollok became the owner of it. The hon. Member then read part of the report of Mr. Michael Kelly, the receiver of the Court of Chancery, to show that the tenants who had been described as in affluent circumstances owed large arrears of rent. Mr. Kelly described them thus—
"The great bulk of the tenantry are persons in a humble rank of life, and for the most part persons in doubtful and in very many instances insolvent circumstances."
MR. NAPIERsaid, it had been represented that his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had expressed an opinion unfavourable to Mr. Pollok; but if his right hon. Friend had done so, his opinion was merely founded on the ex parte statements contained in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Wexford. He (Mr. NaNapier)
706
thought, after the statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir M. S. Stewart), that it was not necessary for him further to vindicate the. conduct of Mr. Pollok.
MR. BELLEWsaid, that, although minor points in the petition might have been exaggerated, he thought it but fair to declare that the main statements contained in that petition, when he seconded the Motion brought before the House on the subject, were known by him to be true. Mr. Pollok did not in the least intend to contradict the main facts alleged—namely, that of having ejected a great many persons. He admitted that he had ejected 177 tenants from their holdings on the estate to which the petition referred. He did not wish to prejudice the House against Mr. Pollok. The complaint which he made was against the system, and not the individual. It could not be denied that a system of eviction had taken place in Ireland to a very great extent. The object of Mr. Pollok was to introduce the system of large farms on his estates in Ireland, but there was no guarantee that high farming would pay in that country. It involved the necessity of converting small tenants into farm labourers; but those farm labourers would have no security of being permanently employed. They might have work this year and next; but what would be their condition five years hence? Mr. Pollok was a man of capital, and was no doubt anxious to do good; but he (Mr. Bellew) wished to impress upon the House this fact, that changing tenants of the soil into farm labourers was a hazardous experiment, for though they might be employed to-day this day fortnight they might be houseless and penniless. He hoped that nothing more would be said about this individual case; but that the House would direct its attention to the working of the system on which Mr. Pollok was proceeding, and that an inquiry would be made into the effect which that system was likely to have upon the condition of the population of Ireland.
SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, the inevitable conclusion of all those that were acquainted with the actual circumstances of the case from what had been stated by some hon. Gentlemen, must be that Mr. Pollok had perpetrated wholesale evictions. Now, he (Sir A. Campbell) begged to state that not a single person had been evicted upon one of the estates. The fact was, that, influenced by the results of his experience with reference to

707
an estate which he had formerly possessed, Mr. Pollok was anxious to put in force a system of improvement grounded upon the same plan in the case of his new purchase. With that view he entered into communication with his tenants, and for some time he was led to believe that they would cheerfully come into his arrangements. However, in the course of time a change came over the feelings of the tenantry, and then Mr. Pollok took out summonses of eviction. Nevertheless, those summonses had never been acted upon, nor did he (Sir A. Campbell) think they ever would be. But the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), in speaking of another of the estates, mentioned sundry tenants as having been evicted from their homes, and turned loose upon the wide world. Now the fact was undoubtedly that certain houses had been pulled down; but then those who resided in them were located in other houses on the estate. And let him add that a great number of the people thus referred to were included in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Wexford. They had no right therefore to say that those people had been turned loose upon the world. Let him also observe in passing that the greater part of the petitioners were parishioners of the Rev. Mr. Derry, and certainly they might be considered to be as good judges of their own position as the rev. Gentleman. However, what he mainly wished to impress upon the House was, that no evictions had actually taken place. At the same time he thought the general feeling of the House seemed to indicate that the case had been taken up against Mr. Pollok upon insufficient grounds; but if such was not the case he was quite sure that nothing would be more in consonance with Mr. Pollok's feelings than that there should be a searching investigation at the hands of the House into all the circumstances of the case.
MR. DRUMMOND: I rise, Sir, to protest against the whole character of this discussion. I do not do so on the part of either Scotch or Irish landlords—I do not do so on the part of Mr. Pollok, with whom I have no acquaintance—but I say on behalf of landlords in the abstract, that it would be impossible to devise a more tremendous inquisition than this House will become if it allows of statements being made in reference to the management of our estates in the absence of every one capable of meeting them. The very idea
708
of the thing is perfectly monstrous. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) told us that there were two facts upon which the whole case rested, and that he did not want special pleading. Neither do I want special pleading; but I do want facts. And what were his two facts? Why, one was that there had been a depopulation on these estates; the other that the estates had, under the former proprietor, been better managed. Yet it now turns out that there are actually a greater number of persons on the estates at this moment by twenty-five per cent than there had been at any time previously. So much, therefore, for the cry as to depopulation going on. Now, as for this admirably-managed estate, that was in such fine condition before Mr. Pollok got it, what became of its owner? Why, he ended in the Insolvent Debtors' Court. And who is the person that takes the lead in raising this outcry? Why, Mr. Kelly, the late agent of the estates. My impression is, that these estates are now in a much better condition than they were, and that they are in a far better state than almost any other property in the county Mayo. I therefore think it would be wise for gentlemen to encourage such a landlord as Mr. Pollok, and to copy his example, instead of raising a clamour against him. But you say that Mr. Pollok knew that this petition would be presented a year and a half ago. Now, that is not true; for the printer did not print it until a month ago, and it was not until within a few days that Mr. Pollok received a copy of it. To the petition there are only three names appended, namely, those of two priests and Mr. Kelly the manager. All I will say is this, that I have had under my own eyes the instance of an estate in Scotland managed upon the plan adopted by Mr. Pollok. That estate, a very large one, had been even worse managed than the estate purchased by Mr. Pollok. Nevertheless, it was taken in hand by a nobleman of great wealth, who divided it into large farms. That happened twenty years ago, and the estate is now a most productive one, and I doubt not that Mr. Pollok's efforts will be attended with a similar success. However, no matter whether that gentleman's experiment is a good or a bad one, I do trust this House will never again hearken to such a discussion as we have had raised in this instance.
MR. E. ELLICE,(St. Andrews)explained

709
that his observations on a former evening had been founded upon the statements which had been made in that House, on the understanding that the petition had been presented a year ago, and its statements had not been controverted. Upon that faith he expressed a very strong opinion respecting wholesale evictions and depopulations such as had been productive of very great distress and suffering in Scotland. It appeared new that this was not a case of that wholesale eviction which he had imagined it to be; but at the same time the facts had been fairly stated by the hon. Member for Mayo. No doubt the system of Mr. Pollok would ultimately produce great advantages to the district; but it would easily be conceived that any attempt to change the condition of the population, made suddenly, and without sufficient consideration for the feelings of that population must entail very great distress and dissatisfaction. It did appear that there had been a considerable number of evictions which had led to much dissatisfaction; but after the statements which had been made that night the matter had assumed a totally different aspect to that which induced him to make the observations which he had done on a former evening.
MR. MAGUIRE: I venture to detain the House for a short time, while I offer a few remarks rendered necessary by the observations of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond). That hon. Member has, in the first place, charged my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford with having brought his accusation forward without due notice, and thereby taken Mr. Pollok by surprise and at a disadvantage. Is that the real fact? By no means; for I hold in my hand a letter written by Mr. Allan Pollok, who, as I am informed, was the purchaser, and is the real owner of these estates; and in that letter, which is dated April, 1855, or a period of thirteen months since, this Mr. Pollok alludes to the fact, of which he states his knowledge, that my hon. and learned Friend had the charge of a petition on this very subject which he was about bringing before the House of Commons. How then can it be fairly said that Mr. Allan Pollok has been taken by surprise, when he, as well as his relative, was fully aware of the determination to bring the petition of those unhappy people before this House, as the great court of appeal in all matters of public wrong?
710
But the hon. Member for West Surrey has gone farther still; he has ventured to represent Mr. Allan Pollok as the great regenerator of Ireland—such a benefactor as that country has not seen for a hundred years. Now as an Irish representative, I most solemnly express my conviction that such men as Allan Pollok are the greatest curse with which the country and its people could be inflicted. God knows—and I use the name with every reverence—I believe in my soul and conscience that the system pursued by this gentleman, whatever may be his intentions, or his motives, is one that is the most mischievous and fatal that could be conceived, not merely to the district in question, not even to the prosperity of the country and the population thus experimented upon, but to the strength and stability of the empire. For what is it? It is simply converting the farmer, who enjoys at least a position of comparative independence, into a day-labourer, who is not only in a position of complete and total dependence, but whose means of existence depend upon the chance of accident or the calamity of sickness. I ask the House, is that the way to regenerate Ireland?—is that the mode by which its people can be rendered self-supporting, and raised in the social scale? Of Mr. Pollok I know nothing, neither am I acquainted with Galway, or with the circumstances of the particular property; but in the very reply of Mr. Pollok himself, I see quite enough to condemn him and his system, and to vindicate the petitioners who protest against both. Just take his own admissions—that from one estate of 12,000 acres, he removed 240 tenants, some of whom, or the most of whom, he converted into day-labourers. Will any Gentleman have the goodness to divide the number representing the tenants into the number representing the acres of land which they occupied; and he will see that, taking into account the fact that many of the tenants on that estate occupied but small holdings, say of ten and twenty acres, there must have been tenants on the property who held, not ten and twenty, but 100, and perhaps 150 acres of land. If this be so—and it must be so—for the average is over fifty acres—I ask any hon. Member, was Allan Pollok the benefactor of the tenant of 100 acres of land, when he turned him out of his farmhouse, removed him from the farm which he had cultivated, and turned him into a day-labourer, no matter how well he paid

711
him in that capacity? If this is being a benefactor to Ireland, I say, God forbid that we should have many more Allan Polloks in that country. If this example, which we are told is so valuable—in fine, such a blessing—were imitated by all purchasers in the Incumbered Estates Court, the result would be a scene of wide-spread misery and ruin. ["No, no!"] What else could it be, when by it you degrade and destroy the class you should render independent, and should cherish, as the best strength of the nation? If this is to be the principle on which foreign capital is to be introduced into Ireland, I hold, as an Irishman, that it is a cause of congratulation that so little of that capital has been introduced; and that out of £17,000,000 of property purchased in the Incumbered Estates Court, not much more than £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 has been purchased by strangers—in fact, that we have imported so few Allan Polloks. It is also a source of congratulation that those Irishmen who have purchased the property so sold—whether they be of the ancient proprietary class of the country, or men who have honourably acquired capital in trade—have not adopted this system, which hon. Members represent as such a blessing, but have adopted a system which, in my mind, much more entitles them to the name of benefactors. When coming into the possession of large estates, and to the control of numbers of human beings, they do not clear off every farmer, and tumble down his house, and degrade him into a day-labourer; no, but they give his land at a fair rent—they encourage him by kindness and liberality—they stimulate his industry by counsel and example—they assist him to a better mode of farming—they endeavour to raise him and his family to a condition of independence; and, in return, they get their rents well paid, and, by their ample returns for their capital, justify the wisdom of their investment. I know several purchasers myself who have carried out this system of managing their new estates; relatives and friends of my own have so managed them, and the result is that they have the best possible interest for their money, and the satisfaction of knowing that those under them are prosperous and happy. Mr. Pollok got 12,000 acres of land into his hands by amicable arrangement, and he is attempting to get thousands of acres more by the same amicable arrangement. I know what this "amicable" arrangement adopted by
712
Scotchmen means; it is the same "amicable" mode by which thousands of poor Irish are amicably deported from Scotland to their own country, by benevolent Scotch parishes. It does not in the slightest degree alter the mischievous character of the system, which, however attempted or carried out, is an injury to the people and a curse to the country. Gentlemen hope it may be imitated; but if it be, I may with safety predict that neither the noble Lord at the head of the Government, nor any Member of his Government, will soon be able to congratulate the House on the improvement in the state of Ireland which is mainly idebted to the change of property from the hands of bankrupt proprietors to men of a different stamp from Allan Pollok, its greatest modern benefactor. I do not say that making a new division of an estate, or taking some portion of land from one tenant, who has too much, to give it to another who has too little, may not be wise and useful on certain properties; but I do protest against this wholesale, this reckless mode of dealing with the land and the people; and while I give every credit to the hon. Baronet who has brought the matter forward, for his good feeling and admirable temper, I defy him, or any man, to prove, even by the petition on which he relies, either that Allan Pollok is a benefactor of, or that his system is a blessing to, Ireland.
House at rising to adjourn till Friday.

MR. MIALL'S MOTION (ESTABLISHED CHURCH, &c., IRELAND).
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he was very glad the House had agreed to the Motion of the noble Lord without any discussion. He thought it very desirable that, just previous to, and during the rejoicings for peace, they should not only show no animosity towards their late enemies, but should exhibit as much as possible harmony among themselves; but, unfortunately, the first Motion this evening, the importance of which he did not wish to underrate, the discussion of which he was ready to allow, and which could not be brought forward with more ability than by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall)—was an old battle-field in the House. It appealed to feelings most discordant, most at variance with peace, and most bitter because the worst of all bitterness, religious bitterness, was excited; and he thought no constituency, however strongly interested, would fail to see the motives of their re-preservatives

713
who should on this occasion consent to postpone the consideration of such a question. The discussion would go forth to-morrow awakening angry and rancorous feelings in this country, and the day after reach an island where the subject was intimately connected with old and unhappy divisions, so as to mar the full enjoyment of the holiday which they wished consecrated to the forgetfulness of old disputes. Therefore, though not wishing to avoid the discussion, and not wanting in respect to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Miall), he thought he was justified in taking the unusual course of moving that this House do now adjourn.
MR. MIALLsaid, he was somewhat taken by surprise at the very extraordinary course pursued by the hon. Gentleman, who, intending to take that course, might at least have had the courtesy to give him some intimation of it. If it were so necessary to cultivate feelings of amity and good will upon the eve of the day when they were going to celebrate the return of peace, it would have become the hon. Gentleman to have displayed that kind of feeling, and not to have attempted, without previous intimation, to snatch from him an opportunity, for which he had long been waiting, of discussing this question before the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to take it for granted that the question which he was about to raise could not be discussed without exciting bad temper. For his own part he could safely say he could discuss the question in the most perfect good humour, and if bad temper were excited, he must think it could only be excited among those who were conscious of practising injustice, and who did not like to have that injustice exposed. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would allow the discussion to proceed. He had not selected this day in preference to all others for bringing forward his Motion. He obtained a first place in the Votes a month ago, but the Government moved the adjournment of the House over that day. Again, by good fortune in the ballot, he had obtained the first place for that day, and if he were not even allowed to bring before the House the Motion of which he had given notice, it would be said the House did not like discussion at all, and would not enter on the consideration of the question if anything whatever, fair or unfair, could be found by which the discussion could be avoided.
MR. G. H. MOOREhad only caught
714
the concluding sentence of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire in which he deprecated any discussion upon the point in question lest it might give rise to any religious exasperation in that part of the United Kingdom to which he (Mr. Moore) belonged, but he could inform the House that if anything was likely to excite such a feeling, it was the manner in which the hon. Member had proceeded.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale involved a question of the deepest interest to millions of Her Majesty's subjects. The grievance of the Irish Church had excited more ill-blood in the sister kingdom than any other, and that country would never be satisfied until it had been removed. The whole machine of the government of Ireland, both ecclesiastical and political, was wrong, and demanded the attention of the House, and he therefore trusted that they would not allow the Motion of his hon. Friend to be postponed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONconfessed that he was of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), with regard to the wish that the subject which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward should not be discussed in the present state of things. It was impossible for hon. Members to conceal from themselves that the subject was one that had stirred up strong feelings of opposite kinds which it would be well for the moment to allow to drop. But as the hon. Gentleman had given notice of his Motion, after having tried before and failed, and as there was no other business to interfere with it, he thought it would not be becoming in the House to deprive the hon. Gentleman of his opportunity. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to bring his Motion before the House, he thought it would not be fitting in the House to interpose between the hon. Gentleman and his Motion.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that he would ask the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion of adjournment, with a view of hearing the remedy of the hon. Member for Rochdale for the grievances of Ireland: for he did not think that this sentimental interference on the part of the hon. Gentlemen and his friends would do much good. He was quite ready to meet the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, after the observations made by the noble Lord, and the appeal

715
of his right hon. and learned Friend, he would withdraw his Motion. He did not, however, regret having made it, but rather that he was obliged to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH, &c. (IRELAND).
MR. G. A. HAMILTON MR. G. A. HAMILTON moved that before going into the Motion of Mr. Miall respecting the Established Church in Ireland, that the 5th Article of the Treaty of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, embodied in the Act of Union, 40 Geo. III. c. 67, be read by the Clerk.
Motion agreed to; and the said Article read by the Clerk, as follows—
"That it be the Fifth Article of Union, that the Churches of England and Ireland as now by Law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called, the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the said United Church shall be and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are by Law now established for the Church of England; and that the Continuance and Preservation of the said United Church, as the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union; and that in like manner the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland, shall remain and be preserved as the same are now established by Law, and by the Acts for the Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland."
MR. MIALL: * Sir, I am very glad that, in discharge of the duty now before me, I shall not need to utter a word offensive to the religious feelings of any hon. Member of this House. I am very glad that the Motion with which I shall have the honour to conclude does not require me to canvass the merits or demerits of any Church, either in respect of its creed, discipline, or ethics—to assail the character or efficiency of any body of clergy whatever—nor to cast aspersions upon any ecclesiastical community, Protestant or Roman Catholic, Episcopalian or Presbyterian. The arguments I shall adduce in support of the Motion will be based exclusively on principles of justice and considerations of State policy; and as they will be urged, I trust, in a spirit of moderation and catholicity, I venture to hope that the House may find it practicable to debate an important religious question without even a momentary excitement of sectarian animosity.
Sir, I shall probably, and very properly, be expected to state the reasons which have induced me just now to bring under the consideration of the House the vexed
716
question of our Irish ecclesiastical policy. I may be told, possibly, that I am taking an officious and obtrusive course, and one that the state of feeling which has prevailed of late years in Ireland does not demand. The policy I am about to critieise and arraign, it may, perhaps, be urged, if not theoretically defensible, has been practically acquiesced in—if it does not square with principles of abstract justice, it is productive of no very grievous oppression; for under it Ireland is as tranquil as could well be wished—is blessed with a yearly diminution of sectarian strife, and rejoices in a rapid development of social prosperity. You may ask me, and you have a right to ask, why not let well alone? At a time when religious feuds in Ireland are visibly subsiding, why launch again a question which has stirred such stormy passions? Why waste time in exposing discrepancies which have almost ceased to attract attention, and in meddling with anomalies which, it is easy enough to render irritating, but not by any means so easy to remove?
Now, Sir, without denying that interrogations of this nature have some force, I presume to think that in this instance they may be successfully answered. I venture to suggest in limine that they take a great deal too much for granted in regard to the present state of feeling in Ireland. Indeed, I feel pretty sure that hon. Members from that part of the United Kingdom will be very far from unanimous in endorsing as correct so flattering a description of the ecclesiastical truce established there.
Moreover, it would be childish to shut our eyes to the obvious fact, that it is only a truce. Why, Sir, the man who walks amongst explosive materials with a naked candle in his hand has as good a right to reckon on complete personal security as we have to calculate upon permanent tranquillity in Ireland under our present ecclesiastical policy. It is true that of late unusual care on the part of the Executive, whether Whig or Conservative, coupled with an unprecedented combination of peculiar circumstances affecting the social condition of Ireland, has produced an unwonted calm. But it would be but poor statesmanship to mistake a temporary lull of agitation for settled popular contentment. Is the calm such as may be relied on? Are our existing ecclesiastical arrangements so well suited to the temper and wants of the Irish people, and so firmly grounded in their convictions, as to warrant the hope that the "great difficulty"

717
of Sir Robert Peel has at length and for ever ceased to exist? Will the right hon. Secretary for Ireland undertake to assure us that the religious strife which for three centuries has been the bane of that country is at last effectually quelled? that there can be no reasonable fear of its resuscitation, and that rival sects in that part of the United Kingdom are so far satisfied with their respective relationships to the State that no apprehension need be felt of their contentions in future? Sir, it would be idle to conceal from ourselves the fact that our Irish ecclesiastical policy is not satisfactory to the great bulk of the inhabitants of Ireland. Left as it is, it cannot, in the nature of things, be satisfactory, and if the Irish people cherish any self-respect, as I believe they do, it ought not to be satisfactory. Therefore it is, I think, that this House, warned by the past, and reasonably apprehensive of the future, may be very properly invited to avail itself of the present interval of popular quiet to lay the foundation of a more stable order of things.
But, Sir, this is not the main consideration by which I have been moved to bring this subject before the House at the present moment. I place my chief justification in the fact, that existing ecclesiastical arrangements are in imminent danger from another hand. If it were true that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were disposed to acquiesce in them, it is notorious that the Protestants of Great Britain are not. Every Member of the House must be aware how impossible it will be to preserve inviolate that compromise on which our Irish ecclesiastical policy is based, in defiance of the strong Protestant feeling which pervades the constituencies of England, Wales, and Scotland. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the representative of that feeling, has already obtained the assent of the House to the introduction of a Bill for the repeal of the Maynooth College Endowment Act. No doubt that assent was most reluctantly given, and was wrung from the House by the extreme pressure of constituent bodies. Very likely the hon. Gentleman may find it impracticable to carry his measure through all its stages in the present Parliament. But if it should be so, the difficulty is only evaded for a season. The same strong feeling which has compelled you to assent to the preliminary Resolution, may also compel you to pass the Bill. Even if the present Parliament should contrive to avoid giving
718
legislative effect to their own Resolution, the next Parliament will, in all probability, be returned upon a clear understanding that the compromise shall be put an end to, and the question settled.
Well, but should such be the case—should Parliament withdraw a small State endowment from a Roman Catholic institution, the only one it grants to that body, leaving its endowment of other religious bodies untouched—where will be the boasted tranquillity of Ireland? Can you hope to maintain it? I speak not now of physical violence—that, I rejoice to believe, you would have no reason to apprehend. But are there not consequences of a more subtle, but not less mischievous character, which would flow from the success of the hon. Member's proposition, taken alone? Sir, we have already had ample experience of the social devastation wrought by the demon, of religious discord, even where it stops short of actual outrage. We have seen how, wherever it fairly gets head, it withers as with a cleaving curse, all a nation's better capabilities—how it loosens all the tics by which society is held together—how it dries up the kindly feelings which spring out of the common relationships of life—how it weakens mutual confidence—discourages enterprise—checks industrial development—and substitutes for the glow of a healthy national activity, the wasting fever of popular excitement. It is among the greatest calamities which can befall a nation. You can attempt nothing hopefully for the social amelioration of a people among whom this spirit is rife. But this is the spirit that you must look to see evoked, by carrying, as an isolated measure, the disendowment of Maynooth College. Sir, spite of these consequences, I believe the Protestant feeling of this country will compel you to disendow that institution. I believe you will have to do it at no distant date. I believe, further, that it is in the category of things which ought to be done. And because I am convinced that it cannot safely be done alone—because I think that the real difficulty in the way of dealing, not only with it, but with the bitter sectarian animosity which the Maynooth grant was meant to allay, lies coiled up in the very core of our Irish ecclesiastical policy, I have felt not merely justified, but constrained, to invite the House to go into Committee on religious teaching and worship in Ireland.
And now, Sir, having accounted to the House for moving at all in this matter

719
just now, I am bound to say that, in my opinion, even as matters now stand, it would be worse than useless to go into Committee, unless with a firm determination to reconsider our Irish ecclesiastical policy in its essential principle, as well as in the various forms of its application. Few men of observation, I imagine, will be disposed to deny, that whatever may be said in favour of the Church Establishment theory, the test to which we have put that theory in Ireland has been uniformly and deplorably unfortunate. There are three different phases in which the Church Establishment principle may be exemplified—that of persecution—that of ascendancy—and that of indiscriminate endowments. If, then, I can show you, as I hope to do, that you have tried each of these in your ecclesiastical government of Ireland, and in each have signally failed, I shall have made my ground good for asking you to review, with an eye, if need be, to its abandonment, the primary principle of a policy so invariably unsuccessful.
Sir, the rudest form in which the authority and power of the State can be applied in support of the Church with which it may chance to be united, is that of prohibiting, punishing, and crushing adherence to and profession of any creed and discipline but its own. This is persecution; and this your Imperial policy formerly tried in Ireland with savage and relentless vigour. The time comprised in this trial ranged from the earlier part of Elizabeth's reign down to the battle of the Boyne. The problem which your policy attempted to solve was, how to transfer from Roman Catholic to Protestant hands the ownership of the soil in Ireland, together with all political influence, all social distinctions, all the ordinary powers of achieving gain, all the potentialities of civilisation, comfort, and affluence. The agencies chiefly relied upon in solving this problem were arbitrary laws, wholesale confiscation, cold steel, and gunpowder. And what are the staple materials which make up the history of that period? Robbery by the civil power, and retaliation by the outraged people; tyranny without limit, followed by insurrections without pity; desperate sieges and hideous massacres; a country laid waste; a population alternating between the extremes of rage and terror; a priesthood hunted down like noxious vermin; a whole race crushed beneath a heavier doom than slavery! Sir, seldom, indeed, has a bloodier drama than
720
this been played out upon God's earth. You cannot read it, even at this distance of time, without feeling your blood curdle in your veins. And in what did it all issue? Why, in this: that, in the reign of William III., Protestantism had got possession of the wealth of the country, while Roman Catholicism still retained its hold on the hearts of the people.
Such was the first great failure of your Irish ecclesiastical policy. I will give but a hasty glance at the next. The second phase of the Church Establishment principle is that of ascendancy—that is, the application of the power of the State to the elevation of the Church with which it is united above all others in worldly position, privilege, and security. You tried this modification of the State Church theory in Ireland, from 1689 down to 1829. Your attempt was to foster Protestantism into strength by privilege—to depress and weary out Roman Catholicism by civil proscriptions and penal laws. The story of that period is a very familiar one; but, familiar as it is, it falls within my purpose to repeat it—and it may be condensed into a very few sentences. I will not go into detail to show the peculiar favour your policy displayed towards Protestants—how you allowed them to appropriate to their exclusive advantage the land, the Church, the franchise, the Parliament, the municipalities, the learned professions, the university. Let us see what were the tender mercies of that policy to Catholics. They may be read in the Irish statute-book, from 1690 to 1790. Well, look first at the disadvantageous position in which Irish Roman Catholics were placed by law, as respects the offices and ministrations of their own Church. Their higher ecclesiastics were sentenced to perpetual exile, and large rewards offered for their discovery within the kingdom. The parochial priests were compelled to register themselves, as a kind of ticket-of-leave functionaries, to give heavy bail that they would not go beyond the limits of their respective counties, and to engage that they would never exercise their functions out of their own parish. They were forbidden to assume any ecclesiastical title and to wear any professional dress—to erect any steeple, to toll any bell, to officiate in any graveyard. Their images were to be destroyed, their crosses thrown down, and their pilgrimages prohibited. But, on the other hand, handsome annuities were offered by law to those

721
priests who should apostatize from the Romish faith. How were the Irish Roman Catholics treated in regard to education? Every Catholic school was closed, every Catholic schoolmaster subject to transportation for life, with the penalty of death in case of his return. No child of Catholic parents could be sent abroad for education without a special licence—and, lest the Act should be evaded, any magistrate might at any moment demand that the child should be produced in his presence. What was their case in regard to the ordinary occupations of life? They were incapacitated from holding any commission in the army or navy, and from serving in any office under the Crown. They were excluded from every liberal profession but that of medicine. They could purchase no landed estate, nor occupy any farm the profits of which exceeded a third of the rent. If they betook themselves to industrial or commercial pursuits, they were literally at the mercy of Protestant municipalities. If, in spite of these restrictions, they acquired some property, what was their control over it? It was taxed, ad libitum, by the State, county, municipal, and parochial authorities. No one belonging to the discouraged sect was allowed even to possess a horse of above £5 value. He could receive no real property from Protestants, either by deed of gift or by bequest; and if, during his lifetime, his eldest son turned Protestant, he lost all legal control over him, and became incapable of charging his estate with portions for his other children. Finally, in regard to the general privileges of citizenship, no Roman Catholic could marry a Protestant lady, nor entrust, at his death, the guardianship of his children to his wife or friends, nor exercise the elective franchise, nor sit in Parliament.
Well, Sir, what was the issue of this execrable system of legal and political ascendancy in regard to the rival Churches? Dead failure—worse than failure. Roman Catholicism grew, as all persecuted religions will, the more it was trampled upon—grew until its resentment became formidable. When once it became necessary, either for her own purposes, or for the resistance of foreign invasion, to unite the whole population of Ireland, this elaborate framework of ecclesiastical tyranny was obliged to be pulled to pieces more rapidly than it had been put together. During the last decade of the last century
722
most of these penal laws were repealed; and, in 1829, at the bidding of an inexorable necessity, you condemned the very principle of Protestant ascendancy by passing the Catholic Emancipation Act.
Sir, I say you gave up the principle of Protestant ascendancy, because you surrendered the only means by which it could be effectually maintained. But, Sir, it was impossible for you to rest there, for you had in Ireland an exclusive Church Establishment, endowed with national funds; and, as you still held firmly by the principle of a State-endowment of religion, you were compelled to entertain various propositions tending to place the Church of the majority in a relation of approximate equity, at least, towards the Church of the minority. Slowly and cautiously your policy took a direction towards the third and last development of the State Church principle—namely, equality of favour by means of indiscriminate endowments. By the Church Temporalities Act of 1833 you professed to cut down the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland to the wants of the Protestant inhabitants. By the abolition of churchcess you recognised the inexpediency, not to say injustice, of levying upon the members of one Church a direct tax for the exclusive benefit of another. By removing the charge of tithe from the Roman Catholic occupier to the Protestant landowner, you sought to veil the hardship of quartering the clergy of the few upon the resources of the many. All these, however, were but negative changes—changes calculated to tone down into harmony, with the milder spirit of the age, a harsh and indefensible expression of the State endowment policy. But, in 1845, you deliberately took your first positive step towards establishing equitable relations between the two Churches and the State. It was only a first step—for the Maynooth College Endowment Act was not regarded by anybody as a full realisation of the principle it embodied. It only showed—it was only meant to show—that you had turned your faces in a new direction. It was a tentative measure, accepted and supported by the great Liberal party in this House, as an earnest of something more to come. I could prove this, if it were necessary, by numerous quotations from the debates on the Bill in both Houses of Parliament. I will trouble the House with only one. It is from a

723
speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He is reported to have thus expressed himself—
"I think the right hon. Baronet, in his opening speech on this subject, showed very clearly the grounds of this grant. But I must confess that when hon. Gentlemen who oppose it urge the argument that both in the proposal itself of settling the grant by a Bill making it a permanent endowment, and in the reasons the right hon. Gentleman gave, as the organ of the Government, for that endowment, there is the indication of further measures than he himself has proposed to-night, or than the measure itself contains, I am inclined to say I agree with them in this opinion. That is a ground of opposition with them, but a ground of concurrence on my part."
The noble Lord presently added—
"But this I say, that the arguments which are so sound, and, as I think, so incontrovertible to induce this House to found an endowment for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood, will prove, upon another occasion, as sound and as incontrovertible with respect to an endowment for the maintenance of that priesthood. For my own part, preferring more and more strongly, and more and more by reflection, a religious establishment to that which is called the voluntary principle. I am anxious to see the spiritual and religious institutions of the great majority of the people in Ireland endowed and maintained by a provision furnished by the State."
Now, it is well known that the noble Lord spoke on that occasion the sentiments of the bulk of the Liberal party in Parliament; and in those sentiments, I believe, some Members of the Conservative party concurred. At any rate, when, at a subsequent period, the noble Lord intimated his desire to see the government of Ireland placed upon a broad and comprehensive basis, the country gave the noble Lord credit for the intention, whenever the reins of power might he again entrusted to him, to propose a general plan for the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. But the noble Lord's scheme never saw the light; for, in addition to the fact that the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy were indisposed at that time to become the stipendiaries of the State, popular opinion in this country was too unequivocally expressed against taking any further step in the direction of indiscriminate endowments. The policy initiated by the Maynooth College Endowment Act was nipped in the bud. Then came the absurd excitement on the subject of ecclesiastical titles, in which the noble Lord took a conspicuous part; and out of it grew that determination on the part of the public to withdraw the endowment recently settled
724
on Maynooth College, before which, I am convinced, you will be compelled, sooner or later, to bow.
Assuming that such will be the case, let the House consider bow our Irish ecclesiastical policy will then stand. It is clear, I think, that in passing the Maynooth Endowment Act, Parliament meant to recognise the principle of equity, as the principle which ought in future to determine the relation of the State to the great ecclesiastical sects in Ireland. It is no less clear, I submit, that Parliament intended to proceed in the development of that principle, as opportunity and the feelings of the British people, would allow. And I believe it is by this time equally evident that your attempt to realise that principle by means of indiscriminate endowments is perfectly hopeless. You find yourselves unable to follow up your first tentative step—you are called upon to retrace it. If, as I hope, you should be compelled by the pressure from without to give practical effect to the demand of the constituent bodies, then the third and last form in which the endowment principle can be practically applied, will have turned out to be inapplicable to the circumstances of Ireland. You will have exhausted the experiment. And then. Sir, I would ask, what next? You cannot if you would, you would not if you could, go back to the old, exploded, and disastrous policy of Protestant ascendancy; and you are barred by insuperable obstacles from following up the principle of equity by the path you would have preferred—I mean that of indiscriminate endowments. Now, what I ask of you is this,—that you should pursue that policy of equity by another and a surer path—that you should aim at the same noble object by simple and more effective means.
What is that path? What are those means? I will tell the House in a few sentences. I respectfully submit, then, that inasmuch as the divided religious feeling of the country prevents you, and ever will prevent you, from placing the different sects in Ireland upon an equitable footing, as it regards the State, by means of indiscriminate endowments, you should accomplish it by means of impartial disendowment; and that, as you cannot hope to render justice to the Irish people by a public support of the religious institutions of all sects, you should, withdraw that support alike from all. And here let me say that in recommending the

725
House to adopt the policy of impartial disendowment, I am far from desiring a hasty, sweeping, inconsiderate application of that policy. When I come to lay before you an outline of the plan I would suggest for carrying this policy into effect, I think you will see that it is quite possible to combine with the disendowment policy, the most scrupulous regard to the equitable rights both of religious communities, as such, and also of individuals.
But, Sir, saving all such rights intact, I own that my proposition, would be worth nothing, unless it covered the entire ground—unless the policy of disendowment reached everything which the State has an equitable right to deal with. A simple and determinate principle of this sort appears to me to have an immense advantage over every kind of compromise. The statesmanship of the present day, I am aware, is adverse to this simplicity of purpose, and aims rather at producing a kind of composite policy, by an amalgamation of conflicting principles. Well, Sir, I am not very confident in the superior wisdom of that statesmanship. I admit, indeed, that political changes, involving a great variety and extent of interests, ought to be very carefully and cautiously effected. That is one thing. But it is another and very different thing to produce a conglomerate of heterogeneous principles, none of which are consistently carried out. Such is not the course I venture to recommend. I am anxious that the House should express itself in favour of religious equality in Ireland, by the only practicable means—namely, impartial disendowment. I wish you to let the people of Ireland understand that this is to be your future policy, pure and simple. This resolution will not preclude you from taking whatever time you may think necessary for effecting your object with safety—nor from using whatever precautions you will, to avoid or surmount the practical difficulties lying between you and your object—nor from displaying all the qualifications of true statesmanship in your choice of opportunities and means. The vote which I ask to night is, in fact, a vote pledging you to complete religious equality in Ireland, by the only means in your power.
Sir, I venture to think that the slight historical survey I have just taken of our Irish ecclesiastical policy is itself the most decisive condemnation of employing the authority and resources of the State to force upon an unwilling people a Church
726
with which they have no sympathy. I have no need, on this occasion, to discuss the abstract principle of a Church Establishment. I content myself with the simple avowal that I regard it as essentially unsound, calculated to involve the civil power in numberless embarrassments, to degrade the Church into humiliating bondage, and to injure religion by misrepresenting the true secret of its strength. But I rest my argument to night upon no such abstract opinion. Because, if the theory of a State Church be ever so tenable, the application of that theory to Ireland has been proved by the issue to have been a profound mistake. To it, without doubt, that country may trace much the greater part of the wretchedness it has endured. For surely, if there be any one thing in respect of which a dominant nation ought to be forbearing and indulgent, it is the religion of the people subjected to their control. This wise maxim of State policy you have all along set at nought in your government of Ireland. You thrust into the midst of a people whom your arms had subjugated, a Church with which they could have no communion, and you endowed that Church with property snatched from a communion to which they were ardently attached, and which received their implicit confidence. State necessity may be pleaded in excuse of the original perpetration of this political crime, but cannot be accepted as a justification of it. Nor can it be said, as it may of some crimes, that time has transmuted its results into a blessing. The original vice remains. The great bulk of the people of Ireland—the peasantry—the poor—for whom, if for any, a Church Establishment should be maintained, are not, even after the lapse of three centuries, benefited by the spiritual teaching and offices of your Establishment. It is still maintained for the Saxon rather than the Celt, for the gentry rather than the humbler classes, for the well-to-do minority rather than the helpless majority. Such a system as this can only be regarded by the people of Ireland, as it is by all disinterested on lookers, as at once the offspring of tyranny and the badge of conquest. Nothing on earth can justify it. We may disguise it as we will, but in the eyes of man and of God it is not the less a crime.
That existing ecclesiastical arrangements in regard to Ireland ought to be, or can be, permanently maintained, is a proposition which I imagine no one will undertake

727
to affirm. The choice of the House will eventually lie between dealing with them separately, or, as I suggest, with all together. The practical question with the House will be, no doubt, whether the remedy I propose is not more violent than the disease? Well, Sir, as far as Ireland is concerned, the effect of applying the policy of disendowment will not be by any means so extensive as it seems. It can hardly be pretended, for instance, that you would thereby leave the bulk of the people destitute of religious teaching. Probably five-sixths of the inhabitants, comprising, too, the lowest and most needy classes, are shut out already from the benefit of your existing endowments. Whatever may be the case on this side St. George's Channel, in Ireland the Established Church can hardly be looked upon as "the poor man's Church." The extinction of the Maynooth College endowment, one of the objects I propose, would not touch those means which the Roman Catholics have found adequate to maintain their religious institutions for the last three centuries. The discontinuance of the Regium Donum would cut away a portion only of the stipends of Presbyterian ministers—a portion which the wealth of the Presbyterian body in Ireland is well able to supply. Even your disendowment of the Irish Church would affect but a small minority of the people, constituting, moreover, the wealthiest section of society in Ireland. And, therefore, although it is true that in this last case you would have to deal with a large amount of property at present set apart for religious purposes, it is equally true that you would thereby disturb but a comparatively small amount of spiritual means. The policy I recommend would derange but to a trifling extent the machinery of religious instruction in Ireland; and in that regard, therefore, the great bulk of the people would be quite as well off as they are at this moment.
Sir, I am fully convinced that the judgment and the conscience of the majority of this House will go along with me in affirming the desirableness of the policy I recommend, considered in itself. I am quite aware, however, that it is not sufficient to present to this House a case unanswerable in the abstract, nor to assume a position logically impregnable to prevail upon the House to adopt it as their own. The House is accustomed, in all matters of grave importance, to look not only at
728
what might be best if it should chance to become an actual fact, but also at the difficulties and obstacles, whether of a constitutional or a practical nature, which must first be overcome in order to realise it. I feel bound, therefore, to look two or three of the graver objections, which may be urged against my proposed line of ecclesiastical policy for Ireland, fairly in the face.
The first serious objection which will doubtless be urged in condemnation of that policy, is indicated by the ceremonial which preceded my speech—that it is barred by the Fifth Article of the Act of Union. Sir, I gather no such conclusion from the words of that article. I will read them to the House, for I look upon them as specially significant. They are as follows:—
"That the Church of England and Ireland, as now by law established, shall be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; and that the doctrine, discipline, worship, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain, in full force, for ever, as the same are now by law established."
Well, Sir, I do not propose to interfere, in the slightest degree, with either the doctrine, discipline, worship, or government of that Church. I wish to deal only with the temporalities, about which there is no mention whatever in the article. And the omission from this article of the word "temporalities," is, as I have already intimated, peculiarly significant. Did Mr. Pitt, who framed the Act, foresee the inconvenience which might result from the insertion of that word? Judging from his correspondence on the subject, I apprehend he did, and that he meant to leave the Imperial Legislature free to deal with these temporalities, as future circumstances might require. But be this as it may, the words of Lord Brougham, uttered in this House in 1825, seem to me to be pregnant with reason.
"Taking into consideration," he says, "the state of the Church in Ireland, and the state of the population which, though obliged to support that Church, received no benefit from it, it was monstrous to assert that such a system should never undergo legislative revision."
But, Sir, in this instance, I am not driven to shelter myself under the authority of great names. I stand upon the ground of what the Imperial Parliament has already done. I say, the abolition of church cess, and the application of the revenues resulting from the extinction of ten bishoprics

729
in Ireland to make good that loss, give me a right to plead Parliamentary precedent in favour of the view I take of the Fifth Article of the Act of Union. If you tell me that this was but a redistribution of the temporalities of the Irish Church, what will you say of the actual extinction of twenty-five per cent of the tithe property of the Church, effected by the Tithe Commutation Act? As a matter of State policy you gave up one-fourth with a view to secure the other three-fourths. Now, I do not ask you to extinguish, but to reappropriate—to extinguish only so far as ecclesiastical purposes are concerned—and the right which you have already asserted to deal with twenty-five per cent of these revenues, notwithstanding the Act of Union, you may justly assert, if you will, to deal with the whole.
The next objection which I apprehend will be urged against the policy of disendowment, impartially applied, is, that in regard to the Church Establishment of Ireland it would amount to nothing less than wholesale confiscation. The revenues, it will be said, that I seek to withdraw from the Irish Church, are her own by the same right as that by which a gentleman holds his estate—her title to them, indeed, is older than can be produced for any private property, and can only be set aside by an act of legislative spoliation. This, Sir, is a grave objection—fatal, if well founded—and therefore the House will bear with me, I trust, if I examine it somewhat closely.
The broadest and most obvious reply to this assertion of exclusive and inherent right on behalf of the Irish Church is, that it rests entirely on a fiction. For, what is the implication contained in the plea that the title of the Irish Church to her revenues dates further back than that of any private property? Manifestly that the Church holds her estates in right of donations and bequests made to her some ages back. Sir, I call this a miserable fiction, because it is notorious that between the donors of these estates and the present beneficiaries there is no line of equitable and moral connection. If a valid title to these estates can be traced back by any party to the will of the original donors, then they belong of right to the Roman Catholics. Such an inference, however, which I should have supposed no one acquainted with history would deny, has been set aside by a quibble. These revenues, it has been said, were originally
730
bestowed on the Church of Ireland, and by the Church of Ireland they are still possessed. It was competent to that Church to reform herself, and to purge out the errors which had grown up within her, without forfeiting her claim to her property. She has never lost her identity, though she has undergone a reformatory process. Sir, this is a mere play upon words falsified by all the known facts of Irish history. When did the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, to whom these revenues were given and bequeathed, reform herself? At what period did she change her views and become Protestant? Never! No, Sir, she was ejected—forcibly, ruthlessly ejected by the State, and another tenant put in. She was thrust forth without ceremony, and her inheritance given to a stranger. There never was a grosser perversion of historical fact than that which represents the Church of Ireland before the Reformation, and the Church of Ireland after the Reformation, as one and the same body. The one was indigenous —the other was an importation. The only semblance of identity between the two was, that the Protestant Church took possession of the title and the property of which the Catholic Church had been in previous possession.
The only title, then, which the Protestant Church of Ireland has to her revenues is to be found in the will of the State—a good and valid title, in my opinion, so long as it lasts. Apart from the will of the State she has no proprietary rights. There may have been the essential substance of Protestantism in Ireland before the Papal authority was for the first time recognised there, at the Synod of Kells, in A.D. 1152. But will any man pretend to find in it the germ of the Protestant Church as it now exists? No, Sir, the Church of the Thirty-nine Articles, the Church of the Common Prayer-book, the Church of the Protestant Episcopal hierarchy, never had a being in Ireland apart from the Legislature. It was the civil power that said "Let it be!" and it was. It never had an independent existence. It was, I may say, born a State Church—it did not become so. State policy was its parent, and, apart from State policy, it never had and never can have a claim to its revenues. And so the State has ever dealt with it—most constitutionally and most justly, Parliament has imposed the conditions under which the Church of Ireland should enjoy her property, has freely, regulated the distribution

731
of it, and within the last thirty years, as I have shown, the State surrendered and extinguished not less than a fourth of the entire income with a view to the easier collection of the remainder.
But there is another aspect under which this question may be viewed. And it may be viewed most advantageously, because most simply and clearly, in the case of a single parish rather than of the whole Church. Take now any one parish in Ireland, and try to satisfy yourselves to whom the ecclesiastical property of that parish legally and morally belongs. There is the sacred edifice—there is the glebe-house and land—and there is what was formerly the tithe, but is now the rent charge. Whose are they? I suppose it will be admitted on all hands that they are not the clergyman's. He has but a life-use of them, and his use of them is associated with a trust. It will not be pretended that they belong to the bishop of the diocese. He may have the privilege of collating to the living, but he also is under conditions prescribed for him by others; he is but a life-tenant, and the property does not exist for his sake. Does it then belong to those of the parishioners who, being Protestants, worship at the church? It is true that by State regulation they have the exclusive advantage of it; but it is only because the regulations of the State happen to be in accordance with their ecclesiastical views. But the property is, both in theory and right, the property of the parishioners at large, and for their supposed benefit it exists and is maintained. Until a recent period they were taxed to keep the buildings in repair. The rent-charge, which goes to the support of the clergyman, is a charge upon the entire produce of the parish, and, subject to State supervision and control, the ecclesiastical property of the parish belongs to the parishioners. But now suppose that, with the consent of Parliament, the parishioners in vestry assembled should agree to apply their parish ecclesiastical property to other parish uses, preserving inviolate, of course, all existing life-interests. Who would be entitled to complain that he had been robbed? Recollect that the question now is not a question of the extinction of property, but of its application to other purposes, for the benefit of the same parties. Well, but the Irish Church is but the organised aggregate of Irish parishioners. In other words, the property which is said to belong to the Church is
732
that portion of the property of the whole Irish people which the civil power, acting on their behalf, has hitherto applied to the spiritual instruction of that people in a particular faith. But if the civil power, otherwise the Legislature, should resolve that the property can be more wisely, more impartially, and more beneficially employed for the advantage of the Irish people, by a totally different mode of applying it, no portion of the community would have just ground of complaint that their property is being wrung from them by confiscation. Looking, then, at the undeniable historical fact, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland did not derive her revenues from the original donors—looking at the fact that she never existed except as a State institution, and never had a farthing of property except by the will of the State—looking at the fact that the object of that property has always been, or is supposed to be, the benefit of the people at large—I contend that a re-appropriation of that property to purposes in which, not a small minority only, but the whole nation is interested, so far from being confiscation, would be but a tardy return to the policy of justice.
But I shall perhaps be told that it is impossible to deal as I propose with the temporalities of the Irish Church without exposing those of the Church of England to danger; and that even if in all respects the one Church does not fulfil the functions of a national institution, it must be religiously preserved to shield the other from the operation of a bad precedent. Sir, I ask whether this objection is founded in fact? Do the two Churches really rest upon the same, or even a similar basis? Why, Sir, our Irish Ecclesiastical Establishment is condemned by almost every one of those arguments by which the Establishment in England is usually justified. It is not the Church of the majority. It is not the instructress of the poor. It does not live in the affections of the people. It is connected with no glorious historical associations. It has ever been as a sharp thorn in the side of Ireland, irritating and inflaming her whole political and social constitution. Is it, then, meant, that in respect to any of these characteristics, the cases of the two Churches are at all similar? And if not, why attempt to confound that which is obviously exceptional with that which is, according to your own theory, normal? You made

733
this mistake for many a long year with regard to the Church of England in Canada, and whilst that mistake prevailed Canada was never quiet, prosperous, nor happy. You kept watch over the Clergy Reserves, because you were told that to surrender them would strike at the very principle of Church Establishments. But, as a matter of fact, are the endowments of the Church of England one whit the less secure, because you have seen fit to give up the Clergy Reserves in Canada? Oh, if Ireland had but been 3.000 miles away, how differently would her case appear at this moment! But, I ask again, is it wise thus to identify the rights and interests of the two Churches? Is it prudent in regard to Ireland? For what is it you tell her but this—that she must be content to submit to a galling anomaly and injustice, not for her own ultimate advantage, but for the security of an English institution? What stronger argument than that could be put forward for the repeal of the Union? Is it prudent in regard to England? No powers of this House can conceal from unsophisticated minds the fact that the Irish Church is an enormous social wrong. Well, you have "but to familiarise the minds of the people of this country with the assertion that it embodies the same principle and policy as the English Church, to involve the latter in the same condemnation with the former. The Church Establishment of this country, Sir, will stand as long as it is sustained by public opinion. But public opinion will be all the less likely to shield it from attack, if it is associated with an institution which nobody can justify.
Lastly, my proposal will, no doubt, be denounced as calculated to inflict upon Protestantism in Ireland "a heavy blow and sore discouragement." Sir, in my conscience, I do not believe it. But, Sir, I draw a wide distinction between Protestantism as a spiritual principle, and Protestantism as a political institution. This House may rest assured that the strength of Protestantism does not reside in wealth unjustly obtained, nor in State favour improperly bestowed upon it. I assert that your policy has weakened Protestantism in Ireland, by placing it in a false position. You have sent her upon a mission of love, in a garb which does not belong to her— a garb of exclusiveness, insolence, and enmity. If she is not heeded, the fault is yours, not hers. You have done your
734
best—unconsciously, of course—to render her odious to the population; and your mistaken policy has hut too well succeeded. Sir, I have faith in her principles—I have faith in her clergy—I have faith in her members—but I have no faith in your preposterous arrangements on her behalf. Hitherto those arrangements have resulted in nothing but failure; and it appears to me that Protestantism in Ireland has infinite reason to pray that above and beyond all things she may be "saved from the folly of her own friends."
And now, Sir, although I am conscious of having trespassed upon the patience of the House at too great length, I feel myself bound to present a rough sketch of the plan by which I conceive the principle of impartial disendowment might be reduced to practice. The House will allow me, I hope, for the sake of showing the entire extent of that plan, to suppose that I am free to deal with all existing State Endowments of religion in Ireland. I am aware that such is not the case at the present moment, the abolition of Ministers' Money having been negatived by a vote of the House during the present Session, and the Maynooth Endowment having been taken out of my hands by the Bill of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Still, for the sake of unity, I will assume that I have to make provision for carrying into effect the policy of disendowment in all the directions in which Parliament can now apply it.
Well, Sir, I would suggest, with a view to this, the constitution of a special Court—for a limited term—analogous to the present Encumbered Estates Court, and having at once the powers of an executive Commission, and also of a Court of Equity. I would vest in that court the fee simple, if I may so call it, of all State Ecclesiastical Endowments in Ireland. It would take possession at once of the fund standing in the name of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Ireland, and to it would he annually paid the sum charged upon the Consolidated Fund for the endowment of Maynooth College, and the grants voted by this House for Belfast Professors and Nonconforming Ministers. But in the case of the endowments and property of the Protestant Episcopal Church, with the exception I have already named, it would come into possession only upon the decease of each existing beneficiary.

735
The first claimants upon the funds thus accruing would be those clergymen who, in case of the abolition of Ministers' Money, the repeal of the Maynooth Endowment Act, and the discontinuance of the Regium Donum, are entitled to receive whatever they now receive from the State during the remainder of life. This list, of course, would be gradually cleared off by the death of the recipients. The second class of claimants would be the private patrons of livings, who have a right to expect full compensation for the somewhat anomalous, but yet legally recognised, property which State policy would extinguish. They, however, do not number in Ireland above 300 altogether. The third class of claimants would be Protestant congregations, who have voluntarily expended their own money in the improvement of the Church property of their respective parishes. I suggest that the Court should act as a Court of Equity in determining the validity and amount of such claims, subject to appeal, if it be wished, to a superior tribunal, and that it should be authorised to pay over, to individual claimants, or to trustees on behalf of Protestant congregations, such compensation as may be legally awarded. The property left in the hands of the Court for the benefit of the Irish public would comprise church edifices, glebe houses, lands, rents, rent-charges, &c. With respect to sacred edifices, I think, perhaps, the most satisfactory arrangement would be to leave Protestant Episcopalian congregations in undisturbed possession of them; and in respect of lands and glebes, the Court would have the power of sale. The rent-charges would constitute the main difficulty; because, if left in their present shape, it would be necessary to maintain an extensive and costly machinery for their collection. I would suggest that power be given to the landowners to redeem them at—say ten or twelve years' purchase.
Well, Sir, the whole of the net property thus accruing to the proposed Court, by the falling in of life-interests, ought, I think, in common fairness, to be expended in Ireland. I suggest that this property should be made available, in the first place, to the founding and supporting of infirmaries, hospitals, lunatic asylums, and reformatories; and that what is not required for these objects should be laid out, under the direction of a Board of Works, in the construction of piers, harbours,
736
light-houses, and quays—in providing arterial drainage, in deepening rivers, and in such other public undertakings as would best develop the great natural resources of the country.
Sir, having thus submitted a rude outline of the plan which I should recommend as the fittest for carrying the policy of impartial disendowment into effect, I am most anxious that the House should understand that I do not ask the House to pronounce any opinion on that plan, by the vote which it will give to-night. But it would hardly be candid to conceal from the House the resolutions I should propose in Committee, if the House should consent to resolve itself into one. I have no need to include the question of Maynooth—a Bill on that subject being already before the House. I cannot, in accordance with the forms of the House, embrace the abolition of Ministers' Money—that matter having been decided by an adverse vote of the House this Session. The three Resolutions I should propose would be the following:—
"1. That it is expedient to make provision for the application to other than ecclesiastical uses, of all sites, glebes, tithes, rent-charges, and estates, at present enjoyed or received by any clerical person of the Protestant Episcopal Communion in Ireland, for the support of Divine worship according to the rites of the said communion—but so as not to affect in any manner existing life-interests, and to pay due regard to any equitable claims which may arise out of the secularisation of such property.
"2. That it is expedient to exclude from the estimates annually presented to this House on account of the grant commonly called the Regium Donum, all sums on account of new congregations—and also to reduce the said grant, and the grant now annually made for the professorships of the Belfast College, according as the lives fall in of any persons at present in the receipt of any monies out of either of such grants.
"3. That the Chairman ask leave to bring in a Bill to carry these resolutions into effect."
And now, Sir, my whole proposition is before the House. I cannot adequately express my gratitude for having been permitted to make it, and for the patience and kind indulgence with which I have been listened to. I will not further abuse that patience by making any appeal. What I ask for is, in one word, justice— justice to a people whose long endurance of wrong entitles them to this reparation. And I venture to add the expression of my belief, that in doing justice to Ireland, you will at the same time gain the respect and subserve the best interests of the people of England. Sir, I move

737
the Resolution I have placed in your hands.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the Temporalities of the Irish Church, and other pecuniary provisions made by Law for Religious Teaching and Worship in Ireland."
MR. KIRKsaid, that he had hesitated to present himself to the House in the hope that some hon. Member connected with the Established Church in Ireland would have replied to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale. That Church, no doubt, would find abler defenders among hon. Gentlemen opposite than he could be; but as the Church to which he belonged had been attacked by a side wind, he wished to say a few words on the present occasion. As regarded the Established Church in Ireland, he would content himself by simply observing that she was established on a basis from which she would not easily be overthrown. Her vast revenues might, no doubt, be more evenly distributed and more wisely applied; but that was a matter of internal regulation with which, he had nothing to do. As to the Regium Donum, he could not but feel that the facts which he was about to state to the House fully justified him in opposing the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. This sum of £40,000 a year was a grant to the Presbyterians in Ireland in lieu of tithes of which they had been dispossessed—in fact, it ought rather to be considered in the light of a restitution, than of a grant. There was no doubt that the money thus bestowed was well applied, for it was applied to the maintenance of ministers who were labouring amongst the poorest, and, at the same time, the most orderly, industrious, and peaceful subjects of the Crown. It was said that the Presbyterians in the north of Ireland were rich. This was not so. It was true that Belfast was a flourishing town; but even there it was a proverb that when a Presbyterian became rich and set up his carriage, he drove not to the meeting-house or chapel, but to the Established Church. In fact, the Presbyterians were by no means rich, and stood in great need of this grant. So far, therefore, from admitting that the grant should either be reduced or taken away, he would say that by so doing they would deprive themselves of machinery most valuable to the empire. By voluntary exertions chapels were built, manses were erected, and missionaries
738
were supported; but this could not be done if the grant was discontinued. It certainly was much better to pay this sum of £40,000 for the prevention, than paying double that sum for the repression and punishment of crime. £5,000,000 a year were remitted from Ireland to absentee landlords in England, who were consuming exciseable articles here. These gentlemen spent here the money which they drew from poor Ireland—a state of things which was the natural result of the Union. £275,000,000 of Irish money had been spent here since the Union. He had at one time thought the late Mr. O'Connell was dishonest in advocating repeal, but he now believed that O'Connell was far nearer being right than he had supposed him to be. Let the English pay their own local taxation—let Ireland pay hers, and see who would be the gainers. He believed this grant of £40,000 a year was well spent among the Presbyterian clergy. The Presbyterians of Ireland maintained their missionaries and Scripture-readers, built and supported chapels, erected manses and purchased the sites for them, and paid the rent for the lands around them; but whilst they did this there were a number of congregations constantly springing up in various parts of the country, and they were obliged to pay annually considerable sums for the maintenance of their ministers while these congregations were in course of formation. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland was altogether in a different position from that of the voluntary Churches of this country. According to the rules of the Presbyterian Church, every minister must not merely preach and perform Divine service twice on the Sunday, but visit from house to house on the week days; and his visits were not confined to the houses of his stated hearers, but extended to every person who was willing to receive them. Those alone who were aware of the working of such a system as this could fully appreciate its valuable effects upon the religious and moral tone of society. They built their chapels, then, and kept and maintained them free. But how did voluntaryism proceed here? Generally the chapel was built as a matter of pecuniary speculation. The chapel being built, the next thing was to let the seats at a rent, out of which the minister received his stipend, and if there were any balance, which was seldom or never the case, it was applied, with the collections made at periodical intervals, among the

739
congregation, in defraying the cost of public worship, the payment of interest so long as a debt remained on the building, and to meet what was, in short, generally known as the "incidental expenses." Of the two systems judged by the results, and the standard of morality existing in the two countries, as tested by the criminal statistics of both, there could be no doubt that the voluntary system in England was vastly inferior to the Presbyterian system in Ireland. It was true, agrarian outrage existed in Ireland, and not here; but what was needed to produce a better state of things in Ireland, than at present existed, was not so much the change proposed by the hon. Member for Rochdale as the settlement of the relations between landlord and tenant on a footing suitable to the country. He would tell the hon. Member for Rochdale and his friends there to begin their reforms at home, among their own people, before they showed such anxiety to carry the reformation to India, China, and Ireland. There was a fearful depravity in this country, and the fatal evils of the system of betting had arisen to a terrific height. He, therefore, upon those grounds, felt that it would be far better for English Members to turn their attention to their own country, and try to elevate its social and religious condition, rather than to be continually intermeddling in Ireland. Let Englishmen reform themselves, and then reform Ireland.
MR. LINDSAY, as an instance of what voluntaryism did in Scotland, would refer to the Free Kirk, which, in 1855, raised no less a sum than £307,653 by voluntary contributions. Then, again, compare the United Presbyterian Church in Scotland with the Presbyterian Church of Ireland. The Presbyterian congregations in Ireland amounted to 518, which in one year had raised only £21,471, while the 504 Presbyterian churches in Scotland had raised, in the course of one year—1853, to which year the last return applied—£156,000, by voluntary contributions. This showed what a people, though poor, could do when left to themselves in support of the Church and its ministers, and how State aid chilled and repressed charity. True, the people of Ireland were poor; but so, in many districts, were the people of Scotland, who, however felt it to be a duty to support their own clergy. The fact was, that wherever religion had most spread it had been owing to voluntary exertions. If
740
ministers of the Church of England sent missionaries abroad they adopted the voluntary principle, and he believed that if the Presbyterian Church in Ireland were to give up these endowments, and depend on their own exertions, it would, in the end, be better for them. He hoped the House would give its support to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, it was with deep regret that I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), for it was with pain I found that the Roman Catholic Members had persuaded a Protestant to make an attack on the property of the Church. It is more seemly, at all events, that Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, after the engagements they contracted by oath on their admission to this House should, when Motions are brought forward calculated to destroy the. Established Church, encourage a Protestant to make the attack, rather than violate all decency by doing so themselves. I hope they will at least adhere to the silence they have hitherto (with the exception of three) observed; and that they will leave their case to the championship of such nominally Protestant Members as may be found to support it. Sir, I was struck with the course of the argument which the hon. Member adopted. He said he was stimulated to this attack upon the Irish Church by the fact that the House had consented to the abolition of the Maynooth grant. It appears that this movement has alarmed him. He fears this success of Protestantism. It is painful to him that the Church of Ireland should continue to diffuse her benefits in that country, while the Roman Catholic establishment at Maynooth is no longer to be enabled to provide more priests than Parliament ever imagined would be necessary for the population of that country at the time the grant was sanctioned. It is painful to him that Maynooth should not continue to provide, not that number of priests which Parliament originally contemplated, but one-third more. And this earnest Protestant has now adopted, as a substantive Motion, that old-fashioned Amendment which those who defended the College of Maynooth always moved on the Motion for the discontinuance of the annual grant, but which the House never allowed to be imposed upon it, in order to divert its attention from that object. The hon. Member, actuated by his fears

741
for Protestant success, has now determined that as Protestantism has advanced in that House, he will, if possible, import some element of disunion which may defeat those who object to the Maynooth grant by diverting public attention from it, so as to save the College from the fate that hangs over it. Sir, there are some Nonconformists whose Protestantism I cannot understand. They are resolved that either all religions shall be endowed or that all shall be disendowed; and the hon. Member would apparently, consider it just that Nonconformists should be endowed by the State. For the scheme proposed by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech, provided that a portion of the funds to be taken from the Church of Ireland should be devoted to the construction of Nonconformist schools or churches. [Mr. MIALL: I never entertained such an idea.] Then the hon. Member is so far consistent. But he certainly urged that the Church of Ireland should be disendowed unless all other sects were endowed. And I hope the House will mark with reprobation this attempt to disendow the Church of Ireland at the very time when, as the hon. Member himself acknowledges, that country is in a state of quietude and improvement. The hon. Member could not deny the fact that the efforts of the Protestant missionaries and the exertions of the clergy of the Irish Church are being crowned with success—that in large districts in Ireland the Protestant faith is disseminated ["Oh, oh!"] It is no use to deny it; I boldly state it as a fact, that not only has there taken place a great diminution of the number of Roman Catholics in Ireland from the effects of famine, fever, and emigration, but a simultaneous increase in the numbers of the Protestants is occurring. This is shown by the report of the Church Missionary Society. At the same time we hear from the United States great lamentations of the decrease of Catholicism among the Irish who emigrate there, corresponding with its diminution at home. And this is the time selected by a Protestant Member for a Motion to disendow the Protestant Church, covering his assault under the shallow profession of a belief, that the disendowment he proposes will not at all impede the usefulness of the Church; this at the very time, too, that he is labouring to the utmost to deprive the sister Church of England of the means of support for the fabrics of her sacred edifices. Sir, there is a certain
742
section of Protestant Dissenters whom I never see act on such occasions as the present, except in concert with the Church of Rome. We have this evening a remarkable instance of this, when we see a Protestant dissenter labouring for the destruction of the Church of Ireland, which is the object of the Roman Catholics. And it was so in the reign of Elizabeth. I have a little book published by the Protestant Association, which I have long preserved on account of the value of the references it contains, and which shows this was so. It is entitled The Jesuits by Mr. Dalton. It gives an account of the proceedings of that remarkable body—one of the most powerful organisations the world ever saw—at no time more active than now. Dominant at Rome, triumphant in many Roman Catholic countries, established in Austria to the surprise and consternation of all who prize religious freedom, even in the modified form in which any Roman Catholic nation is capable of it—this little work gives an account of the machinations of this body in the reign of Elizabeth. The author said that, in Elizabeth's time, when Parsons and Campion came to this country, "they changed their habits and apparel in order that they might reman unknown." He next quoted from Richard Baxter, who said that the Jesuits "crept into all societies and acted all parts." After quoting various other authentic words to the same effect, the author writes—
"That there were disguised Jesuits in the time of Elizabeth who pretended to be Protestant ministers, and who excited Churchmen against Dissenters, and Dissenters against Churchmen, and there could be little doubt that in our own times the same work had been carried on by Jesuits in the reign of Victoria."
The author concludes his chapter with an anecdote to the following effect:—
"A Dominican friar, of the name of John Commine, preached against the Pope and railed against Popery in the Church of England. John Clarkson and his wife deposed that Commine was not a true Protestant, but a false impostor, and a sower of sedition amongst Her Majesty's subjects. He was examined before the Council, when he said that he was a preacher of the Gospel, and that he only wished to make the Church of England more pure. He escaped from England and went to Rome, where he was first imprisoned for having reviled the Pope. He was taken before the Pope, when he stated that he bad been actuated by a very different motive from that which was supposed. He said, 'Your Highness will think that I have done you a most considerable service, notwithstanding that I have reviled you.' 'How, in the name of Jesus, Mary,

743
and all the Saints?' inquired the Pope. The reply was, 'I preached against set forms of prayer, and called the English Prayer the English mass, and thus it was made distasteful to the people.'"
Upon hearing which the Pope richly rewarded him. Let the House mark the parallel here presented to what is now occurring. The hon. Member (Mr. Miall) has often distinguished himself by his denunciations of the Church of England and her ordinances [Mr. MIALL: No, no.] Now the hon. Member doubtless desired to be deemed a good friend of the Church of England, in advising her to desert and separate herself from the Church of Ireland, yet every Motion directed against the Church of England has the hon. Member's most earnest support. Sir, the Church of England may well beware of advice offered to her by such friends. Let her adhere to her sister Church, which is now extending her sphere of usefulness, and for that very reason is subjected to these attacks. Sir, it will be long before the conduct of the clergy of that Church during the famine is forgotten in Ireland. The people of England remember that conduct with pride, and although the Government as yet are silent, I cannot believe that they so misinterpret the feelings of the great body of the people as to think that it will be in accordance with their wishes to abandon to the attacks of her enemies a Church which has conferred such benefits on Ireland. Sir, I hope the House will mark their sense of the Motion of the hon. Member, who is here the advocate of the Roman Catholic views. Disguise it as he may, he here represents those views. It was not necessary for me to observe the quarter from which the cheers that greeted him chiefly came; my experience in this House leaves me no room to doubt the true character of this Motion, and I hope the House will reject and resist this Roman Catholic attack upon the Church of Ireland.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHART: * Sir, as the principle involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale has come before the House in various forms during the four years that I have had the honour of having had a seat therein, and as it has been my lot to have taken part in it on more than one occasion, and as the hon. Member himself, in the masterly speech you have just heard, has so completely exhausted the subject, I should not now have troubled the House with the very few observations that I intend to
744
make relative thereto, if the question did not now appear to stand in a totally different light from that in which it did before the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire. I would now ask the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and others on this side of the House, who have so long endeavoured to parry or to fence with this question, what single argument now remains in favour of the existing state of religious endowments? One by one, as the hon. Member for Rochdale has shown you, have the defences of the present Ecclesiastical system in Ireland been carried. Year after year, Session after Session, Parliament after Parliament, I might almost say generation after generation, have the reasons that were so long urged with great plausibility, and which for a time found some degree of favour even with the reflecting and sensible portion of the public, either been utterly refuted, or been shown to be quite inapplicable to the existing system of Government, or to the existing state of religious opinion. There was a time when even liberal and enlightened men thought that there was something in the Roman Catholic religion, and more especially in the religion, of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, that rendered it necessary that its adherents should be treated in a different manner from that in which others who differed from themselves in religious opinion should be treated,—when liberal and enlightened men, who would place every denomination of religious dissenters, every sect of Anabaptists, Independents, Socinians, Arians, or Unitarians, on a perfect equality as regarded all political, religious, and even ecclesiastical advantages, thought nevertheless they were doing God a service by endeavouring to exterminate the Irish Papist by a slow persecution. Yet, withal, the Roman Catholics continued to gain strength in Ireland like the Israelites in the land of Egypt. After that came a long denial of civil and political privileges. These times have likewise passed away. Still it was thought the duty of the English Government to maintain, in the midst of this Roman Catholic multitude, one pure Catholic Apostolic and reformed Church, with four Archbishops and sixteen Bishops, and a goodly staff of other dignitaries, with a parochial clergy paid by the produce immediately taken from the fields of the poorest cottier peasantry in the world, to

745
the great majority of whom this Church was an abomination, under the alleged hope that it would, in time, bring within its pale the great bulk of the inhabitants of the country in which it was planted. Well, Sir, this hope again was disappointed. The proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants continued to increase till the absurdity, I may say the iniquity, of such an institution, in the name of religion, became more apparent than before. Still, for a time, the Protestant Archbishops and Bishops were defended as the divinely instituted successors of the Apostles, whose offices could not be abrogated without sacrilege. Well, at last this abuse became too great even for the feeling of Protestant England, and a partial modification was introduced in the year 1833. But still it was said that a State must ally itself with one form of Christianity—that it could offer support and encouragement to no other—that as England was a Protestant country it could support no other but a Protestant Church in Ireland. Well, Sir, after public opinion compelled the granting of salaries to Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses and gaols, and Roman Catholic chaplains in the army, it was evident that this argument was no longer applicable to the state of the times. Again there were many people who, while they admitted that no abstract ground of argument could justify the assigning the whole of the Ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland to the Church of a tenth part of the population, yet they thought that, as conscientious Protestants, they were bound to support any institution, however strange and anamolous it might seem, which would have the effect of extending and propagating the form of Christianity which they believed to be true. Sir, if experience had shown that the effects which such persons had expected from the Protestant Church Establishment had actually taken place, I could very well fancy their supporting it, on conscientious and religious principles. But have not all anticipations of this nature signally failed? And is there any reason to believe that they are more likely to be realised in future times than they have been in times gone by. Is not the religious opinion of mankind every day paying less deference to the authority of establishments than it did? I could fancy, indeed, a conscientious Protestant supporting a Church on these principles in the time of Queen Elizabeth, when the clergy were perhaps almost the only individuals
746
in the remote districts who could either read or write—when it was not supposed that the common people were capable of thinking for themselves on religious matters, or of adopting any religious opinions save such as they heard from the state clergy—when it could have scarcely entered the heads of our rulers to conceive that poor people could support any minister save the one who was paid by the State. But, Sir, if the Church of England in the sixteenth century failed to bring men within its fold with all these advantages, can it be supposed that it will succeed better in the nineteenth century, when the most vital religion is found in connection with voluntaryism, and when many people have begun to regard establishments as old and effete institutions adapted only to times gone by. Let gentlemen who, in their zeal for Protestantism, would still maintain the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland, recollect that, in the opinion of many, the people of Ireland were prevented from embracing the doctrines of the new religion in the sixteenth century principally out of dislike to England. Are they more likely to embrace these doctrines now, when they are offered to them in connection with an establishment, associated in their recollections with English intolerance, English jobbery, and English misrule? I would entreat them also to reflect what sort of people they are likely to bring to their religion by connecting it with such an establishment as the Church of Ireland. The Irish Church establishment makes the Protestant religion the most fashionable, as being connected with the State; it also makes it the cheapest religion, inasmuch as it has funds to provide for its own ministers; it will, therefore, draw within its fold all those who are likely to be swayed by any such motives, in their choice of a religion; it will hold out attractions to all those who are likely to become members of a Church because it is the most fashionable, or because it will save their pockets anything; but it will naturally repel all those who have sufficient regard for their characters as to fear the imputations of such motives,—all those who would wish to be thought above being guided by avarice or fashion in their choice of a religion. Thus this very institution, which so many in their zeal for Protestantism wish to be maintained, seems to be the means for recruiting the Protestant Church with the worshippers of Mammon, or of fashion, but of keeping

747
out of its fold all those who have sufficient self-respect to be desirous to be thought above such an imputation.
Sir, I hear a great deal said in defence of the present Church establishment about the rights of property, and the inalienability of the property of the Church, as of that of any private individual. Sir, the hon. Member for Rochdale has so completely answered this objection, that it would be superfluous in me to attempt to deal with it. I will not, therefore, detain the House by referring to the oft-quoted passage from Mr. Hallam, in which he so distinctly shows the difference between corporate and private property, and the modes in which each may equitably be dealt with; but I would entreat Gentlemen to reflect on the very absurd conclusion to which this doctrine, pushed to its legitimate consequences, will lead. Suppose now that there were no Protestants remaining in Ireland, would not the argument of the inalienability of the property of the church be equally applicable? would a due regard to the rights of property still prevent you from applying to any national, religious, or charitable purpose, all the revenues which nearly three centuries ago were assigned to the support of so many Protestant Bishops and Archbishops? Does not the very supposition of such a case at once show the absurdity of such an argument? Well, then, if the argument is absurd in such a case, where will you draw the line? Would you, out of mere regard to the right of property, maintain the establishment for the sake of only one Protestant,—for the sake of two, or of ten? I am sure you will say no.
Will you then maintain in a country where there is one Protestant to every 100 of other religions? I cannot help thinking you will still say no. Will you maintain it for one Protestant in ten inhabitants? Why, such is the establishment which it is alleged should be maintained out of due regard to the rights of property. I hear it said, indeed, that glaring and absurd as is the disproportion between the number of Church of England Protestants and the total population of Ireland, yet that the present revenues of the Church are not more than sufficient for supplying the spiritual wants of the former. Now, Sir, I must say that ecclesiastical sufficiency has always appeared to me a very indefinite quantity, capable of great expansion or contraction, according to the peculiar circumstances and the political convenience of parties,—something like
748
what for many years we used to hear about the paying price of corn. How many different figures have been assigned as the paying price of wheat? For a long time the people were told that 80 s. per quarter was the lowest price at which wheat could be grown in this country; then 64 s.; then 56 s.; then 53 s., the price that was to have been guaranteed under the eight shilling fixed duty; all of which were said to have been calculated with the nicest agricultural and mathematical accuracy. Yet now it is found that wheat still continues to grow without the guarantee of any Parliamentary price. Are the hon. Gentlemen quite sure that their estimates of Ecclesiastical sufficiency are grounded upon any better calculation? Are they certain that their fears of Ireland becoming a moral desert, without the present Church Establishment, are better grounded than were the apprehensions of some that, without a sliding scale or fixed duty, the whole of England would become a desert pasture? If the argument about the inalienability of Church revenues means anything, it means that the Church revenues are the property of the people designed for their religious instruction, and to me at least it seems a strange misappropriation of such property, allotting them to the supposed benefit of a small number of the community, the best able to provide religious instruction for themselves.
Sir, the hon. Member who has preceded me (Mr. Newdegate) has referred to the zeal and charity exhibited by the clergy of the Established Church during the famine of 1846 and 1847, as a reason for maintaining the existing establishment. I for one bear my most willing testimony to the zeal and charity of the body to which he has referred; but does not the hon. Member see that this argument may cut both ways, for the Roman Catholic clergy were fully as zealous and charitable as the Protestant clergy, and there was this difference between their charities and those of others—the Roman Catholic clergy were entirely dependent for support on the voluntary contributions of a people, most of whom were at the best of times very poor; so in a year, when their poor supporters were starving, many of them must have had no income at all, and yet their little nothing, if I may so say, they gave away in charity.
"Nil habuit Codrus, quis enim negat, et tamen illud
Perdidit infélix totum nihil."
Their charities, indeed, might be said to

749
exceed those of all others, as much as the two mites cast in by the poor widow exceeded the offerings contributed by the rich men out of their abundance. Again, the hon. Member has asserted as a further reason for the maintenance of the establishment, that a large majority of the Irish who emigrated to America became Protestants after a short sojourn there. I do not know whether such is the case or not but if it is it forms one of the strongest reasons I have heard why every Protestant should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, for it went to prove that the Irish would not embrace Protestantism when offered to them in connection with the Established Church of Ireland but were brought over to it when it was strengthened by the vitality of voluntaryism. On this very ground I must claim the vote of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, as an ardent supporter of Protestantism.
Before I sit down I would entreat the present occupants of the Treasury bench to reflect how much their own character as statesmen depends upon the course which they pursue, with respect to this question. Has not the course pursued by them hitherto with respect to it given too much reason to their enemies to say that their conduct has been regulated entirely with a view to their own party advancement, that they admitted the abuse and professed their anxiety to deal with it as long as that seemed the most likely course to gain power or popularity, but abandoned it the instant it ceased to be useful for such purposes. So strong did they profess their feelings on the subject to be in 1834 that they then submitted to the loss of several of their ablest colleagues in consequence. So strong did they still continue to feel on it that, in the April of the following year, 1835, they framed a series of abstract Resolutions respecting it, which were the means of displacing a Ministry. In 1844, just before the conclusion of Mr. O'Connell's trial, they framed a Motion on the state of Ireland, in which all the leaders of the party, several of whom are still in the Cabinet, expressed an opinion to the effect that the continued existence of such an anomaly was in itself almost enough to justify the agitation for a repeal of the Union. And in 1846 they were not ashamed to join a Protectionist Opposition for the sake of turning out a Ministry, because it had not tried measures of conciliation or justice, as they then said they ought to be called, before introducing any measure of
750
coercion. Since that time the party now in power have introduced several coercion Bills, but what single one of the then anticipated measures of justice or conciliation have they since introduced? They have introduced some unpopular measures, but none that could in any way claim to be popular. Sir, those that had the honour of a seat in this House during the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel must recollect having heard, as I well recollect having read, the magnificent philippics of Mr. Macaulay directed against the Government of the day, in which he so frequently and unsparingly applied the term "deep degradation," to their conduct in dealing with several questions in a more liberal spirit than might formerly have been expected by either their friends or by their opponents. May not the same term be applied to those who the instant they get into power abandon all those opinions, by the possession of which they attained their places. Deep degradation, indeed! When did they, to whom you were so glad to apply this expression, ever try to excite unreasonable hopes or expectations on the part of the people, and abandon all their promises the instant the people placed them in power? Twice, indeed, had they lost power by advancing in the popular cause; but never did they seek to retain power by abandoning popular measures. I remember, shortly after I was elected a Member of this House, but before I had taken my seat in it, a friend of mine saying to me that I should get sick of any Whiggish tendencies I might hen have, as I should find the promises of the Whigs, who were then out of office, like the vows of sinners in a storm at sea, who are described by Lord Byron as making vows of repentance and amendment—
"——which, keep they won't,
For if they're drown'd, they can't; if saved, they don't."
Such, alas, were the promises of the Whigs; if they were kept out of power, they could not perform them; if restored to power, they did not.
I heard it said, indeed, by the noble Lord the Member for London, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, that the arrogant tone assumed lately by the Roman Catholic clergy prevented him attempting to deal with the question as he once tried to do. The arrogant tone, indeed! Will anybody who is acquainted with the state of Ireland say that the tone of the Roman Catholic clergy, or the other popular readers, is anything like as strong now as was at the time that the party now in

751
power thought it necessary to deal with the Church question—as it was, for instance, twenty-two years ago, at the time of the tithe agitation, or as it was twelve years ago, at the time of the agitation for the repeal of the Union? Anybody mixed up in the politics of the country, during all that period, cannot have failed to have observed a marked difference between their present and their former tone, a difference that might well justify a Government in yielding to reason now what they might then have refused to have had extorted from them by violence. But even if the case had been such as the noble Lord described, if their expressions had been more unmeasured, if their general conduct had been more arrogant than formerly, are the noble Lords and the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench so little embued with statesmen-like qualities as not to know that the surest way to destroy the power of the popular leaders is to take away all just cause of discontent from the people? How often used the late Mr. O'Connell to say, "If you wish to reduce me to a mere nonentity, do perfect justice to Ireland"? I say now, if you think the power of the priests, as popular leaders, too great, deal resolutely with what you have so often declared, and what, I believe, every thinking man in Europe declares to be an unparalleled abuse. When you were restored to power in 1846, and, indeed, for some years after, you might have thought that the physical wants of the people, and the social state to which Ireland was reduced by the famine, demanded all your attention. This state of things has happily passed away. Again, for the last three years you might have thought the war demanded all your attention. This, too, has come to an end. For a time, indeed, you might have maintained that the Maynooth Grant had set the question at rest—that as long as it lasted the existing state of ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland might be regarded as a compromise, justified by a regard to old institutions and existing prejudices. Well, it is evident that the time for any such compromise is now gone by. For whatever obstacles you may throw in the way of the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, depend upon it you cannot long continue to maintain Maynooth in opposition to the expressly declared opinions of the people of England and the people of Scotland. Nor will they admit of any other compromise, such as endowing the Roman Catholic Church out of the Consolidated Fund.
752
If you think that the same opinion will also prevent you dealing in a spirit of fairness with this question, let me remind you of the words of the noble Lord the Member for London, in his resigning speech in 1841, that if the consequence of his pursuing the course he thought to be right were loss of power, then "welcome the consequences." These words were well, in every way, worthy of a British statesman and a Liberal. Would that he and his party had acted up to them. But I call upon you to act up to them now. If you approve of the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but fear that by supporting it you may lose power, support it as your conscience directs, and say, "welcome the consequences."
MR. GEORGE A. HAMILTONsaid, that if he had refrained from rising to address the House immediately after the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale had made his Motion, it was not because he was not ready to join issue with that hon. Member, but because he thought, when a proposition such as that made by the hon. Member, affecting the Established Church, was submitted to the House, it was the duty of the Secretary for Ireland to have taken the initiative, and to have expressed the opinion of the Government on the subject. The Member for Rochdale proposed to deal with one of the great institutions of the empire. He proposed that the property of the Church in Ireland should be sold; that the property realised, after paying the present incumbents, should be applied in building hospitals, lunatic asylums, reformatory schools, and in deepening rivers, erecting lighthouses, and other objects of public utility; and this proposition the hon. Member declared was not to be considered an act of confiscation. He (Mr. Hamilton) certainly thought that it was the proper function of the Secretary for Ireland to answer such a proposition as that. He had always considered that it was the duty of the Executive Government in the House of Commons to take the initiative when it was proposed to deal with any of the great institutions of the country; and he did not feel it incumbent upon him to relieve Her Majesty's Government of that part of their duties. The hon. Member for Rochdale had made a very able speech, and with the exception of the proposition itself, there was nothing in it that was calculated to excite any angry feeling. But with respect to the proposition itself, he must at once join issue with the hon. Member, and at the same time

753
express his surprise that such arguments as he had used should have proceeded from the hon. Member. He (Mr. Miall) stood prominently forward as the representative in that house of the Voluntary system, and yet he had advocated that which he called indiscriminate endowment. [Mr. MIALL: No.] He had understood the hon. Member to have argued that the equity of the case required what he called indiscriminate endowment—that all sects ought to be endowed—and that Sir Robert Peel, as a consequence of the Maynooth endowment, had contemplated the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, which in equity ought to have been endowed, but that he was prevented from doing so by the feeling in England.
MR. MIALLbegged to explain. He had argued that the indiscriminate endowment of all sects was the mode which Parliament had preferred, in order to deal with the principle equitably, but that he himself objected to the expediency of that course, although he admitted the justice of it.
MR. HAMILTONwould not, of course, press the argument farther, as the hon. Member disclaimed it. He had always thought that the principle of endowments rested upon higher grounds than those which the hon. Member had adverted to in arguing against it. He (Mr. Hamilton) considered that it was the duty of a Christian State to acknowledge some definite system of religious truth, as a homage to religion, and as a means of teaching and circulating religious truth. That appeared to him to be the principle upon which endowments rest. It was not a question of expediency or policy, but it was in accordance with a great Christian duty, which a Christian State was bound to perform; and that duty, under the British constitution, required the endowment of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and, in accordance with that principle, he had always resisted the endowment of two systems of religions which were inconsistent with each other. He could understand the argument that there ought to be no endowment, but the principle of indiscriminate endowment, encouraging at the same time truth and error, was what he could not understand. The hon. Member had remarked upon his having called upon the clerk to read the fifth Article of the Union at the table, and he had argued that the Article had no reference to the temporalities of the Church; but if the hon. Member had read the words attentively, or had referred to the highest authorities on the
754
subject, he must have arrived at a different result. Lord Castlereagh, speaking at the very time of the Union, states—
"One State, one Legislature, one Church, these are the leading features of the system; and without identity with Great Britain on these three great points of connection, we can never hope for any real or permanent security. The Church, in particular, while we remain a separate country, will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. When it shall once be completely incorporated with the Church of England, it will be placed on such a strong and natural foundation that it will be above every apprehension and fear from abuse, interest, and from all the fretting and irritating circumstances connected with our colonial situation. As soon as the Church Establishment of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one Church, the Protestant will feel himself at once identified with the population and property of the Empire, and the Establishment will be placed on its natural basis."
Such was the authority of Lord Castlereagh when speaking at the time on the subject of the Union. He would quote another authority as regarded the proper construction of the Article, which could not, he thought, be questioned. Lord Ellenborough, when Chief Justice of England, in 1805, when commenting upon the Fifth Article of Union, made the following statement:—
"By the fifth Article of Union it is declared, that the continuance and preservation of the United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union. By fundamental is meant, with reference to the subject matter, such an integral part of the compact and Union formed between the two kingdoms as is absolutely necessary to the support and sustaining of the whole fabric and superstructure of Union raised and built thereupon, and such as being removed, would produce the ruin and overthrow of the political Union founded upon this Article as its immediate basis. The words 'the Established Church' import that there shall be only one Church of that description, and which alone shall have the privileges, charter, and denomination of an Established Church annexed to it. These terms necessarily exclude any other co-ordinate and concurrent establishment. Every other Church which has anything beyond what we commonly understand by the word toleration allowed to it, may be considered as so far established within the meaning of this Article; and the Union, of course, in virtue of such allowed establishment, not only to a degree impugned and violated, but, by the express letter of the precise and preremptory provision referred to, absolutely deprived of its very essence and foundation—in other words, substantially destroyed and subverted."
He (Mr. Hamilton) did not know how far it might be considered competent for Parliament to deal with that or any other Act of Parliament; but he thought it was impossible

755
to deny that the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale would be a complete violation of it. The hon. Member had expressed an opinion that the Church in Ireland had proved a failure. He (Mr. Hamilton) totally denied that assertion. He denied that as an institution it had failed. The hon. Member had admitted the excellence and value of the clergy as individuals but as regards the Church, as an institution, he would quote the opinions of Dr Chalmers—himself not a member of the Church, and possessing many opportunities of seeing and judging for himself Dr. Chalmers declared the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland to be an object of great national policy—that it was an organ of greater moral and spiritual blessings to the land than could be achieved by any other machinery that it was possible to devise. Dr. Chalmers adds—
"The truth is, that among the Established Churches of our empire, that in Ireland, in the vital and spiritual sense of the word, is the most prosperous of the three."
It was unnecessary to add anything to this testimony, coming from so eminent a man, and he would conclude by expressing his confident belief, that the House of Commons would never consent to a proposition for subverting the Established Church, and calculated to deprive Ireland of the highest religious, political, and social blessings.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken even higher ground in opposing the Motion than the hon. Member for Rochdale; for he held it to be the duty of a Christian State that the teaching of Christianity should be supported and endowed. One must respect such a sentiment; but still the question arose, how was it that no such duty was enjoined by Christianity? how was it Christianity had not prospered since it had been endowed?—how was it that Christianity had given rise to such a diversity of opinions that no one could be endowed without injustice to the rest? And what, then, became of the duty? But the House was not now dealing in the abstract—with the general principle of endowments: the Resolution dealt with a specific case, and contemplated a specific object, The omission of all mention of the temporalities of the Church from the 5th Article of the Act of Union was a remarkable circumstance, and quite coincided with what was known of the principles of many leading statesmen of that day. Lord Castlereagh, who had been quoted as an authority, had unquestionably
756
looked forward to an endowment of the Roman Catholic as well as of the Protestant Church. We were bound to regard what was the real object of the Union. It must also be assumed that the Union was intended for the benefit of the two countries, and if Ireland did not insist upon retaining this portion of her bargain, it did not become the House to compel her to retain it. The case was stronger still if the Irish Church Establishment had benefited neither England nor Ireland. The debate had taken a very rambling form. The hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk), amidst much that was irrelevant, had drawn a very striking picture of a poor Presbyterian trudging to chapel on foot, until more prosperous circumstances enabled him to drive to church in his carriage; but the moral of that picture was, that the patronage and favouritism of the State was the cause of apostacy in religious matters. Surely that could be no recommendation of an establishment as an agency for the promotion of religion or morality. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had said, he could not comprehend the Protestantism of the hon. Member for Rochdale, and he (Mr. Fox) believed in the hon. Gentleman's inability. The hon. Gentleman's Protestantism was bounded by dogmas and ecclesiastical forms; while the hon. Member for Rochdale regarded Protestantism as a protest against any domination over conscience, the assertion of the right of free inquiry, and the equality of individuals in regard to religion. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire was also as much mistaken in the hon. Gentleman's motives as in his principles—he supposed that the Present Motion was intended to ward off any danger that might be threatened to the Maynooth Grant. The conception which he (Mr. Fox) had formed of it was just the reverse. To his idea, the object of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolutions was to strike at that Roman Catholic Endowment; but he could not single out one Church and act differently towards all others. What was wanted, therefore, was a plain, broad and universally applicable principle, and therefore in the present Motion he attacked the evil in its most obnoxious and prominent form. The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) had moreover alluded to the number of Roman Catholics who became Protestants after emigration to the United States. He (Mr. Fox) thought that was attributable to the different aspects in which Protestantism

757
appeared to Roman Catholic minds in Ireland and in the United States. The way in which Protestantism exhibited itself in Ireland created hatred and prejudice against it; while in America it produced a feeling in its favour. As to the Motion itself, he would not go into the details. The question resolved itself simply into the disendowment of all the various religious hodies in Ireland; and the question which next presented itself was this—had they a right to deal with what was called the Church property of Ireland, and if they had the right, was it expedient to do so? The right, he thought, had been manifested by a long series of events. They had altered tenets and ceremonies with which that property was connected. That was, in fact, a transfer of the property. They had given up possession of the church cess. That was dealing with the same property. They had made the Irish landlords a present of twenty-five per cent. of the tithes. That was taking a large share of that property. They had cut down ten bishoprics in Ireland. In short, Parliament had, by a multiplicity of acts, shown that they assumed and exercised without dispute the power of dealing with this property as they would with any charitable bequests which were abused and perverted. The expediency rested upon this, that notwithstanding all that had been said, notwithstanding the testimony of Dr. Chalmers, he could not regard the Irish Church but as a failure. It had no claim to nationality. It was not, it never had been, and it had no chance of becoming, national. If they looked at it as a missionary Church, why as a missionary Church let it be supported. But as a missionary Church it had altogether failed. Generation after generation had gone on seeing the Roman Catholics multiplying in numbers, and fully keeping up their relative proportion to the entire population. It was a confessed failure. Various means had been taken to prop it up, by the endowment of Maynooth, by the bonus to the Irish Presbyterians, which were, in fact, so many inducements held out to let the Irish Church continue as it was; but, continuing as it was, it could never cease to be the occasion of terrible conflict and animosity. Its churches were monuments all over the country of the victory of one party and the defeat of another party, its very existence being a standing insult to the Irish people. Thus regarding it, he should support the Motion of his hon.
758
Friend, not desiring, perhaps, that every minute item of his propositions should be adopted; but seeing the right on the one hand, and the urgent necessity on the other, of revising the distribution of moneys which were appropriated to religious teaching and worship, he thought that urgency had become more pressing than ever, since the votes which had been come to on the Maynooth Grant. He sympathized in the antagonism to Maynooth. The Roman Catholic Church was the very last to which he would give money; but he would deal justly, fairly, and honourably with it, and so give no cause of complaint to its sincere and pious members. They could not do that in their present position. Protestants urged the abolition of this grant, and an urgent sense of justice denied it, unless they dealt impartially with all the other forms and religions, and which, he apprehended, they were called upon to do by this Motion, seriously and earnestly inviting them to consider whether a redistribution of moneys appropriated to teaching and worship in Ireland ought not to be adapted to promote the purpose for which they were intended, namely, to secure the peace of the country and the best interests of the people.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that as an Irish proprietor, as well as for other considerations, he wished to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. J. Fox) had said that he would not enter into the details of the proposed disposal of Church property. But the real question was, whether or not the House would alienate from the Established Church the property which it enjoyed? The hon. Gentleman doubtless knew from his Parliamentary experience that it was much easier to introduce a subject of contention into that House than to deal fully with a question. The hon. Member had also remarked that the debate had assumed a very rambling course. In that he (Mr. Stafford) agreed with him; but there was one part of the House from which no opinion had been elicited, and from which, judging by the mode in which the debate had hitherto been permitted to proceed, no opinion would be elicited—he meant the bench occupied by Her Majesty's Ministers. He had been for many years a Member of that House; and it had fallen to his lot frequently to hear questions brought forward, by English, by Irish, or by Scotch Members respecting the Irish Church and fully discussed; but it was reserved for the present occasion to hear a

759
discussion of nearly four hours, in the course of which opinions had been stated favourable and adverse to the appropriation of the property of the Irish Church, and arguments used based upon historical, theological, and constitutional grounds, without any Member of Her Majesty's Government offering to enunciate the views of Her Majesty's present Ministers. He did not blame the noble Lord at the head of the Government, because, according to the precedents of other and better times, some subordinate member of the Government connected with the particular department to which the subject belonged, should have risen after the mover, and 'stated the course which the Government intended to pursue, and then it would have been for the Prime Minister, or leader of the House, at the end of the discussion, to have answered subsequent speakers. But the Government ought to know and feel that, whether the House or the country were divided upon this question or not, they were, at all events, in earnest, and would ill support any Government which imagined they could, by withholding their opinion, or shifting the question, deal with this in the manner in which other subjects had been dealt with. When he expressed a wish, at the commencement of the evening, that the discussion should not be brought forward, he did not suppose that speaker after speaker would have risen and the debate proceeded to its present point without any statement or intimation from the Treasury Bench. He challenged the Secretary for Ireland to answer; but if that right hon. Gentleman found it difficult, from his antecedents, to undertake the task—if he dreaded to be reminded of past speeches—if his votes on former occasions would supply a disagreeable contrast to the vote which, it was to be assumed, he must give on this occasion, at all events some other Member of the Government should get up, and not keep the House in the dark with regard to the course they intended to pursue. If he understood the hon. Member for Rochdale, he did not intend to withdraw his Motion, but to press it to a division, so that, sooner or later, avoid it as they might, shirk it as they would, the votes of the Members of Her Majesty's Government must be decided. It would therefore be better for the right hon. Gentleman or some other Member of the Government, even at this eleventh hour, to state what course they would take and the reasons by which they were actuated, although it was too late to do it with the
760
same credit which they might have obtained at an earlier period of the evening. He did not hesitate to state that his opinions were diametrically opposed to the details of the Motion. He would again call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to come forward and say what he thought of the appropriation of the property of the Irish Church. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, been so long absent from the debate, and had apparently paid so little attention to it, he might not perhaps be quite aware of the subject propounded for discussion. For the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman he would briefly state it. The hon. Member for Rochdale proposed by his Motion to dispose of the whole property of the Irish Church, on terms peculiarly advantageous to the holders of landed property in Ireland. He proposed to allow landowners to purchase the tithe rent-charge upon a very reasonable term of years. He proposed to relieve real property, by appropriating some of the present pay of ministers of the Established Church to certain charges upon it; and he proposed altogether to get rid of religious differences in Ireland. It was now half-past ten o'clock and it was not asking too much of the Government that some member of it should get up and tell the House the opinion entertained by Her Majesty's Ministers of the Motion.
MR. HADFIELDthought his hon. Friend (Mr. Miall) had made the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down much too good an offer in promising him the Irish tithe rent-charge at ten or twelve years' purchase, and he hoped to see the hon. Gentleman come to that side of the House and help his hon. Friend on this question. The hon. Gentleman complained that no Member sitting on the Treasury bench had got up to state the views of the Government on the question under discussion. But the hon. Gentleman had himself been a Minister of the Crown, and did he find that religious affairs were pleasant to handle? If so, how did it happen that some of the zealous supporters and the leaders of his party gave no vote upon the Maynooth question? Why, they knew if they voted against the Maynooth grant what a predicament they would be in when they, in turn, came to sit upon the Ministerial bench. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, too, had stated that he would be glad if his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale would consent to postpone his Motion. No doubt

761
the noble Lord would be glad, and very glad, too, if the Motion were to be postponed altogether; and so would the hon. Gentlemen opposite. But this was a question that must be settled, for by voting money in this indiscriminate way to various sects, they were doing more to promote irreligion throughout the country than could well be conceived. There were in the United Kingdom 27,000,000 of inhabitants, and how many of them were Episcopalian Protestants? Not quite one-third the number. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, he (Mr. Hadfield) would argue that point. In all Scotland they did not exceed 100,000. In Ireland they were not more numerous than one in eight; and although this country was the place where they were most numerous, yet, according to the Census returns of 1851, there was in England and Wales a majority of Nonconformists. He, therefore, thought he was right in saying that the Protestant Episcopalians were not one-third of the population. Was it, therefore, for the sake of that minority, Government would continue to keep alive this fruitful source of religious dissension? Now, his opinion was, that both the grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum should be taken away. If they took away both those grants the Church of Ireland must fall, and with that fall would begin religious peace in that country. He must confess he was oftentimes grieved to see the Roman Catholic Members, because they had got a grant for Maynooth, go into the lobby in support of grants to Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians, who are Calvinistie Protestants, in return support Maynooth. The hon. Member for Newry, for instance, voted for continuing the Maynooth endowment, and he also supported votes of public money to the Socinian professors in Ireland, with whose religious views he in no way agreed. No regard was shown in this House for religious truth, but all doctrines and professions were confounded and blended together, and were subsidized by the State. These controversies were most pernicious and offensive, and the conduct of religious bodies in accepting these grants made good men hang their heads in shame and sorrow. He did, therefore, hope that his hon. Friend would not only divide the House, but still persevere in the matter, and he hoped he might live to see the grievance of the Irish Church removed, and Christianity exercise a healing influence on the wounds of the people.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had waited in vain for some Member of the Government to address the House on this subject, and, therefore, would proceed to direct the attention of the House to the real question on which they would have to pass a judgment. He believed that this was the first time that it was proposed so to desecrate that portion of the Church property in Ireland left by their ancestors for pious uses and religious purposes; but now both the Irish Protestants and the Roman Catholics were asked to surrender property dedicated to pious and religious purposes that the money might be spent in deepening rivers, or building light-houses and piers. The hon. Member for Rochdale, in the spirit of plunder, said, "I want your money, but not your life;" while the hon. Member for Sheffield said, "I want your life as well as your money." If he appealed to the results of voluntaryism to justify such a demand, he (Mr. Napier) was at a loss to know on what he could found an argument in its favour. What had it accomplished in this country, in the way of advancing general civilisation compared with the influence of the Established Church? The property of that Church was the most sacred of all properties, and its title the most ancient of any in the country. It was said, that it was intended to deal with the property of the Irish Church as in the case of an abused trust; but if it was to be dealt with as an abused trust, they must refer back to its original object; but that was not the proposition here. The present measure was nothing but a measure of direct and downright confiscation and misappropriation. Before they would rend the garment, now they would cast lots for it; and, although the hon. Member said he was about to try an experiment, he very much mistook the spirit of the people of Ireland if he expected them to stand quietly by and submit to such a daring insult. If the hon. Member fancied that such a project could be carried out without a conflict (which he feared to contemplate), he was much mistaken. He warned the House that if ever such an attempt succeeded, the struggle would be a fierce one, and would light up the flame of religious discord from one end of that island to the other. To make a proper re-distribution of Church property in Ireland on an adequate scale to meet the claims of the Protestant parishioners, would, as he had taken occasion to point out in a former debate, actually require £70,000

763
more than the whole income of the Church. The hon. Gentleman had bound up together in one, this question—the grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum. But this was an entirely distinct question from either. What was the title by which the Church held its property? The title of the Church to her property was founded not upon Act of Parliament, but upon the common law of the land. He was speaking now of a period long before the Reformation and even before the English invasion, consequently before the introduction of the Papacy. The Irish clergy derived their Church property under strict ecclesiastical succession as far as one portion was concerned, and another portion had been obtained after the Reformation in consequence of grants from the Crown and from many pious donors. These grants were subsequently confirmed by Act of Parliament; they were part of the settlement of property to which the oath of Roman Catholics referred, and therefore ought not to be interfered with. This property was given to the Church for all time—for after ages as well as the then present. The title, however, was a Parliamentary as well as a historical and scriptural title; for at the time of the Union it was confirmed to the Irish Church. It was plainly provided by the 5th Article of the Union that the Irish Church should be secured from spoliation; Sir James Graham himself had expressed an opinion that to interfere with its property was contrary to this Article, and to apply the revenues of the Church of Ireland to any secular uses would be clearly a violation of the Act of Union; and that he would never give his consent to any proposal to transfer any part of these revenues in any shape to any other party. That, also, was the opinion of Lord Plun-ket, the greatest advocate of the civil claims of the Roman Catholics, who said that the moment the property of the Irish church was touched, the Union of the kingdoms was doomed. He should be quite ready if any one would come forward with a proper plan, for increasing the utility of the Church in Ireland, to give his best assistance to expand its parochial agencies. Under the wing of the United Church, every one, whether differing from or agreeing with the principles of the Church, enjoyed the most perfect liberty of conscience; but the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hadfield) wished to strike at that very liberty, and deny to the Established Church the same freedom which he himself enjoyed,
764
Let him ask the House, ought he not, as an Episcopalian living in Ireland, to have the same privileges as an Episcopalian living in England? The hon. Gentleman declared he was willing to respect the rights of the present generation, but they might call upon him to say why he would deprive them of the right, or, rather, interfere with the duty of handing down to their children coming after them those Church privileges, unimpaired, the blessings of which they had the happiness to enjoy for themselves. It was quite evident that this was an attempt upon the part of the hon. Member to take advantage of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland to raise his favourite question of compulsory voluntaryism. But did any one in his senses imagine that the Church in England could stand after that in Ireland had fallen? With regard to the Regium Donum, his opinion was, that in the nature of its endowment it differed from the property of the Church. It was not strictly a religious endowment—it was a grant made to the Presbyterians of Ireland by Parliament on grounds of public policy, and the faith of Parliament and of the Crown was pledged to its maintenance. The Presbyterians were invited to settle in Ireland, and they acted on that invitation. They required some support, and assistance was, therefore, extended to them in the shape of this grant, in order to the maintenance of a suitable ministry. The members of the Irish Church and the Presbyterians differed, for the most part, only in questions of discipline, and he would stand by them in the same way as he would by his own Church, and would say that the faith of Parliament was pledged to them, and they deserved to be assisted. On the other hand, as regarded the Maynooth grant, that stood upon an entirely different ground. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might cheer, but they must remember at all events that he had never shunned the open discussion of that question, never having suppressed his opinion upon it. At the same time a sacred title, based upon more than twelve centuries' duration, was somewhat different from the title to a Parliamentary grant made so late as the year 1845, for a professed purpose, and with a particular object; and if, upon inquiry and investigation, it appeared that that particular purpose and object had failed, and was frustrated, why, then, he thought it was a reasonable question for Parliament to consider, whether the grant ought not to be withdrawn, or, at least,

765
reconsidered and remodelled. He held that the title to the property of the Irish Church was a most sacred one, and that it was the duty of the Government above all things to maintain the parochial system in Ireland. The national faith was pledged to the Regium Donum; and Parliament had not the right, though it might have the power, to take away either the Regium Donum or the property of the Church. They had no right to attempt to avenge upon the Irish Protestants of the present day the crimes and iniquities of English policy in former days. He confessed he had often felt indignation, not merely as an Irish Protestant, but as an Irishman, at the way in which his country had been dealt with under the rule of England. He believed the object had been, not so much to maintain the Protestant religion as the English Government. That time, however, ought to have long since passed away, and he hoped that the House would show itself firm upon the present occasion. He hoped at all events that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would speak out with frankness and manliness. Speaking for the Protestants of Ireland he would say, valuing their Church as they did, they wished at the same time to live in a friendly spirit and good feeling with their countrymen of the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches. Stand by their Church with firmness and determination the Protestants would to the death; and it was not by any miserable sophistry or daring spoliation that they would be deprived of that which they meant to hand down unimpaired to their children's children.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I must in the first place, return my thanks to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and say how much flattered I and my colleagues feel at the extreme anxiety which has been expressed by hon. Members on that side of the House to know the opinions of Her Majesty's Government as a guide to the course which they themselves, I presume, intend to pursue. I hope that we may infer the future from the present, and that upon all great subjects we shall find hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House undecided in their policy and undetermined in their opinions until they are favoured by an intimation of the course to be followed by Her Majesty's Government. I presume it will not be supposed that, upon a question of this importance, Her Majesty's Government have not formed an
766
opinion, and are not prepared to express it to the House. I must at the outset repeat the opinion which I expressed in the early part of the evening, that I regret very much discussions of this kind when they take place in Parliament; for when matters bearing upon religious beliefs come to be debated as they have been to-night, it is impossible for any man not to feel that unchristian feelings and prejudices are frequently entertained by those who are themselves the most sincere in their own creed. People dwell upon points of difference when they might, I think, more advantageously dwell upon points of common accord. The different denominations into which the Christian community are divided seem to me to be more apprehensive that the particular points on which they vary should not be brought prominently into view, than anxious that the common truths in which they concur should be as widely as possible diffused. The more sincere and zealous different sects are, the more they seem determined to use every possible exertion to prevent those who don't agree with them in all respects from receiving any assistance for the diffusion of religious instruction and the propagation of those common doctrines which are the foundation of the belief of all. On the present occasion we have been led into a religious discussion; but I shall confine myself to the more political part of the question. The debate, has been divided into two portions, the one applying more particularly to Ireland, and the other to the question between an establishment and the voluntary system. Now, with regard to the Irish question, I cannot agree with those who maintain that no value is to be attached to the 5th Article of the Union between England and Ireland. It seems to me that those who argue this question on the ground that there is no mention in that Article of the temporalities of the Irish Church, use an argument that resolves itself into this, that the Article has no meaning at all. If the Article simply means that the doctrine and discipline of the established religion of England shall be maintained in Ireland, that is what no Act of Parliament could enforce, for it is an obligation upon opinions and consciences which it would be vain to endeavour to enforce by a legislative enactment, or by the article of a treaty. If that 5th Article has any meaning at all—and it is preposterous to suppose that it is a vain delusion, and that it has no real and substantive

767
intention—it must mean, in the common sense of mankind, that the Church of Ireland, in harmony with the Church of England, is to be maintained. No other meaning can possibly be attached to the Article. I do not, however, go so far as those who would argue that that Article prevents you from dealing with the Irish Church. In order to maintain that position you must go further, and say that Parliament is precluded from dealing with the English Church. There was nothing inconsistent with a faithful observance of the Article in the arrangements which were made, I think, in 1845, when great modifications were effected in the establishment of the Irish Church. Parliament is competent to deal either with the Church of England or the Church of Ireland, according to varying circumstances; but it must deal with those Churches not in order to destroy them, but for the purpose of rendering them more effective in their operation. We have been told by the hon. Gentleman that the endowments of the Irish Church have been diverted from the purposes for which they were granted, and that they are now possessed illegally, and against the intentions of the founders, by a Church differing from that upon which such endowments were originally conferred. That argument applies quite as much to the English as to the Irish Church. The endowments of the English Church, or, at least, part of them, were held by the Church while it was a Roman Catholic Church, and there is, therefore, as strong reason for abolishing the English, as for abolishing the Irish, Church. That argument appears to me to be destitute of force. These endowments were given to the ministers of religion for the purposes of religious instruction, and if, in the course of events, the creed of the Church has been changed, the endowments are still those of the Church, and I hold that there is no perversion of the endowments, or misapplication of the property, so long as it is possessed by the ministers of the established religion of the country. I do not agree with those who maintain that what is called the property of the Church is so strictly belonging to the ministers of religion that Parliament cannot deal with it; I do not concur with the hon. Gentleman who has described the property of the Church as the property of the people,—the property of this parish or of that parish, of this county or of that county.
768
Undoubtedly the property of the Church belongs to the State, and the State represented by its proper organ, the Legislature, has the power and the right of dealing with that property as the circumstances of the time may require. The real question, however, between the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution and those who differ with him, is not the question of the Irish Church. Although the Motion of the hon. Gentleman relates directly and chiefly to Ireland, yet the whole course of his argument, and of those hon. Members who have supported the Motion, takes a much wider range and raises the question of Establishment or no Establishment—of the voluntary system or the ecclesiastical system which at present exists. I, for one, am decidedly of opinion that a Church Establishment is a proper part of the organisation of a civilised country. If example is to be our guide, that is the invariable practice of all nations which have any regard for religion, with the single exception of the republican States of North America. I hold that an Established Church is essential to the well-being of a community. It is said, however, that that Established Church ought to be the Church of the majority of the people. Now, if that argument is good for anything, you can have no Established Church in the United Kingdom, because, I apprehend, there is no section of the Christian community which, as compared with the various denominations that differ from it, could claim a decided majority. Take the Presbyterians and the Catholics, and set them against those who belong to the Church of England; take the Church of England and the Presbyterians, and set them against the Catholics; take the Church of England and the Catholics and set them against the Presbyterians, and, I apprehend, if you were bound by the exact rule of making the Established Church that of the actual majority of the population, you would find it very difficult to maintain upon that principle any Established Church at all. Holding, therefore, the opinion that it is essential for the well-being of a community that there should be an Established Church, I cannot admit that that Church should vary in its creed from time to time, according to the fluctuating proportions of the different sections of the Christian community. I am now brought to consider the state in which things are at present. We find the Church of England the Established Church in England

769
and Ireland, and I am called upon by the hon. Member for Rochdale, not absolutely by his Motion, but decidedly by his speech and by his arguments, to concur with him in substituting for that Establishment the voluntary principle. I cannot go with him to that extent; and as I am not prepared to aid him in attaining the end which is obviously the object of his Motion, I cannot concur in a proposition that would lead to a result at which I have no desire to arrive. As a general rule it is much more easy for a person to object than to propose, and I must say that my hon. Friend (Mr. Miall) has, without seeing his danger, involved himself in considerable embarrassment by not contenting himself with objections, but by proposing a substitute for the present system. He proposes a plan with regard to the Irish Church, which, if it is applied to Ireland, must, upon the same principle, be adopted in this country. He proposes the establishment of a Board, which is to be invested with all the property of the Church, and he suggests an arrangement which is certainly well adapted to conciliate different interests. To landlords he offers redemption of their tithe rents at ten years' purchase—a very advantageous bargain indeed, and one which the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), as a landowner, would doubtless be very willing to accept. For the advantage of counties he proposes the construction of prisons, lunatic asylums, and arterial drainage; and the "lights of the Church" are to be converted into lights of navigation. This arrangement is no doubt calculated to produce great satisfaction, but I think such a proposal can hardly be seriously entertained. If Parliament really contemplated the abolition of Church establishments in this kingdom and the substitution of voluntary contributions for the endowments which now exist, I think, in all probability, some better and more fitting application of these great revenues could be devised than that which my hon. Friend has suggested. I purposely abstain from entering into those topics connected with religious differences which, I think it is, if possible, most desirable to avoid in discussions in this House; but entertaining a deep, a settled, and a rooted conviction that a Church establishment is essential in every country in which it is thought desirable that religion should be diffused and inculcated on the minds of the population, being perfectly determined never to agree to the substitution of the
770
voluntary system for that of an establishment, seeing that the Motion goes directly to a point which I am anxious to avoid, and believing also, with reference to that part of the Motion relating to Ireland, that it would be at variance with the engagements contracted between the two countries at the period of the Union, I feel compelled to give my vote against the proposition of my hon. Friend.
MR. JOHN MACGREGOR MR. JOHN MACGREGOR rose to speak amidst loud cries for a division. The hon. Member's speech was so continuously interrupted that scarce a sentence could be heard. He was understood, however, to denounce the Irish Church in very strong terms and to declare his intention of voting for the Motion. He also remarked that Lord Chesterfield, who had so well governed Ireland, had said in an original letter (in Mr. MacGregor's possession) that the Irish were easily governed by dispensing to all impartial justice.
The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 163: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Anderson, Sir J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Bass, M. T.

Hughes, H. G.

Baxter, W. E.

Johnstone, J.

Bell, J.

Keating, R.

Biggs, W.

Kennedy, T.

Black, A.

Kershaw, J.

Blake, M. J.

Kingscote, R. N. F.

Bland, L. H.

Lindsay, W. S.

Brady, J.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Brocklehurst, J.

MacEvoy, E.

Castlerosse, Visct.

M'Cann, E.

Challis, Mr. Ald.

MacGregor, John

Cheetham, J.

Magan, W. H.

Clay, Sir W.

Maguire, J. F.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Martin, J.

Cowan, C.

Milligan, R.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Moore, G. H.

Crook, J.

Mowatt, F.

Crossley, F.

Murrough, J. P.

Currie, R.

Napier, Sir C.

De Vere, S. E.

O'Connell, Capt. D.

Dillwyn, L. L.

O'Connell, Capt.

Duncan, G.

O'Flaherty, A.

Dunne, M.

Oliveira, B.

Esmonde, J.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Ewart, J. C.

Pellatt, A.

Fergus, J.

Perry, Sir T. E.

Forster, C.

Phillimore, J. G.

Fortescue, C. S.

Pigott, F.

Fox, W. J.

Pilkington, J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Price, W. P.

Goderich, Visct.

Ricardo, S.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Ricardo, S.

Greene, J.

Russell, F. C. H.

Greville, Col. F.

Scholefield, W.

Hadfield, G.

Scully, F.

Hastie, Alexander

Seymour, W. D.

Henchy, D. O'C.

Shee, W.

Heywood, J.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Hindley, C.

Smith, J. B.

771

Strickland, Sir G.

Watson, W. H.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Whitbread, S.

Swift, R.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Willcox, B. M'G.

Thompson, G.

Williams, W.

Thornely, T.

TELLERS.

Tite, W.

Miall, E.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

List of the NOES.

Adair, Col.

Greene, T.

Agnew, Sir A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Alexander, J.

Grey, R. W.

Bailey, C.

Grogan, E.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Gwyn, H.

Baird, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Ball, E.

Hamilton, rt. hn. R. C. N.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Handcock, hon. Capt.

Baring, T.

Hankey, T.

Baring, hon. F.

Harcourt, Col.

Barrow, W. H.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Bernard, Visct.

Hayes, Sir E.

Blackburn, P.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Boldero, Col.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Bond, J. W. M'G.

Herbert, H. A.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Herbert, Sir T.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

Hervey, Lord A.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Hill, Lord A. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Horsfall, T. B.

Brand, hon. H.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Buck, Col.

Hotham, Lord

Buckley, Gen.

Ingham, R.

Bunbury, W. B. M'C.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Jones, Adm.

Burrowes, R.

Kendall, N.

Cairns, H. M'C.

Kerrison, Sir E. C.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Kirk, W.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cayley, E. S.

Langton, W. G.

Cecil, Lord R.

Leslie, C. P.

Chelsea, Visct.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

Child, S.

Liddell, hon. H. G.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Lisburne, Earl of

Colville, C. R.

Lockhart, W.

Conolly, T.

Lowther, hon. C.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Lushington, C. M.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Mangles, R. D.

Dering, Sir E.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Dod, J. W.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Drummond, H.

Michell, W.

Duncan, Visct.

Monck, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. Col.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Duncombe, hon, W. E.

Moody, C. A.

Dunne, Col.

Mowbray, J. R.

East, Sir J. B.

Mundy, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Egerton, E. C.

Newark, Visct.

Estcourt, T. H. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fellowes, E.

Newport, Visct.

Ferguson, Sir R.

North, Col.

Ferguson, J.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Filmer, Sir E.

Pakenham, T. H.

FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

Palmer, Robt.

Frewen, C. H.

Palmer, Roundell

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Palmerston, Visct.

Galway, Visct.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Philipps, J. H.

George, J.

Portal, M.

Gilpin, Col.

Pritchard, J.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Ridley, G.

Greenall, G.

Robertson, P. F.

772

Rolt, P.

Vance, J.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Vansittart, G. H.

Scobell, Capt.

Verner, Sir W.

Seymer, H. K.

Vernon, L. V.

Sheridan, R. B.

Walcott, Adm.

Shirley, E. P.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Sibthorp, Maj,

Walter, J.

Smith, A.

Warren, S.

Spooner, R.

Watkins, Col. L.

Stafford, A.

Whiteside, J.

Stanhope, J. B.

Whitmore, H.

Steel, J.

Wickham, H. W.

Stracey, Sir H. J.

Wigram, L. T.

Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

Woodd, B. T.

Stuart, Capt.

Wyndham, Gen.

Sturt, H. G.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Taylor, Col.

Wynne, rt. hon. J.

Tollemache, J.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Tottenham, C.

TELLEBS.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Tyler, Sir G.

Mulgrave, Earl of

TRALEE AND KILLARNEY SAVINGS BANKS.
MR. D. O'CONNELL MR. D. O'CONNELL rose to move the following Resolution—
"That this House will resolve into a Committee to consider an Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to extend the same measure of relief to the Depositors in the late Tralee and Killarney Savings Banks as has been already extended to the Depositors in the late Cuffe Street Savings Bank."
It was universally believed in Ireland that the savings banks had Government security; and it was notorious that the Government used their money and interfered in their management. He should be probably told that the Government had no legal responsibility, and this might be so, but he thought it clear that a moral responsibility attached to them. It would be quite impossible to paint the misery which had been occasioned by the failure of these banks, and he trusted that the decision of the House would give solace to many a heart and alleviate much of this misery.
VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSEseconded the Motion. He trusted the Government would introduce a measure for amending the laws relating to savings banks, and that the disastrous consequences which ensued from these failures might never again occur. In that case there need be no further appeals to the bounty of Parliament, and, in yielding to this Motion, they would have no reason to fear that they were holding out any encouragement to fraud or mismanagement, or that they were establishing any dangerous precedent.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if there were any statute of limitation against cases being brought be

773
fore the House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find an important obstacle in his path. This was by no means the first time that the present case had been submitted to the House. The events referred to took place, he believed, in 1848. In the following session of Parliament a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the failures of the Tralee, the Killarney, and the Cuffe Street Savings Banks. The then Lord Mayor of Dublin and other Irish Members served upon that Committee, and, the subject having been most fully considered by them, they were unanimously of opinion that the peculiar circumstances attending the Cuffe Street bank justified the partial relief of the depositors; but a majority of the Committee were of opinion that no such reasons existed in the case of the Killarney and Tralee banks. In 1850, his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Charles Wood) proposed a vote of £30,000 for the Cuffe Street savings bank, which, after a full debate, was carried by a considerable majority; but they decided not to recommend any Vote in favour of the other two banks. There was no ground whatever for maintaining that any legal responsibility devolved upon the Government for the default of the managers of the savings banks; and the only question was whether any moral responsibility rested upon the Government. That moral responsibilty was negatived by a competent Committee, composed of ten Members, who were by no means opposed to the reasonable claims of the depositors. It seemed to him, therefore, impossible that they could at this day go back from that decision, and reinvestigate a case which occurred seven years ago; still less was it possible to hold out any hope on the part of the Government that any Vote would be proposed in aid of these two banks. At the same time he fully admitted that the case of the depositors in those hanks was a very painful one, and he could only regret that it was impossible for him to offer anything more than that sympathy which such a case always excited.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman had raised an objection to the Motion on the ground of its having been brought forward after so long a period had elapsed, he was prepared to give a reason why the question had not been mooted before. It was not from any acquiescence in the justice of the decision of
774
the Committee, but because year after year every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House the absolute necessity of legislating, with a view to the security of depositors in savings banks. Year after year Bills had been brought in, but had not been proceeded with; and year after year they were told that the Government would settle this question, involving, as it did, the interests of a large mass of the people of Ireland; and they then were told that the question would be raised as to the justice of compensating those who had lost their money in these savings banks. It was hardly fair, therefore, for his right hon. Friend, after that forbearance to turn round and tell them, that there was a Statute of Limitations against them because they had not pressed this question to an issue. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the decision of the House when the question of compensation was brought before it; but what, after all the influence of the Government hostile to the Motion, was the majority against it? It was only rejected by a majority of seven. Up to 1844 the depositors had the security of the managers and trustees in the case of failure of these banks. About that time several savings banks failed, and in a debate in that House the unsound and unsatisfactory stute of the law was shown. The attention of the Government was called to this state of things, and what was the remedy adopted by the House? Why, an Act was passed which contained clauses entirely absolving the trustees and managers from all responsibility. He admitted that the Legislature acted wisely and justly in taking away the responsibility from the managers. He did not complain of that; but what he did complain of was, when the unsatisfactory state of things was proved which rendered legislation necessary, that no precaution was taken to secure the depositors against the loss which had since accrued. It was a too constant and too true complaint, that the interests of the rich and of gentlemen of high condition were considered, but the interest of the poor man was totally disregarded. Here he was left to lose the savings of a whole life without the slightest chance of redress. He defied them to say that he had at all exaggerated the present state of things. Poor men invested their savings under the belief of Government responsibility, and under the sanction of high names in their locality; and then found,

775
too late, that the whole system was, as far as they were concerned, a sham, and that there was no Government responsibility in the matter. As representing many poor persons, who, without any fault of their own, had been ruined by the failure of these banks, which they believed rested upon the responsibility of Government, he should support the Motion.
MR. FAGANcorroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Kerry, that Government was thought to be responsible for the sums deposited in the savings banks. The depositors lodged their money under the impression that they had Government security for its safety; and the same obligation which had rested on the Government with regard to the Cuffe Street Savings Bank applied with equal force to this case.
MR. VANCEsaid, he was not in Parliament at the time the arrangement was come to in the Cuffe Street case, but he knew that great discontent prevailed that the depositors were not paid in full. He moved as an Amendment that this House will resolve itself into Committee to consider an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to extend a full measure of relief to the depositors of the Tralee and Killarney Savings Bank, and also to the depositors of the late Cuffe Street Savings Bank.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "the same," in order to insert the words "a full," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words 'the same' stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted he could not assent either to the Motion or to the Amendment. In 1850, the claims of the unfortunate depositors in these three banks had been referred to a Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Fagan) was a Member, which unanimously recommended the case of the depositors of the Cuffe Street Savings Bank to the favourable consideration of the Government, but reported that no case had been made out for the depositors in the other two banks. As a matter of compassion 10 s. in the pound was awarded by Parliament to the depositors in the Cuffe Street Savings Bank. After full consideration by a Committee of the House, and a long debate in the House, he did not consider that he should be doing his duty if he proposed in Supply a Vote of £30,000 to make up the deficiencies in the Cuffe Street bank; £20,000 for the
776
Killarney bank, and a considerable sum for the Tralee bank. At the same time he wished to be understood to sympathise most fully with the unfortunate depositors.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he could not vote for either the Motion or the Amendment, but still he thought the House had a right to ask the Government the reasons why they left this question of savings banks so long in abeyance. He should move the adjournment of the debate, because he thought they ought to have a more satisfactory answer from the Government, why the depositors in savings banks had been left so long unprotected.
Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, who said that a question so long settled, ought not to be re-opened,
The House divided:—Ayes 84: Noes 9: Majority 75.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 39: Noes 54: Majority 15.

STAFF OF THE ARMY.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON rose to move—
"That it is the opinion of this House, that it will be to the advantage of the service to employ general officers from the scientific corps on the staff of the army."
The hon. and gallant Member was proceeding to complain that there had been no appointments during the war to the staff of the army from the scientific corps, when—
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at half after One o'clock till Friday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Annuities (No. 2); Reformatory Schools (Scotland).
2aFire Insurances.

THE TREATY OF PEACE—THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that in putting the question of which he had given notice to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting the Danubian Principalities, it would be necessary to say a few words to explain its purport and object. By the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Peace, it was stipulated that a Commission should be appointed for the purpose of regulating and reforming the laws

669
and institutions of the Principalities, and subsidiary to that Commission two representative bodies were to be appointed, which were to represent the feelings and wishes of all classes in the Principalities. The object of their appointment was to ascertain with as much precision as possible the wishes of the inhabitants with regard to the definitive organisation of the Principalities. These bodies were to report to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners were to report to the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris. That course of proceeding would, If honestly pursued, have been most satisfactory, not only to the House and the country, but to the people of the Principalities themselves. But one of the most important things to secure was, that the persons who were to compose these representative bodies should be free from any extraneous influence; and therefore it was understood that they were not to commence their proceedings until the Austrian troops had been removed from the Principalities, or at all events to such an extent that their presence could exercise no influence on them. Another point which was considered equally important was, that the Hospodar, whose term of office would expire in June, should not be re-appointed to the office before the sittings of the representative bodies commenced. This was deemed essential both from the influence of the Hospodars and from the notorious connection which existed between Prince Stirbey, the Hospodar, and the Austrian Government—indeed, if he used the right term, he might say the notorious subservience to and absolute dependence of Prince Stirbey. Accordingly it had been arranged with great propriety that a council should be held at Constantinople, at which it should be determined when the Hospodar should be removed, and when the proceedings should commence. That, he was told, was most satisfactory to the population of the Principalities, but not at all to Austria, which, as he had been informed, had desired to vary the mode of proceeding for the purpose of producing an influence on the population. A council had, however, been held at Constantinople, at which it was determined that the Hospodar should be removed before the sitting of the representative body commenced; but the representative of Austria had exerted various means of influencing persons at Constantinople, and a second council was held, at which he
670
was led to believe that during the absence of the Grand Vizier in England the former decision had been reversed. That, as he had been informed, had been approved by Austria, and was not disapproved of by France; but our own Ambassador, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, most distinctly disapproved of it. What he wished to know from his noble friend was, whether there was any foundation for this report, and whether any assurance could be given to the House that the proceedings under this Commission and the subsidiary representative bodies would take place without any undue influence over them, so as to realise the expectations that had been formed on the subject. This country, he could assure his noble Friend, felt a deep interest in the welfare of the Principalities.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My noble and learned Friend has correctly stated what took place at the Conferences in Paris with respect to the Principalities and with regard to the objects which the representatives of the contracting Powers had in view. We determined not to settle anything finally, because it was impossible to obtain sufficient information then to enable us to form new institutions; we therefore, as my noble and learned Friend has correctly stated, determined that two Divans should be formed for that purpose, which should act without cheek or control, and which should honestly represent all classes of the community. We made the condition that those Divans should not commence their proceedings while any foreign occupation of the Principalities existed, and that no influence should be held over their deliberations. We agreed that the firmans for convoking those Divans should be agreed upon by the representatives of the contracting Powers at Constantinople, in order that we might know that our object—namely, that of securing the free representation of the Principalities—was likely to be attained. I have no knowledge of the circumstance to which my noble and learned Friend has alluded, although yesterday I saw a similar account in a newspaper. The letter in which that account was contained was dated Constantinople, May 12. Now, we have despatches from Lord Stratford de Redcliffe up to the 15th, in which no mention is made of any circumstance of the kind, and I had last night an opportunity of inquiring of the highest Turkish authority now in this country as to the truth of the statement, and he informed me that he

671
was quite sure that no such arrangement had been made. The attention of my noble Friend our Ambassador at Constantinople shall be called to the subject, and I am sure that he will not allow any arrangement to be made which will defeat the intentions of the Conference without offering such protests as he is so well able to make.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYinquired whether the arrangements regarding the Principalities included a provision that the fortresses in the territory to be ceded by Russia to Turkey in Bessarabia, should be given up in their present state. The fortresses of Ismail and Kilia were of very great strength. He had seen in the public papers that morning, that Ismail was about to be dismantled by the Russians. That might be a mere newspaper report; but he wished to know of his noble Friend what were the provisions of the Treaty with regard to these fortresses—whether they were to remain as fortresses, and if so, whether they would be garrisoned by Turks or Moldavians; or were they to be wholly razed and the territory merely given up to the Ottoman Porte?
THE EARL OF CLARENDONreplied that the territory in question was to form part of Moldavia, which was considered to be an integral part of the Turkish dominions. No stipulation was made as to whether those fortresses were to be dismantled or not. He scarcely thought the statement in question could be true, for if they were dismantled, there was nothing to prevent the Turks from re-erecting them.
LORD LYNDHURSTasked the noble Earl whether it was intended that the Hospodars should remain in office after the expiry of their present term, which would terminate at the close of next month?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: It was proposed to the Turkish Plenipotentiaries that the Hospodars should not continue in office after the end of June. They agreed that that would be the proper course to take, but stated that it would be necessary to appoint Kaimakans in the place of the Hospodars. He felt that it would he impossible at that moment to say exactly what arrangement should be adopted, and resolved to leave it to the Porte to determine what should be done in order to secure the tranquillity of the provinces during a state of crisis.
LORD LYNDHURST: Will the noble Earl say whether, in the event of the Hospodars
672
being removed from their offices, they were likely to be placed in the situation of Kaimakans? That was an inferior office, but still one of considerable influence, and, filled by the present Hospodars, would be open to the same objections as the existing order of things.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: When the Hospodars' term of office expired it would be for the Porte to name the Kaimakans. It did not at all follow that the present Hospodars would be chosen. It would be open to the Porte to appoint whom it pleased.

FIRE INSURANCES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved that this Bill, the object of which, he observed, was to render liable to duty all property in this country insured abroad, be now read a Second Time.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he thought we had abandoned protection four years ago, but here was a Bill which was the very incarnation of protection. No proposition had ever issued from the Opposition side of the House more imbued with protection than this was. But, putting that aside, he asked how the Bill was to be practically carried out. He did not see how it was possible to prevent evasion of its provisions.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas surprised to hear this measure decided as one of protection. In one sense, no doubt it was a Bill for protection, but it was the protection of Her Majesty's revenue from smuggling. It was no interference with the freedom of trade, nor was it to protect particular interests, but the revenue of the State.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the object of the Bill was to prevent French capitalists from coming over to insure property in this country. They desired to employ their capital in this way, and here it was proposed to enact a measure of protection against them. It did not appear to him to signify whether corn or money was the article affected. In either case it was a measure of protection.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought there would be some force in the objection taken if French capital were now subjected to the same conditions imposed on English capital; but the fact was it paid no duty in the case of insurances in

673
this country, while English capital paid a duty of 3s. per cent. The proposition now made was the same as that of imposing a duty on French corn brought to this country if it was converted into English malt.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, they had been told that nothing was to be protected, that no speculation whatever was to be interfered with, as it would be contrary to the principle of free trade. The true way of settling this question would be to take the duty off insurances in this country.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2 accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

MILITARY ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES.
THE EARL OF ELGIN THE EARL OF ELGIN moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any Despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General of Canada, or the Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, on the Military Establishment to be maintained in those Colonies, of a later date than the Despatch of Earl Grey to the Earl of Elgin, of the 14th of March 1851; and the Copy of the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Letters Patent Under the Great Seal of the Province of Canada, dated the 27th of October 1854, to investigate and report upon the best Means of re-organising the Militia of Canada and providing an efficient economical System of Public Defence, and to report upon an improved System of Police for the better Preservation of the Public Peace; and a Copy of any Act or Acts passed by the Parliament of Canada in pursuance of this Recommendation."
The noble Earl said that he did not know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant these returns or not; but in either case he thought it would be only respectful to the House that he should briefly state the grounds upon which he submitted the Motion to their Lordships. He had thought it right a few weeks ago to call the attention of the noble Secretary for War to certain rumours which were then current respecting an alleged intention on the part of the Government to make a very considerable addition to the military force maintained in the British North American colonies, and to make that addition with certain unusual accompaniments of parade and ostentation. He believed that some of the reports then very extensively circulated by the press went the length of stating that a certain portion of the magnificent fleet, at that time assembled at Spithead, was to be employed to convey 10,000 men from
674
the Crimea to Quebec or Halifax. Having had some experience of the state of feeling in America, he thought that if rumours of this kind were transported across the Atlantic without a single word of denial, qualification, or explanation, they might produce very uneasy feelings both in the British provinces and in the United States; and they might perhaps have the effect of inducing the Congress of the United States—which, he hoped he might say without offence, sometimes acted rather upon impulse in such matters—to adopt, as it had done in a corresponding case, countervailing measures of precaution or of menace, which might still further complicate the relations subsisting between the two countries. Since that time he had received an American newspaper, in which the reports to which he referred were republished, with such comments as they might fairly expect. These reports commenced with the following extract from The Times:—
"We believe we may state with certainty that General Eyre's Division of 10,000 men is to go direct from Balaklava to Canada. Such a measure will, no doubt, be variously interpreted. We are not in the secret, and can only discuss it as any Canadian or American politician might do. It will of course be set down by some people at once as a threat, or at least a measure of precaution; indeed, we do not see how, just now. it can escape the latter character, as the Canadians themselves show no sign of disaffection, and in the present temper of the British people on colonial affairs it is doubtful whether we should take the trouble to coerce them if they did. If it be, then a measure of precaution, the citizens of the United States, as they have just voted a million of money for war steamers, will not be surprised at our sending 10,000 men to the support of our loyal fellow subjects. Canada was stripped of all her disposable forces for the service of this war, and as our republican neighbours have taken the opportunity of making a disturbance, it is a matter of course that, as soon as our forces are released, a portion of them should return to the colony. For our part, we much prefer this solution to another which may suggest itself—namely, that we are to make a rule of maintaining a large force in Canada. The colonists don't want it themselves. Indeed, they asked permission to raise a regiment for the war in the Crimea, and thought themselves not very respectfully used when the offer was declined. We trust, indeed, that we are giving up the absurdity of an immense and costly army, in the most unavailable and unimprovable form, spread in small detachments over half-a-hundred colonies."
There were some passages of that extract in which he most cordially concurred, but at the same time it must be admitted that the article was not written in a very conciliatory spirit towards the United States,

675
The American journal to which he referred also contained the following extract from another metropolitan newspaper (the Morning Chronicle:—
"No one is deceived by this declaration. Were nothing meant, it would have been as well to have done nothing. But, first to send a fleet, then munitions of war, and then an army, has certainly no very great appearance of pacific intentions."
He thought these reports, when they were brought together in such a shape, presented a somewhat formidable appearance, and justified the course he had taken in bringing the subject under the consideration of the Government, and inviting them to give some explanation of their intentions. He took the liberty of adverting to this point, because it was of great importance, in their discussions with America, that they should bear in mind the fact, that Great Britain and the United States possessed in the highest perfection the advantages of a free press. It was, therefore, impossible in either country to prevent the measures of Government from being criticised, and their motives, real or supposed, genuine or putative, from being canvassed and scrutinised. Moreover, the presses of both countries, being vastly influential within their own respective spheres, and also—he said it to their honour—eminently patriotic, were apt in these international discussions, like the knights in the legend, to look a little too exclusively to their own side of the shield. This imposed upon men who were earnestly desirous to preserve peace between the two countries and to promote the interests of both or either—and, he believed, it would be very difficult to promote the real interests of one without promoting the interests of both, so intimately connected together and so dependent upon each other were they—this imposed upon public men the duty of striving to remove any causes of possible misunderstanding, and that they should not shrink from suggesting means of conciliation, although occasionally the attempt to discharge those duties might expose them to misrepresentation and reproach. It was with these views and feelings, and not with any intention of causing embarrassment to the Government, that, three or four days ago, he had asked the noble Earl below him whether a letter which had appeared in the American journals, purporting to be a copy of one written by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this country, in reply to a request from the
676
Government of Costa Rica for a supply of arms, was genuine or not. He knew that this letter, under the circumstances of the war now raging between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, in which a numher of citizens of the United States were engaged, had produced a great effect in the States, and he, therefore, thought it most important that an opportunity should he afforded to the noble Earl of giving to the public a true version of the transaction. He did not intend to comment upon the reply which was given by the noble Earl to his inquiry; but he believed the noble Earl's statement that, in point of fact, no arms had been sent to Costa Rica afforded very general satisfaction. He (the Earl of Elgin) might be permitted to say that, having seen a great deal of the people of the United States during his residence in America, and having had numerous opportunities of intercourse, official and non-official, with the leading men of that country, and speaking moreover in the interest of those North American colonies, which would be the first and perhaps the greatest sufferers if hostilities were to break out between the two Powers, he deeply regretted and deplored the extent to which an impression was gaining ground in this country, that an unfriendly feeling existed among the citizens of the United States towards Great Britain—he deeply regretted the suspicion and distrust which that feeling—a feeling which he believed was totally erroneous—was imparting to the political relations of the two countries. There was, no doubt, a disposition among certain classes of persons in the United States—classes composed in a much larger proportion of foreigners than of natives—to view the proceedings of this country with unfounded jealousy, and to put an unjust construction upon the motives by which it was influenced; but he entertained a firm conviction that the better classes in the United States, were animated with the most kindly feelings towards this country, and that the people generally were desirous that friendly relations should be maintained with us, and conscious that any interruption of those relations would entail upon both countries the most serious calamities, without being accompanied by any compensatory advantages. He believed there never was a time, since the Declaration of Independence, when the substantial interests which bind the two countries together were so manifold

677
and so important, and when the differences between them were so trifling and puerile as at the present moment. He believed that, were it not for the point of national honour, which they believe to be engaged because the Government tells them it is so, the people of this country would not take much interest in any of the pending questions, and would not care whether they were settled one way or the other. He deeply deplored the continuance of angry discussions between the Governments of the two countries: because he was confident that if the British people were once brought to believe that a collision with the United States was sooner or later inevitable, and if the Congress of the United States coutinueed its military and naval preparations in order to be prepared against such a contingency, it would be impossible much longer to maintain peace between the two countries. He also deprecated the continuance of these angry discussions for another reason—because he thought that, with reference to the disputes now pending between the two Governments, we had been led in our controversial zeal to assume positions diametrically opposed to those which a consideration of our real and permanent interests would have induced us to occupy. It was our interest, for instance, that the neutrality laws of the United States should receive the widest interpretation, that that disposition which existed in some portions of the population of the United States to carry on war on their own account should be checked, and that the Government of the United States should be led to recognise the obligations which it owed in this respect to the other Governments of the world. But in our late controversy with the United States we had been led to contend for the narrowest interpretation of their neutrality laws, we had been led to maintain the right of persons resident in the United States to enter into the service of foreign belligerents at their will, and that it was not a fair subject for remonstrance that diplomatic agents of a foreign Power should make themselves, directly or indirectly, parties to such proceedings. This view of the case had been most ably put in the last despatch of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary to Mr. Marcy. The noble Earl said—
"In Great Britain the law not only prohibits recruiting or enlisting within the British dominions for the service of any foreign State, without the
678
permission of the Sovereign, but it goes further and prohibits any subject of Her Majesty from so enlisting, even elsewhere, without the Royal permission. The policy of Great Britian hence appears to be to prevent British subjects from entering at all into the service of foreign States without the permission of the Crown. The law of the United States appears to be different. Her Majesty's Government understood, and that understanding is confirmed by Mr. Buchanan's note of the 6th of July, that the law of the United States only forbids enlistments, recruiting, and contracts or engagements within the United States, and hiring or retaining persons to quit the United States with intent to be enlisted elsewhere; but it does not forbid citizens of the United States, who may have used their natural right of quitting the United States, to enlist into the service of a foreign State when they have left their own country. The sovereign power of the United States might, if it had chosen to do so, have followed its citizens with a prohibitory enactment beyond the territory of the United States; but it has not thought fit to do so, and the just and inevitable conclusion is, that what it might have forbidden, but has not forbidden, it has designedly allowed; that is to say, in other words, that it is the policy of the United States to prevent foreign enlistments within the United States, but that it is not the policy of the United States to forbid the citizens of the United States to enlist, when out of the United States, into the service of foreign States, if they should choose to do so."
That was a most temperate statement of the case, but such an argument would have come more naturally from an American than from a British Minister. Their Lordships would remember, moreover. the lowered tone and the bated breath with which the noble Earl had read a portion of a despatch from Mr. Marcy in the course of the late discussion on the maritime code. The noble Earl on that occasion read the following quotation:—
"It is not apprehended that there will be any attempt to violate the laws; but should the just expectation of the President be disappointed, he will not fail in his duty to use all the power with which he is invested to enforce obedience to them. Considerations of interest and the obligations of duty alike give assurance that the citizens of the United States will not compromise the neutrality of their country by participating in the contest in which the principal Powers of Europe are now unhappily engaged."
He could quite understand that the noble Earl, when he was reading this passage, felt that a British Minister was placed in a very false position by being obliged to employ all his ingenuity to weaken and extenuate the force of the valuable pledge which had been given by the American Government. Then with reference to the Central American question. No doubt it was the real interest of this country that the independence of the Central America

679
States should be preserved, and that no one great Power should obtain an overweening influence in that territory, which was destined probably to become the highway of the commerce of the world. It was with this view and intention that the Bulwer-Clayton Treaty was entered into, and it was in pursuance of this view that a very valuable assurance was obtained from Mr. Abbott Lawrence on behalf of the United States, in a despatch from that gentleman to Lord Palmerston, dated November the 8th, 1849—to the effect that the American Government had no ulterior objects to serve, and that they had no intention whatever of occupying or colonising that territory. In our zeal, however, to maintain certain rights in Central America—which he felt bound to say he believed to be entirely worthless—we had been led to put a most restrictive interpretation on that treaty, and to extend to the utmost the limits within which the parties to it might exercise powers of protectorate or quasi-sovereignty in that territory. He very greatly feared that the able arguments which we had employed in this discussion would be turned against us with effect in yet more serious discussions which might arise between us and the United States; but, in the meantime, all the friends of both countries must agree in earnestly desiring that the present controversy should be put an end to at the earliest moment. But a few days ago an American gentleman of great eminence had expressed to him his conviction that if Lord Clarendon and Mr. Marcy were half an hour together in some room they would settle the whole question in a manner most satisfactory to all parties. Now that the noble Earl was released from the overpowering labours which had been lately pressing on him, he hoped he would turn his great abilities and powers of conciliation to this important subject, and by putting an end to the dissensions between America and England add another to the many claims which he had established upon the gratitude of his country. To revert, however, to the question of the transmission of troops to Canada. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, in reply to the inquiries which he had addressed to him on a former evening stated, that the reports to which he had called attention were exaggerated, that the addition which was to be made to the military force in the North American provinces was not so great as it was
680
represented to be; and, above all, that it was not intended for aggressive purposes in America. That declaration was most explicit and emphatic, and must have given great satisfaction to all persons whose confidence in the discretion of the Government was of that somewhat qualified nature which rendered such an assurance desirable. He himself was not one of that number, for it had never occurred to him to suppose that it was even possible that the Government would be guilty of the imprudence of undertaking an aggressive movement in America. He confessed, however, that judging from past experience and a little influenced also by those reports, he had felt at the time when he put the question some little anxiety upon another point, which was not wholly removed by the answer which he had received. He had thought it just possible that Her Majesty's Government, conscious that they had at their disposal one of the most powerful fleets and one of the best appointed armies which this country ever possessed, might have conceived the opinion that something in the nature of a demonstration of force, something which their admirers might vaunt as a display of vigour, might be serviceable to them in the negotiations which they were then carrying on with the United States. He was glad to say, however, that a statement more recently made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in answer to an inquiry addressed to him in another place, went far to remove the apprehensions which in common with others he had entertained on this point. That statement, however, and the inquiry which led to it, went very far to justify the observations which he had already made, and to illustrate the advantage which a Government enjoyed, from the opportunities of explanation, of self-vindication—perhaps he might say, of reflection and reconsideration which were afforded to it—when Parliament was sitting. That illustration, in the present case, was the more complete and the more instructive because it contrasted in a very marked manner with what had occurred in a case almost exactly similar not many months ago. Their Lordships could not have forgotten the circumstances attending an addition made some short time ago to our naval force on the West India station. At that time Parliament was not sitting; no Member of either House could rise in his place to

681
ask the Ministry to explain the motives of their proceeding, or to undertake the still more thankless office of warning them of its too probable consequences. The result was that the public, both in America and England, were constrained to put upon that proceeding the construction which was put upon it by the press of this country—and more particularly by that portion of the press which was supposed, universally supposed in America, whether rightly or wrongly, to enjoy, to a certain extent, the confidence of Her Majesty's Government. Their Lordships could hardly have forgotten the tone in which the people of the United States were reminded that as their community comprised many lawless individuals whom their Executive was either unwilling or unable to restrain, it became necessary for our Government to take measures to guard against the possible remissness of the Government of the United States. It was a very significant fact, however, that the pretext for these warnings was furnished, not by the proceedings of native-born Americans, but by the idle ravings and the wild projects of apostate subjects of the Queen of England—of men who had fled to the United States to seek a refuge from real or fancied oppression, and whose acts were a scandal and a reproach rather to the country of their birth than of their adoption. He did not pretend to say that the intentions imputed to the Government were correct. On the contrary, he thought it probable, nay, he was confident—and he should be glad to be informed now that his confidence was not misplaced—that if the Government had had the opportunity of explanation which the sitting of Parliament afforded, they would have been able to explain away what appeared offensive in this proceeding. He admitted, moreover, that the proceeding might have been attended with some appearance of temporary success; but, if the Government had been careful in watching the signs of the times, if they had watched the proceedings of the American Congress with due attention, they must have learnt by this time to appreciate the cost at which such successes are achieved. They put arms into the hands of a party in the United States, small in number and contemptible in influence and character, but noisy and active, who found in denouncing the so-called overbearing policy of Great Britain a theme of perpetual declamation; and they also furnished with arguments, unhappily for
682
America and England, as well as for the peace of the world and all those transcendant interests of freedom, civilisation, and progress which were bound up in a good understanding between these two kindred nations, that class of persons in the United States who found, or imagined they could find, their account in the maintenance of expensive military and naval establishments; and those who achieved such successes were therefore, unconsciously no doubt, but not the less surely, conspiring to call into existence the material force of that New World which might yet be destined to realise the prediction of a celebrated statesmen of this country, in a sense little meant by its author. But the reply of the noble Lord (Lord Panmure) to the question put to him the other night raised a question of domestic policy of great importance, on which the returns for which he had moved might throw considerable light. The noble Lord said, that the addition to be made to the military force stationed in British North America, was intended only to replace the amount removed thence since the commencement of the war. It might be inferred from that statement that the reduction of force in the North American colonies of late years had been the result of accidental or temporary circumstances; whereas, the returns he now moved for, would show that it had been the result of a policy deliberately adopted and steadily and consistently carried out, and would have taken effect even if the late war had not occurred. The object of that policy was twofold. In the first place, its object was to relieve the mother country of a portion of the expense hitherto borne for the military protection of those colonies. In the second place, it was to call forth in the colonies a certain amount of military spirit and material force, which should be available in peace, for the preservation of internal tranquillity, and in war be of assistance to the mother country. He did not make the present Motion with any intention whatever of occasioning embarrassment to the Government or placing any obstacles in their way, in making such a disposition of the military force which on grounds of general policy they might think it necessary to maintain as a peace establishment, as they deemed most advantageous and conducive to the interests of the country. What the amount of that force should be, and how economy and efficiency might be reconciled in its composition and

683
distribution—these were, no doubt, important questions well deserving consideration, but which he did not propose to raise on the present occasion. Least of all was it his intention, in inviting their Lordships to accede to his Motion, to say one single syllable calculated to raise a doubt among our fellow-subjects in the colonies as to the deep interest this country took in their welfare, or as to its readiness to support them with the whole might of the empire against aggression or wrong; but he did think it very important at the present time more especially, and in the existing state of our relations with the United States, to call their Lordships' attention to the elements of strength which this country possessed in the devoted loyalty and perpetually increasing resources of the great colonies with which he had been for many years connected—to the power and consistency they were of late assuming under the influence of a wise administration of colonial affairs by successive Governments; and to implore their Lordships to interpose their high authority, if necessary—though he did not assume that it would be—to prevent the adoption of measures which might have a tendency to arrest the work now in progress, which promised, if perseveringly carried out, to render those colonies in time to come a support instead of a burden to the empire. He knew how prone individuals were to exaggerate the importance of subjects to which their attention had been long directed, and he was sensible that in pressing this matter on their Lordships' consideration he might seem to be yielding to that infirmity; but he could not help thinking that the subject was one really deserving the attention of the Parliament of this country. England possessed some forty-five colonies. Whether that was an advantage or an evil was not now the question, but he believed it rested with the country to render the possession of those colonies either the one or the other. But that the colonies existed was certain, and no less certain was it that their existence imposed on this country certain obligations and responsibilities, of which it could not, if it would, divest itself. Among them, perhaps the most onerous, the most delicate, and the most difficult of adjustment was this very question of the military protection of the colonies. He made bold to say, after an experience of thirteen years in the colonial service, that, until a very recent period, this country dealt with this question on a
684
principle which involved the monstrous absurdity that, in proportion as the colonies increased in wealth and extent, the burdens incurred by the mother country in their behalf should increase. However, with regard to colonial administration, he believed that the example of our North American colonies was very apt to prove contagious. It was hardly seven years ago since their Lordships were told on high authority that the constitutional system given to those colonies was unworkable, and that the attempt to carry it out would tend to abet treason, discourage loyalty, and sacrifice the interests of the colonies to faction. Well, that system was now in full and healthy operation, and was spreading itself over the whole colonial empire; and he ventured to say that, in every colony where it had been faithfully applied and carried out, it had produced an abundant return of loyalty and attachment to the mother country, and of prosperity, happiness and contentment, among the inhabitants of the colony. But on this question of military protection, the example of the North American colonies was calculated to be especially instructive, because owing to the contiguity of the United States it had presented difficulties there which it could not carry with it elsewhere. Therefore, their Lordships might be sure, that if in those colonies the difficulties had been surmounted, the same difficulties elsewhere would not be insuperable, and perhaps not formidable. He did not presume to speak on these subjects with anything like authority, but perhaps he might be listened to when, as a witness, he detailed simply the result of his own experience in Canada. When he went there in 1846 he found some 8,000 troops stationed in that colony alone. They were scattered in small detachments all over the colony, and, as a matter of course, the whole duties of police devolved on them. Under these circumstances, it was quite impossible to induce the local Legislature to do anything towards the establishment of a local force; and the military force was viewed with mixed feelings by the colonists—with favour on account of the expense incurred by the mother country, and with great and not unfounded jealousy, because it was supposed to be maintained for imperial, distinct from colonial interests, and that its influence was used for the support of that party which had the favour of the Home Government for the time. Consequently there was little disposition on the part of the local

685
administration to do anything to relieve the mother country from any portion of the burden on this account, and he found that it was actually the practice to charge with duties articles purchased by the money of this country and imported into the colony for the use of the troops maintained there. He sometimes mentioned this fact to Americans, but with all their appetite for the marvellous, they thought it so extraordinary that he could hardly get any of them to believe it. In 1846, the number of troops in Canada amounted to 8,000 men, who were scattered over the country, while at present there were only 1,880, who were concentrated in two or three garrisons; and the consequence was, that the responsibility of maintaining the internal tranquillity of the province devolved upon the inhabitants and upon the authorities in different localities. A commission of four most able men, at the head of which was Sir Allan M'Nab, had been occupied in preparing a plan for the establishment of a local force; and their report, and the Act of Parliament that had been founded upon it, formed part of the papers for which he had moved; because he was anxious that it should be generally known that measures of economy in matters of military protection had been carried out in such a way as to increase, and not impair, the defensive strength of the colony. Those measures of concentration were carried out, he was bound to say, under the instructions of the Secretaries of state, under whom he was serving, the noble Earl below him (Earl Grey), and the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle); but at the same time, notwithstanding those instructions, he had felt that a considerable amount of responsibility rested upon himself personally, because he was well aware that if any injury had happened to British interests, or if there had been any disturbance of the internal tranquillity of the colony, the blame would have been laid upon the local governor; for it would have been said that it was his duty to have foreseen the danger and to have forewarned the Home Government of the danger which attended carrying their instructions into execution. That weight of responsibility fell upon him more heavily on account of the crisis through which Canada had then lately passed, and because the very eminent man who preceded him (Lord Metcalfe) held views with respect to the condition of the colony and the state of feeling which existed among the
686
colonists, which, if they were sound opinions, would have rendered any material reduction of the military force in the colony an act of insanity on the part of the Government of this country. Now, he entertained the highest possible respect for that distinguished personage, but he could not assent to his views as to the feeling of the colonists. He believed, and had always believed, that the utmost reliance could be placed upon the loyalty and good feeling of the people of Canada, and therefore he had no doubt as to the propriety of carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State, and of adopting the policy of placing the protection of the colony to a considerable extent in the hands of the colonists themselves. That was a policy which was not only, he thought, a just policy, but it was actually essential to the development of a sound moral condition among the colonists themselves. What he had said referred chiefly to a state of peace. He was prepared to admit that in a state of war the responsibility of a country with regard to her colonies was much more extensive; and that was one good reason, even if there were no other, why England should always, if possible, keep out of war. In a despatch which he had written to the Secretary of State at the close of his administration he had expressed his views upon the subject, and he would trouble their Lordships with a short extract from it, because it entirely expressed his present views. In that despatch he said:—
"Although I hold that so long as the colonists have no voice in the Imperial councils, they are entitled to look to the Imperial authorities for protection against hostilities which they have no share in provoking, and that it is therefore fitting that Imperial garrisons should be maintained at certain important military stations, such as Quebec, as a pledge that this protection, when the contingency occurs, will not be invoked in vain, I am confident that nothing will more effectually tend to the security of the empire, or to the establishment of a high standard of national and manly morals among the colonists, than the assumption by themselves of some portion of the responsibility in respect of self-defence and the preservation of internal tranquillity, which has heretofore been cast upon the mother country."
He could only now say, in conclusion, that if the intention of the Government in sending troops to the North American colonies was to man the garrisons there, in order to give to the colonists the pledge and the assurance that if future protection were required, it should not be wanting, he not only should not oppose it, but, on the contrary, he would be prepared to defend

687
the measure to the utmost. If, upon the other hand, these troops were sent out for purely Imperial objects, in consideration of the convenience or the salubrity of the North American colonies, or for some motive of economy to conveniently maintain a portion of our standing army in those colonies, provided that it was done on the understanding that the charge should be borne on account of the general interests of the empire, neither would he then oppose such a course; but he should be disposed to the very utmost of his ability to protest against and to oppose any policy which would tend to reverse the work which had been in operation during the last few years. He would do so, because he thought that it would be unjust towards the mother country, and also because, although it might be a boon to the colonies, in the first instance, it would be a boon followed by a speedy reaction, and would put an argument in the hands of those who were disposed to denounce our colonies as burdens. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Address.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I am anxious to make some observations on the early part of the speech of the noble Earl, but they shall be very few, because I am deeply convinced of the inconvenience, and possibly the danger, of such a discussion at the present moment. Indeed, so deeply convinced am I of this that I shall refrain from making even a single observation on several remarks which fell from the noble Earl, and which I had heard with regret; but, still, I am so anxious that there should be no mistake as to the feelings of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the United States, or as to the policy which they have pursued, and which they will continue to pursue, that I must address a few words to your Lordships. And, my Lords, I will, in the first place, say that, as far as I myself am concerned—and I speak also in the name of all the Members of Her Majesty's Government—I do not believe there can be the slightest doubt of my and their desire to maintain unimpaired the closest, the most cordial, and the most sincere relations with the United States. I believe no men can be more convinced than we are that it is both our interest and our duty to maintain those friendly relations with the American Government and people; and, as far as I am concerned, having filled the office of Foreign Secretary for some years, I can
688
conscientiously affirm that neither by word nor by deed has anything been done which would create a just feeling of irritation between the two countries.
My noble Friend has alluded to the two points of difference between the United States and Great Britain under two heads—namely, the recruiting question, and the question of Central America. With regard to the recruitment, that question entirely arose from proposals made to us, in the first instance, by persons desirous of entering into the Queen's service. We did not even contemplate accepting any of those offers without due reference to the neutrality laws of the United States, which, I entirely agree with the noble Earl, it is as much our interest and duty to uphold as it can be those of the United States themselves. It is our duty, indeed, not to violate or infringe upon the laws of any other country; but we have an interest—a British interest—in the neutrality laws of the United States being maintained. The maintenance, therefore, of those laws was our first thought, as they constituted the principal part of our instructions; and the moment we ascertained that the recruitment could not be carried on without the danger—not on the part of our own agents, but of persons who assumed to be our agents—of violating the neutrality laws of the United States, we agreed to relinquish the whole scheme. Your Lordships have seen from the papers which have been laid on the table that there is nothing which could be expected from one nation towards another—from one Government towards another—from one gentleman towards another—that we have not done, or offered to do, in order to afford reparation to the United States for any offence—however unintentional on our part, real or imaginary—which they can conceive has been committed. My Lords, the last despatch that was written on this subject, which was a resumé of the whole matter, in answer to the long despatch of Mr. Marcy, can hardly yet have reached the United States, and therefore upon the question of the recruitment I am exceedingly anxious not to say any more at present. But, as far as I have been able to ascertain what are the impressions which that despatch has produced in this country, I think the general opinion is, that we have offered a complete satisfaction to the Government of the United States, and that the only thing which we certainly have not done has been

689
to recall Mr. Crampton and the Consuls, because we do not think they have merited that censure and that punishment. There would have been no shortcoming on the part of Her Majesty's Government if we had seen reason to adopt a contrary course, and no hesitation to deal severely with any agent who should so far have forgotten his duty and been unmindful of his instructions as to violate the laws of the United States; but being convinced that that had not been done, and having in our possession the means of proving to the United States that it was not done, I think nobody will require of us to sacrifice our agents and to purchase a conciliation with the United States by doing that which would be both shabby and dishonourable.
With regard to the Central American question, your Lordships know what were the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I think it impossible that language could be more clear or more precise in its meaning than the language employed in that instrument. The treaty sets forth that there should not be in future any colonisation, any occupation, any fortifying or strengthening of places not already in the possession of either country. I do not see how there can be two interpretations of its terms. It was prospective, and it was intended for a specific object—first, the construction of a canal, and then its maintenance free for the use of the world, prohibiting any encroachment on the part of the United States and Great Britian, which were the contracting and guaranteeing parties; but all its provisions were prospective, and there is certainly nothing in it which implies that we were to give up Honduras and Ruatan, or to evacuate or alter our position in any respect from what it was before the conclusion of the treaty. It is impossible that the very able man—Sir Henry Bulwer—who negotiated the treaty on the part of Great Britian, could have taken upon himself, without instructions—even without the knowledge of his Government—to abandon any portion of British territory or British interests; and so far from having done anything of that sort, he made a stringent proviso, which was acknowledged by Mr. Clayton, that the treaty should not touch Honduras, or affect any of its dependencies. When Mr. Buchanan came over to this country, we heard for the first time that there was an entirely new interpretation to be put upon the treaty. It was no longer to be looked upon as a prospective arrangement, but
690
one for the evacuation of British territory; and we were told that we were to blame, and were the cause—I will not say of a quarrel between the two countries, but—of irritation and complaint on the part of the United States, because we had not fulfilled the engagements of the treaty by evacuating all the territory we possessed in Central America. I told Mr. Buchanan—what was the perfect truth—that that was the first time I had heard such an interpretation put upon the treaty. He replied that in his country there was no doubt upon the subject. I then said that—however clear the terms of the treaty might appear to me—to call in a third party, an impartial judge, to determine what should be the interpretation of the treaty, would be the fairest course to pursue between Governments as between individuals. I also added, that we certainly had no wish to possess territory in Central America; that we did not desire to extend our influence in that part of the world; that we were perfectly ready to enter into such engagements as would satisfy the United States, and even our own people at home upon that score; that it was therefore indifferent to us who was called in to arbitrate; that we should be prepared to abide by the decision, whatever it was; but that to do what was not contemplated by the treaty, because we were told that a certain interpretation was put upon it which we could not admit, was not a course which one Government should propose to another, and to which certainly no independent Government would submit. I therefore proposed—what is by no means uncommon in such cases—that the matter should be referred to arbitration. To that proposal, although it has been so long before the Government of the United States, we have as yet received no answer. My Lords, upon this question also I do not wish to enter farther, because I am convinced that, when the subject really comes to be considered in the United States—when the public opinion of that country is brought to bear upon it as it is upon all other political questions—when the American people are made acquainted with our assurances as to having no desire to extend our territory or our influence in Central America, and as to our sincere wish to enter into engagements sufficient to satisfy every reasonable man, our offer of accommodation will not be refused.
My Lords, I have only to say, in conclusion, that I have heard with the greatest

691
satisfaction from the noble Earl, who is a far better judge of these matters than I can be, that among all classes in the United States there exist the most friendly feelings towards this country. I say I heard that statement with the greatest satisfaction, because by certain public men in the Senate and in Congress—by certain official men—there have been language held and acts performed which, if held and done by any Member of this House—not to say any Member of Her Majesty's Government—would be justly denounced both by your Lordships and the people out of doors as the language and acts of a man who desired to embroil the two countries in hostilities. Therefore it is that I heard with peculiar satisfaction from the noble Earl of the friendly feelings entertained by the great mass of American citizens towards this country. I think the people of the United States can have no doubt of the existence of similar feelings here. I believe there never has been in England any hostile feeling towards the United States; and notwithstanding the clouds that have appeared on the horizon, the manner in which the recruitment and Central American questions have been treated by the press of that country has produced no real—certainly no lasting—feeling of irritation here. I believe that the people of England are as anxious as the noble Earl can be that all these disputes should be brought to an end. I can assure the noble Earl that, as far as it depends upon me, they shall be brought to an end. Nothing shall be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring them to a close: and, if the information be correct which the noble Earl received the other day, that Mr. Marcy and I might settle our differences in half an hour, I can only say that I am ready to meet him for that purpose on some island halfway between the two continents.
LORD PANMURE: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this subject to the notice of your Lordships divided his address into two parts. He first spoke of the policy pursued by this country with reference to the United States of America, and then addressed himself to the notice which he had placed on the papers. With regard to the first of those points, he has been answered by my noble Friend behind me; and the duty now devolves on me of making a few remarks on the second part of his speech, which related to the troops
692
Her Majesty's Government had recently thought it desirable to send to the North American provinces. But before doing so, I must take the liberty at once to state that this step has been taken with no desire whatever to overturn the policy to which my noble Friend has alluded, which policy was more particularly referred to by my noble Friend as having been pursued by successive Secretaries, and to which it is the object of Her Majesty's Government most strictly to adhere. I have to state that it did seem expedient to the Government to add to the force at present in the British American Provinces, and that not only on colonial but on Imperial grounds; but I may be here permitted to say to my noble Friend that I think the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the amount of the force sent to Canada were hardly the ground on which he should have assumed that the policy of several years past was about to be overturned, inasmuch as he might have ascertained that the number of troops sent thither from the Crimea amounted to five regiments, and that they were conveyed not in Her Majesty's fleet, but in the usual manner, by the transports of the British navy. The policy pursued in Canada of late years is simply this. Formerly it was the practice to maintain in the British North American Provinces a considerable body of troops, which did not only all the military service in these colonies, but also all the police duties that were involved in the maintenance of the public peace. I readily admit that the latter is not a duty in which the British army ought to be employed. I maintain that both at home and abroad the purpose of the British army is higher and more distinguished than is implied in the mere administration of police duty; and it is in following out this doctrine that we have thought it right to concentrate in British North America a body of troops which shall be exercised in military duties, and which shall chiefly garrison the important town of Quebec and one or two other stations. There the troops will present an example of military education to the people of Canada, and the Militia, which they are daily becoming more and more able to form, will receive from soldiers under the command of Such a man as Sir William Eyre a knowledge of military movements which will be to them of the greatest advantage if at any time they are unfortunately called on to defend their

693
hearths and altars. But what, after all, is the great increase of troops which we propose to send to British America? We propose to send at this moment five regiments; the utmost strength of each regiment will be 800 men, and it is quite possible they may be reduced under that number. These are to be spread over Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, but chiefly gathered together in garrisons in Quebec and Halifax. In 1853, as appears by a return I hold in my hand, the force in Canada amounted to 4,166. The force at this moment, including the five regiments to which I have referred, will be under 4,000; and, therefore, it can hardly be said that the number of troops to be sent is either such as to damp the energies of the colonists on the one hand, or create the least alarm in the breast of any sensible citizen of the United States on the other. To show how far the policy advocated by the noble Earl has been carried out, I may observe, that there is hardly one principle he has laid down that has not been almost fully carried into execution. In the first place, the military force of the country has been gathered and concentrated upon the points to which my noble Friend has referred. A provincial militia has been formed, and to a great extent organised and drilled, and is now efficiently at work for the purpose for which it was created. Then, this country, instead of bringing home the material which it had collected from the various colonies, has made over a vast amount of supplies to the colonial Governments as an encouragement to them to take into their own hand the defence of their own land; and if we have a brigade of the British army assembled in that country, it is for nothing more than an encouragement to the Canadians to undertake for themselves their own defence, should such ever become necessary, and to show them that we are prepared, in the event of war occurring, to use every effort in our power to defend a colony that will not, I trust, soon be separated from this country. It is, in my opinion, necessary that we should maintain in Canada and the other colonies a body of troops, who should be accustomed both to foreign and colonial service. One of the most useful lessons that can be imparted to our soldiers is to teach them how to serve abroad—to let them see other countries, to learn the art of war there—to accustom them to transport by sea and land, and in this way to acquire all the
694
duties belonging to their profession. And one of the advantages of the Colonies of this country is, that you have an opportunity of sending out troops to them, to enable them to see the operations of our army, and to tempt them to enter into the service of the mother country with readiness and zeal. I cannot omit this opportunity of alluding to the deep interest Canada has taken in the war in which we have been engaged. No part of Her Majesty's dominions at home showed a deeper interest in the success of Her Majesty's arms than the North American Colonies. Not less than £40,000 came from the North American Provinces to relieve the distress caused by the war, besides what was sent from Lower Canada to our Allies—for, not forgetting their origin, the inhabitants of that province sent £10,000 to France. I can assure my noble Friend that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reverse the policy we have been pursuing, and that the force sent to Canada is for Imperial purposes, coupled with those advantages to the Colonies to which I have already adverted. I believe that the army of England will not be used for mere police purposes in Canada. It will be used to garrison the extensive and valuable fortress of Quebec, which mounts about 160 guns, and where there are now, I believe, only 160 artillerymen to take care of the guns and ammunition. This force has also been sent out in order to form a nucleus for that portion of the British army which is stationed in Canada, and to afford means for that instruction in the duties of brigade which the British army so much requires, and which will, I trust, be provided for by all future Governments.
EARL GREYsaid, he rose only to express his gratification that the noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin) had elicited the explanation which had been given by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He (Earl Grey) thought that explanation was absolutely necessary, for he deemed it most important that the country should clearly understand the extent and objects of that increase of force in our North American Colonies, which, as they had learnt from the newspapers, was now taking place. He attached the utmost importance to the explanation which had been given upon both the grounds stated by his noble Friend. He conceived that any departure from the policy which had been acted upon for a

695
considerable number of years by this country, of reducing the charge for colonial garrisons, would have the worst effect upon the interests of the mother country and the colonies. He thought, however, that it was still more important, at the present moment, that an assurance should be given—as he trusted they might consider it had been given—that the increase of force had no reference whatever to any recent discussion with the United States. In his opinion this was the more necessary, because on the last occasion when this subject was discussed the noble Secretary for War used a somewhat unhappy phrase in saying that the force which had been sent to Canada was not intended for "aggressive" purposes. No one supposed the United States was to be invaded by an army of 10,000 men; but considerable alarm would have been excited in his mind, after the recent discussion with America, if he had been informed that the increase of force had any reference to either aggressive or defensive purposes. It seemed to him, however, quite impossible that the discussion with the United States could lead to any serious results. He had heard with great pleasure many of the observations of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He certainly thought that, in the first instance, Her Majesty's Government committed a great error with reference to enlistment in the United States. He did not see how it was possible that diplomatic servants of the British Crown could be employed in any manner with reference to recruiting in North America, without affording some justification for the complaints that had been made by the United States Government. Even the issuing of instruction by Mr. Crampton in reference to recruiting could not be defended; because such an act was a total evasion of the law of the United States. He thought that, even if the proceedings of Mr. Crampton and the British Consuls had been confined to making known the desire of the British Government to raise a force for the Russian war in the British provinces of North America, and to the annunciation that parties by applying at such and such places, would obtain a free passage to England for that particular purpose, it would still have been virtually an infraction of the laws of the United States, and an infringement of the neutrality of those States, we could only judge of such a case by considering what our own feelings would be under similar circumstances.
696
He knew what would have been the feeling excited in this country if the Russian Ambassador and the Russian consuls in Prussia had been allowed to spread information that immediately beyond the frontier of Prussia a depôt had been opened, at which any persons who could find their way from Prussia would be enlisted in the Russian service, and that was a case which seemed to him to differ very slightly from what had been attempted by our agents in the United States. He also thought that, at the commencement of the discussion, the tone of the despatches of Her Majesty's Government was not so conciliatory as it ought to have been. In his opinion the manner in which the maxim "Civitas non carcer est" was quoted, and indeed the whole tone of the despatches, was anything but conciliatory to the United States. He was, however, happy to find that the latest despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) was written in a very different spirit, and he could not believe that there was even the possibility of a quarrel with the United States. With regard to the Central American question, he agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin) that the interests of both parties were of the most trivial description, and, provided the national honour was maintained, he believed nobody in this country cared for anything else. He strongly approved the proposal that the questions in dispute should be referred to arbitration. Considering that every day the civilized world was declaring itself more and more generally in favour of the principle of arbitration, and that there was a general concurrence in reprobating the conduct of nations or of statesmen who, rejecting that means of arriving at a pacific solution of disputes, would plunge into the dreadful alternative of war, he could not believe that from the trumpery questions relating to Central America any real danger could arise. He trusted and believed that there were no prospects of anything like war; but though that might be the case, yet he thought it was of the utmost importance that an assurance should be given that the despatch of troops to the North American provinces had no reference whatever to the unhappy disputes which had occurred. It was unfortunately the fact that, among high-spirited nations, when measures were adopted by one party on the ground that they were precautionary or defensive, similar measures were almost invariably adopted by the opposite party, and were

697
pushed a little further; passions became excited on both sides; and when nations were thus armed, although there might have been no real ground of quarrel in the first instance, there was great danger that the dreadful calamities of war might ensue. They knew the effect produced upon the United States by the measures which Her Majesty's Government adopted in the month of November last. The papers laid before Congress contained a despatch from Mr. Buchanan to the Secretary of State for the United States, in which he said that great jealousy and alarm would be excited in the United States by the intimation that the British Government were about to increase their naval force in the Western Hemisphere, and they knew that this feeling led the Congress to vote a very large sum of money for extending the naval force of the United States. He was persuaded, unless the good sense of the two Governments interposed, and unless the tendency to a mutual increase of armaments was checked, that—even if war should be ultimately averted, of which he would not like to speak too confidently if the process of arming once began—many of the evils, and much of the expense of war, would be incurred, and strong feelings of hostility would be excited between the two countries. It was this view of the matter which induced him to consider that the explanation which his noble Friend had elicited from Her Majesty's Government was most important, and he trusted that the country and the world would assume, after what had passed that night, that in taking these measures the Government neither intended, on the one hand, to depart from the policy of redeeming the charge of our colonial establishments; nor, on the other, that the measures themselves had the remotest reference to the differences which unfortunately existed between England and the United States.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned to Friday next.