The Sun. — London, England, 1835-04-02 00:00:00

hat Court of Admiralty, but finding it could not be reformed, it was entirely abolished.--( Hear, hear, hear.) At a subsequent time the Court of Exchequer, which was re cognised by the Act of Union, if not abolished, was so much modified that there were no longer separate judges, and this was also for the benefit of the Scottish nation—(Hear,)-- because, Sir (addressing the chair), instead of presiding in a mock court, we have the benefit of your presiding with dignity and advantage over the Commons of England. If, instead of the property of the Church belonging to the State, which the State had conferred, and which might be taken away by the donor, it had been the gift of an individual, the proposition of the Noble Lord was still without exception. He would not say that mortmain property the moment it be came mortmain, belonged to the State, and might be diverted to any purpose. The will of the donor was to be ob served, as as long as it could be beneficially done ; but if a change of circumstances arose, and that purpose could not any longer be maintained according to the rules of equity, and the well known principles of jurisprudence, the donor was presumed, if alive and consulted upon the subject, would agree to a different distribution. In Courts of Equity, when a cha rity could no longer answer the purpose for which it was created, a reference was made to the Master to see what was the best mode of carrying into effect the will of the donor.—( Hear. ) It mattered not to whom, or from whom the Church property was a gift--whether to or from the Catholic religion ? —( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") The Catholic religion was very different indeed at the time of the Reformation to what it was at the present time. He was a sincere Protes tant, and had been brought up with rather a horror of the Catholic religion ; and as it was established in its full vigour, that horror of it was not diminished. He apprehended that they would say with one voice, if after the present state of the Christian world and civil society in Ireland, it was found the Irish Protestant Church could no longer be maintained, that the best and proper application of the funds of the Church would be in a system of religious instruction to per sons of all persuasion. Well, then they were told that this was not the time to bring forward the resolution of my Noble Friend. Some say, wait for the report. Not so, however, the Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire. He says he cares not whether the amount of Church property was twenty times as much, or the numbers of Church professors twenty' times as small—that Church Property is inviolable, and his opposition to this resolution consequently determined. The Right Hon. Baronet had assured them in his resolution that the Irish Church property was inalienable, and that that principle should be placed on the statute-book of the country. He had declared there should be no more reform in the Irish Church. Let the numbers be ever so small, its appropriation was inviolable. It was time that this question should be taken into consideration, and that the House at the latest moment should endeavour to rescue the country from the effects of this Bill being enacted. He hoped the Resolution of his Hon. Friend would be carried—and carried by a large majority. What might be its result he could not pretend to say, but this be would observe, that most sincerely should he rejoice if the Right Hon. Baronet could be induced to bow to the opinion of the House—if, after some compulsiie pangs of agonizing pride, he should alter his course, and yield to its sentiments on this subject, He wa s connecte d with the late Government, and he could say truly, that his return to office was no object of desire, as, from the station he fortunately occupied at the English Bar, it was more desirable and more profitable to him to remain in a private station. If the Right Hon. Baronet would not change his course—if he was determined toproceed, Right and he ( Sir J. Campbell) had no reason to think that the I ion. Baronet entertained opinions in private which he did not act upon in his public capacity—it' he was determined to pro ceed contrary to the opinions of the country, and be guided by his associates in office, then it was of' the last importance that his administration should be removed. He thought that every lover of the English Monarchy should take alarm at the present state of affairs, when they reflected that the executive power of the country was in the hands of the present Opposition.— Hear, hear.) He was a lover of the Monarchy—lie wished to see the prerogatives of the Crown respected, and it was as such, when he looked at what had taken place during the last month, that he became apprehensive for the security of the Monarchy ; but did the Right Hon. Baronet expect that he would rule this country contrary to the wishes of a majority of the House of Commons? The precedent of 1784 was re lied upon, but it bore no analogy whatever to the circum stances of the present times.—( Hear.) The Parliament whi c h now sits is on e o f th e Ri g h t ' Hon. Baronet's own. choosing, and yet he is now in a minority. Pitt, in 1784, when he at tempted to rule the country, contrary to the wishes of a majo rity of the House of Commons, had a Parliament that was elected under.the Administration of his opponent, Lord North ; but he had the opinion of the country in his favour. Does the Right Hon. Baronet believe that he has the voice of the country in his favour ? He (Sir J. C.) could say, that from all that he had observed, and read, and believed,'the present Cabinet had done enough to disgrace their characters In the eyes of the country, without acquiring the respect of any. They taunt us with adopting our measures, but in doing so they have gone far enough to shew that they have no con sistency themselves, and have not spirit enough to satisfy the just wi-tires of the pecple. He ( Sir J. C.) would not exa mine votes of the Right Hon. Baronet, hut looking at his Ca binet, which proposed to send Lord Londonderry to Russia, and refused to grant a Charter to the London University, he could not but say that their conduct had disgraced them in the opinions of the British public. The Right Hon. Bart. himself had net ventured to defend their conduct; be had only defended himself and his own consistency, and had thrown his col!eagues over board.—(Loud cheers.) He trusted that the Right Honourable Baronet was not going to adopt the course that had been pursued by the Duke of Wellington. He had thought proper for three weeks to hold the Seals of ail the different offices of the Crown, and had governed this coun try, as had been said, by a Dictatorship ; he trusted that the country .now was not to be governed by a Dictatorship; he trusted that at the present moment there was more than one responsible Officer of the Crown—( Cheers)—and that the Right Honourable Baronet in his own person did not hold all the oirces of the State.—(Cheers.} It seemed to him of the utmost importance for the protection of the institutions of the country, if the Right Hon. Baronet would not conform to the will of the majority of the House and nation, that he should make way for a Ministry, let it be what it might, whom the King could confide in, and who bad the confidence of the country. He was tired of agitation • but ,he must s a y, t h at the only mode by which an end could be put to agitation, was to have a Ministry whose principles harmo nized with the majority of the people. Nothing had afflicted him more than the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, who had openly avowed that however great the property of the Irish Church was, and however few were its members, still it ought to be kept up as it at present existed. Before he sat down, he should allude to the sentiments of a Noble Lord, whom he would not hesitate to place in com petition with the Noble Lord the Member for Lanca shire —he meant the Right Hon. Earl Grey.—(Hear, hear.) He would not hesitate to place the opinions of that Noble Lord in opposition to the other, although he must observe that he had no authority for making such a statement ; but he had good reason to believe that suds were the sentiments of that Noble Lord. He had differed with the Noble Lord opposite ( Stanley) respecting the reduction i n th e revenues of the Irish Church—he had differed with him on the 147th clause of the Tithe Bill, and he had differed with him as to the ap propriation of the Church property. He therefore con ceived that he was fully justified in setting the authority of that Noble Lord, who was universally beloved and venerated, and "whose name was a tower of strength"—who was allowed by even his political opponents to be guided by rational and constitutional principles—he conceived he was fully justified in setting his opini ons aga i nst t h e op i nions of the Noble Lord opposite.—(Hear, hear.) He would not further detain the House, as be agreed in the propriety of the compact entered into last night by the Right Hon. Baronet, that each member should sacrifice a portion of his speech, so that the debate might be brought to a close that night,—( clear.) For the Right Hon. Baronet he entertained very sincere respect, and he believed that his principles individually were liberal and straightforward.--( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. RIC HA RD S rose with considerable reluctance after the very eloquent speech of the Hon. and Learned Member op posite. He was anxious to state the sentiments that would govern his vote, but he rose with even still more reluctance, seeing the anxiety of many Hon. Members, on both sides, who had more claims upon their attention to address the House; but he claimed the indulgence of the House as an independent Member—(Cheers)--anxious to vote honestly and consistently—anxious to vote not for one party or the other, but with a view to the interests of the country generally, and more particularly, to the interests of Ireland. He agreed with the lion. and Learned Civilian, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that they should vote on the present occasion, not looking to the interests of England alone, but principally, if not entirely, to the interests of Ireland. It was on that principle that he should endeaVour to apprize the House of Commons of the sentiments which induced him to give his vote on the present occasion. He also agreed with the Hon. and Learned Civilian that it would be presumption in any individual or any party to s e t li p a stan d ar d of truth to which the people of an entire country should bow. He agreed also with the Hon. and Learned Member that they were all an swerable to the bar of their Maker, not merely for the senti ments they entertained, but for their acts and proceedings.— ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for Lan cashire, whose talents he (Mr. R.) bowed to with the greatest deference, and whose eloquence delighted them all last night, seemed to him to lay down as a proposition not to be departed from, that Church Property is inalienable, and as regarded the Church of Ireland should be so considered. He even ven tured to put an extreme case, which startled the House; and which had startled him (Mr. Richards), that if it was found that in any parish not a single Protestant could be found, he would contend for keeping up the Church Establishment in all its present strength. In that he (Mr. R.) could not agree. If there was any proposition more sacred than another, it was that the instit ut i ons o f the country, whether civil or religious, ought to be continued with a view to the temporal and future welfare of the people.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Pay master of the Forces, as well as the Solicitor-General, had argued that Church property was inalienable, but that was not the way in which he had learned what was due to the people, not only of Ireland but of every country. If it could be proved to him that the Church of Ireland did not answer the intention of its founders, and promote the happiness of the people, then, in his opinion, it ought to be altered. If a community consisted of 100 or 1,000,000, and the Legislature which represented that com munity, would--on the principle of eternal justice they would-- determine upon the voluntary system as the only secure, safe, and just principle—(Cheers)—if the majority of the commu nity were of that opinion —suppose that in community of 100 there were ten of different opinions—how was it possible for any one to say which was in the right—then the only plan was to act upon the principle of giving power to the majo‘rity of the community. He had now stated the principle upon which he would act in a new community, but he must in the consideration of that qin..sti-n remember that there was a Church Establishment in Ireland, Islach was in terwoven with all the feelings and interests of the country, and the question was not properly to be discussed upon mere abstract principle, but the question was whether the Church, which has been established for ages—whether the institutions which are based upon that Church—whether they ought now to undo that Church—whether they ought to abolish that Church, or whether they ought t o app l y its f unds in such a manner as to diminish its efficiency? That appeared to be the real question, and if it could be shown that any attempt of this kind, any diversion of the revenues, any alteration in the amount applied to the purposes of that Church as by law esta blished, to the purposes of the Catholic Church, or any other church, would injure it, and the constitution and principles of it be thereby injured, and if it could be shown that not only was there danger of this, but also of a civil war, by which the best interests of society would be endangered, then he would say that the principle to be maintained was, that they ought not to meddle with the revenues of that Church.—( Cheers.) What was the state of the Church in Ireland ? He asked not in what way that Church was established ; that was not the question. That Church was established, and the question was whether they could alter it without danger ?—( Hear.) In Ireland, civil and religious discord prevailed to such a degree as not merely to injure the peace and happiness of the community, but to endanger its very existence, and were it not for the power of England, a civil war would now be devastating that country. But then the question rose—Was it possible for things to remain as they were ?—( Cheers from the Op position.) If it was not possible, then the question would be, in what manner an alteration could be brought about, so as to promote the well-being of society in Ireland, and to secure the safety of the State ? The institutions of the country ought to be, and must be in the long-run, productive of good to the country.—( Hear.) If it were shown, then, that the Es tablished Church in Ireland was not productive of good, and that things were not to be continued as they were, then the inquiry was not how, as the Noble Lord the M em b er f or Lan cashire contend e d, things as they are could be kept up, but how they could bring about an alteration to the best ad vantage of, all the parties concerned 2—( Hear.) In Ireland there were two parties, the Protestants and the Catholics ; and also a third party, the people of England. The question was, in what way the House was to act so as to meet the views of the three parties, and to promote the peace and happiness of all.—(Hear, hear.) In Ireland there was a much deeper religious feeling than there was in England—the Protestants in Ireland were not merely believers in'the truth, but zealous believers--( Hear, and laughter)—and attended most zealously and statedly to their religious ob servances. The same observation applied to the Catholics.— (Hear, hear.) He had been frequently in Ireland, he had mixed with both patties, and had observed an attention to reli gious duties there which he had never observed in England.— That also must be taken into consideration. The question was how they were to deal with them in such a way as not to hurt the feelings of either party, and at the same time to do justice to both parties. He would then come to the consi deration of the scheme of the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire. That scheme had for its object to take from the Protestant Church a part of its revenue, and' to apply it to education generally.--( Hear, hear.) He must complain of the terms of the Noble Lord's motion as somewhat disin genuous—it would lead persons to believe that it was intended merely to divert a part of the Church revenues, when they were not wanted in order to further the education of the people.—(Hear.) His conviction was, that the object of this motion was neither more nor less than a diversion of the revenues of the Protestant Church, which was to be given to the Catholic Church.—( Hear, bear, and cries of " No, no.") It had been said over and over F gain that seven eighths of the people of Ireland were Catholics; if then, they were prepared to take from the remaining one-eighth a part of their present revenues, and apply it to the whole people, it was evident that they must apply it in the proportion of one to seven.—( Hear, and laughter.) It was taking from the Pro testant Church and giving to the Catholic.—( Hear, from the Ministerial Benches, and laughter from the Opposition.) What had come out in the;,iehate from the Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House? He had taken down the words of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, and with the permission of the House, he would just read them. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated "he quite agreed with those Gentlemen who had said that the real point of improvement was, whether or not the House of Commons intended the Catholics of Ireland should understand that they were to participate in the advantages of the Protestants."—( Hear.) They did not mean to participate in the religious advantages— they want to participate in the revenues--( Hear, hear.) He believed he might say this was ea7eulated to alienate seven-eight.; —at all events a large part of the revenues of the established Church, in order to bestow them upon the Catholics—( Hear, hear.) Now to return to the scheme of the Noble Lord, the Member for Devonshire—( Hear, and cries of " Read, read.") The gentlemen opposite, and particularly the Hon. Member for Dublin, he hoped would extend him their indulgence. Indeed he was quite sure the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, from the extreme liberality he was known to possess, would make excuse for a person who was not circumstanced to ad dress the House so often as that lion. and Learned Gentleman. —(Oh, oh !--go on, go on and laughter.) He had too much respect for the House to occupy too much of its time unne cessarily. The first thing the House ought to look to was the dangerous consequences that must follow from the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire. Could it be doubted that the first attempt to carry this motion into effect would be a signal for civil war in Ireland ?—(" Oh, oh I" from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial side.) Could it be supposed from the feelings of the Irish Protestants, who are in the possession of the revenues of the Church (he would not say how they became possessed of them) that they would give them up without a struggle, and a violent struggle too. The question, therefore, the Hue had to consider was, not only the proposition of the Noble Lord, but the disastrous re sults that must flow from it. The people of England were Protestants, and wliateer disputes might arise as to the numbers of Protestants and Dissenters, they all agreed in their opposition to the Catholic religion ; and it could not be for a moment for gotten by the House that one consideration should be attended to—namely, in what way the Protestant people of this country will receive the proposition, and in what way they will deal with it. He could imagine the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire visiting his constituents, and attempting to shew his dissenting friends, and to state the grounds of his present proposition, which he would say was made by him for the purpose of restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") He may tell them that the Irish people are poor, houseless, in want of clothing, and hungry— and that he was not prepared to clothe the naked or to feed the hungry, but that he proposed to divert from their proper purposes the revenues of the Protestant Church, and give them to the Catholics. In making these statements he ( Mr. Richards) would be glad to know if the Noble Lord did not fall into the Serbonian bog, whether he could escape from falling into a Devonshire bog. The Noble Lord, if he would not say what his own colleag ues had done, wou ld t e ll t h em what his Whig predecessors had proposed for the advantage of the country. He would tell his constituents that they repealed the septennial act, brought excise into the country, and proposed to introduce it into our private houses, and that they originated the bullion Committee which led to the disastrous state of the country in 1819. He might say, look to what we have done for the Dissenters, look to our Marriage Bill, make a comparison between our acts and the acts of the present Administration. He might say all this, but he would find that the people of Devonshire would be shrewd enough to distinguish between a hawk and a buzzard—( Great cheering, and laughter.) He, might say, " I, Lord John Russell"—( Laughter, and ' loud cries of " Order, order.") Mr. O'CONNELL rose to order. The Hon. Member in debate had adverted to an Hon. Member by name, which was out of order. —( Cheers.) Mr. RICHARDS—I have only put those words into his own mouth.—( Laughter.) Well he might say, "I , the Hon. Member for Devonshire—(Laughter) —and you all know my sense and discernment—l raised the income tax from 71s to 10 per cent.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House, and cries of " Read, read," in consequence of the Hon. Member referring to his notice). He would not pursue that further, but the question now was, what was to be done ? He thought it clear that the scheme of the Noble Lord could not be satis factory, and possibly it might lead to mischief.—( Cheers.) If the Catholics got part of the revenues of the Church, they would not be satisfied till they got the whole— ( Cheers.) He would propose a plan which should be prac ticable, and it was impossible to expect success from any plan, unless it would conduce to the welfare of Ireland, and not minister to the prejudices and animosities of Protestants or Catholics. He would propose with great submission and with the consciousness that he was taking a liberty--(Cries of " No, no,")—that the Church property (if it were determined upon the Noble Lord's motion to divert any part of it from its present purposes to others) should revert to its ancient origin —( Hear, hear)—at the time that it was the property of the poor. And surely it would not be denied that the great bulk of the people of Ireland were the poor. The Right Hon. Member for Cambridge had stated a strong claim on this property—that it was in part appropriated in the time of Henry VIII. to the use of parochial schools. But he (Mr. R.) would revert at once to the origin of that property, by applying the whole of it to the support of the poor. The Hon. Members opposite would, he was sure, respect the authority of Dr. Doyle on that subject, and those on that side of the House the authority of Selwyn. Now both those authorities stated that the whole of that property was applied to the maintenance of the poor. " Non quasi sues, sed quasi commendatis,"—not as if their own, but in trust,—were the words, and the manner in which they should deal with it. If it was given in support of the poor—if it was given to clothe the naked and feed the hungry —let them act on its purport ; but if any different distribution was contemplated in the property of the Church, in the name of humanity he called on them not to divert it from the pur pose and origin for which it was established. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge had quoted an Act of Henry VIII. to show that the property then enjoyed by the monasteries was saddled with the burden of parochial schools. He could also quote Statutes of Henry VIII., in which there was a saving clause against a violation of the uses of Church property. That eminent Divine, however, Dr. Doyle, had in his mind set the question at rest, in his celebrated letter to the Right Hon. Member for the town of Cambridge, andhe would state, on the authority of that celebrated letter, that that Learned Divine had it in contemplation to institute a suit in the Court of Chancery, for the recovery of the rights of the poor, which, as he observed, had been diverted from the purpose for which they were intended, and was only restrained from Lord Manners being the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the time not being favourable. Having shown that the poor have an ancient right, and are emphatically entitled to this property, and that no ties can render sacred a legal wrong —finding that the question now before the House, is whether you will violate this property or not—as the humble though sincere supporter of the poor, he implored the House not to divert that property from its specific purpose. He TliE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1835. ' should not presume in language of his own to show the House the great purposes of religion and of charity to which the Church revenues should be applied, but he would, with the permission of the House, read an extract from a work couched in language much more eloquent than any he could use, and more fitting to be addressed to an enlightened assembly, such as he then had the honour to address. He hoped the House would bear with him wii:!? he read an extract from a work of Doctor Doyle, as to the effect cr Poor Lbws in that country. That Learned Divine said " You complain of Rack Rents and of Tithes—of want of employment and of the ejection of poor tenants from their farms--there is but one de cisive remedy, and that was a legal provision for the poor. Let every one, therefore, who wishes to see the competition for land cease, and that the poor should obtain employment—let every one who desired to see the widow clothed, the orphan fed, and the stranger taken in—let who ever is anxious that the laws of nature should not be set at nought, and that the laws of grace - should be fulfilled—let him petition Parliament for a legal provision for the poor." To words so eloquent, it would be unnecessary for him to add—any language of his would weaken that effect. He should not de tain the House, except to explain that if the motion of the Noble Lord was carried, to move in committee that the words general education should be left out in order to add " for the relief of the poor as Parliament should deem fit." Here there was a moment's pause, when Mr. RICHARDS resumed—He had spoken so much on the one side and the other, that he had been reminded by an Hon. Member beside him, that , he had, not stated on which side he should vote.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.") He begged now to say that seeing nothing but mischief to Ireland in the proposition of the Noble Lord—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches)—feeling that all the united wisdom of the party with which the Noble Lord was joined, after weeks and months of deliberation, had merely ended in proposing a measure which would be inimical to the Protest ant religion, and which would give rise to party dissensions, and eventually lead to civil war--( Laughter, and cries of— hear)—when he recollected all this, he felt that he 'should not be doing his duty to the people of Ireland and the coun try, if he did not join heart and hand in deprecating the mo tion of the Noble Lord.—(Cries of " Oh l and hear, hear.") Mr. Serjeant WILDE assured the House that he had so great a respect for it, that if he now trespassed upon its atten tion, he would make the best return he could by confining himself simply and plainly to what appeared to be the merits of the question now under consideration. The importance of that question had been admitted, and could not be denied by any individual who had addressed the Chair, and it had been said that that question would go forth to the British pub lic, and that it had even been insinuated that that public would take a very different view of it from that which he confidently anticipated would be entertained by the majority of that House. As the present position of the question did not appear to be in his opinion a correct one, he felt anxious to state his views of it, believing that a great misconception had gone abroad upon the subject. Notwithstanding the statements that had been made of the great importance of the question, some pains had been taken to embarrass and misrepresent it. —( Loud cries of " Hear, bear.") He knew nothing of the the objects and views of the Noble Lord who had brought the question under the consideration of the House, further than as he had learnt them from the statement of the Noble Lord. When it was said that the question before the House was un fairly brought on, in order to try in an underhand way, whether that House had any confidence in Ministers or not, he must say that he was obliged to dissent. He trusted that the vote of that night would Ise given with reference to that question, under all the circumstances in which they were placed.— ( Cheers.) He considered that it was a question very fairly presented to the House for the purpose of trying that question. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had repeatedly stated that he was anxious that that question should be put to the House at once and fairly—(cheers) —and he (Serjeant Wilde) was convinced of his sincerity, beceuse it really appeared as if the Right Hon. Baronet was now in office for the purpose of showing under how much opposition it was possible for a man to remain.—( Laughter.) But as he ( Serjeant Wilde) did not think that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to be possessed of the confidence of the House, then, in his opinion, the ques tion was now most fairly and properly brought on, in order that the sense of the House might be taken. The talents and ability of the Right Hon. Baronet were well known to the country; and that House knew that no talent belonging to him was so great as that of facility in debate, and if such mo tion were mae, if they put it at once as confidence, or no con fidence, he ( Sergeant Wilde) knew in what way the Hon. Ba-onet would have made use of that argument, and at once had toil them in many shapes there was nothing before the House to justify it to come to such a vote. The Right Hon. Baronet, he was aware, took the Government upon his shoulders—under peculiar circumstances. He believed that personal ambition had, nothing to do with it7--clid. not in fluence him in taking office, but that he had done so from a sense of public duty—(Cheers from the Opposition)—and he (Sergeant Wilde) trusted that the 'same sense of public duty would induce him to retire from office, after that House had given an unequivocal vote as to whether they bad con fidence in his Majesty's Ministers or not. The Right Hon. Baronet had said, soon after entering into power, said in a public manner that lie did not understand what was meant by " the principles of the Reform Bill." In his (Sergeant W.'s) opinion no man was capable in these days of carrying on the Government of this country who avowed such igno rance. The Right Hon. Baronet had asked what these prin ciples were. He ( Sergeant W.) was not aware whether that question had ever been answered or not, but he had not the slightest hesitation in stating that his opinion was, that the principles of th a t Bill were t o bring the public institutions of the country under the controul of a Legislature freely elected, in or der that they should be reviewed ; when they did not answer the purposes for which they were instituted, they should be modified in such a manner as to suit the altered circumstances and tastes of the country.—( Cheer;.) These in his opinion were the principles of the Reform Bill. He owned that he enter tained some doubt of the principles upon which the Right Hon. Baronet intended to carry on his Government at first, but that doubt was dissipated when Parliament met, and heob served the party by whom he was supported—( Herz, hear) — when he perceived that the Right Hon. Baronet ranked amongst his supporters those gentlemen who denied the existence of any one of those abuses, either in Parliamentary representa tion, or any other department of the Constitution of which the country had so long complained, and which it was so recently proposed to remedy. It was true enough that the Right Hon. Baronet might be a Reformer, for every one was a Reformer now-a-days. —( Cheers.) But the question was what is the mode of estimating an abuse, for the ambiguity lay not in whe ther a man was a reformer or not, but in his discovering and estimating what was really an abuse ?—( Hear, hear.) When , then, he observed the respectable and Hon. Gentlemen by whom the Right Hon. Baronet was supported, and called to mind their estimate of some of the most important institu tions of the country, he made up his mind that it was quite impossible for the Right Hon. Baronet, even if he carried on the Government by the strength of that party, to carry into effect those useful and efficient reforrris that were required.— (Cheers.) When the Right Hon. Baronet stated that one of the reasons why he should receive the confidence of the House was, that be possessed facilities for carrying measures in the House of Lords--and he begged to be understood that he was not one of those to whom the Right Hon. Baronet re ferred, when he said there were some persons anxious to see a collision between this House and the House of Lords —no, he deprecated such an event, and also the doctrine of " measures not men—" Mr. CHARLTON here rose from the Ministerial side, and said he wanted to speak to order. The Honourable Gen tleman had stated to the House that this was not a question as to the Irish Church, but it was also as to the competency of Ministers. Now he (Mr. C.) humbly pre sumed that it was no such thing; and he appealed to the Speaker to set the Hon. and Learned Gentleman right.— (Cries of " Order" proceeded from all parts of the House, which compelled the Hon. Gentleman to sit down.) As soon as silence was restored, the SPEAKER called out— " Mr. Sergeant Wilde."—(Loud cheering.) Mr. Sergeant WILDE resumed—He should not turn aside at the present moment to answer the Hon. Gentleman opposite, but pursue the argument he had commenced. He had noticed Ministers' recommendation to the House, and he was about to observe, that it appeared to him to be something like dictation to the House of Commons by the House of Lords. And if an individual possess the confidence of the House of Commons that was no matter, unless he also possessed the confidence of the House of Lords. This did not appear to him to be a Constitutierael doctrine, or one calculated to re commend Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the House of Com mons.—( Hear, hear, hear.) When, therefore, Parliament impor tance to partyk now b w y ha w t hom were they the met under th ese c i rcumstances, it became of extreme impor ptohreG,osraenrdemwehnatt, wasand o were supported, of tedsup their scale of estimating abuses. Did they consider that the Test and Corporation Act was no abuse--that the dis abilities of the Catholics were no abuse—(Cheers)—that the existence of slavery was no abuse—( Renewed cheering) —and that the state of Parliamentary representation was no abuse? —(Tremendous cheering.) What was the use of their telling us that they are Reformers. We are not the better for it—the country was not the safer--(Loud cheers)—if the power of perception and the mode of estimating abuses which they pos sess did not enable them to see abuses in such things ? In this state of things he rejoiced that the Noble Lord brought for ward this question, for it enabled them to ask Right Ho nourable Gentlemen on the other side did they con sider a sinecure Church an abuse?—(Tremendous cheering.) Did the principles on which they were prepared to carry on the Government--did their reforming principles induce them to estimate the present state of the Irish Church with its exces sive revenues and limited duties—such an abuse as required amendment—if not, their principles of reform, were not such as entitled them to confidence.—( Great cheering.) He begged pardon of the Hon. Member (Charlton) for not sooner reply ing to his observation. He (Sergeant Wilde) had never stated this was not a question relating to the Irish Church ; he had only said that it necessarily involved to a considerable extent the question of confidence or no confidence in Ministers. If the present Government did not consider the state of the Irish Church an abuse, he had no hope that they would be satisfied that any abuses existed. With that view he considered the question most proper in point of time and form.---( Cheers. ) The Noble Lord had been charged with inconsistency in. bringing forward this motion. It seemed to him that the charge against the Noble Lord was without the slightest foun dation. He would not presume to be the defender of the Noble Lord, nor venture to take such a liberty ; but, from all the information he possessed, he would venture to assert that the charge was utterly without foundation. The late Government had declared that they were prepared to act upon the prin ciple incorporated in the present motion. The country re quired no pledge from them.—( Loud cheers.) They had issued a Commission, and had stated that the issuing of that Commission they considered as a recognition of the prin. ciples now sought to be established.—( Cries of " Hear.") But when that Government had retired, and a new Govern ment was formed which utterly repudiated any such principle as proceeding to legislate on the ecclesiastical affairs of Ire land, in such a state of circumstances, he would ask was there no difference between presenting their motion to the House with a Government pledged to act on the principles they bad embarked with, and that all its legislative as well as executive measures would be directed to the applica tion of that principle—(Hear, hear)—and a Government who repudiated it ? A Government who repudiated it would act the reverse ; all its Legislative measures, all its executive measures, would be directed to a totally different course. It had bwome, therefore, important with this Tithe Bill in the House—it had become, therefore, important with this Go - vernt- to know, first of all, whether the state of the Irish Church was an abuse or not--whether they were prepared, as it had been understood the Government wished it to be believed, they were prepared to look into the institutions of the country with a view to their practical utility, and with a view to the application of their funds to that practical utility, or whether they were to be totally neglected? It being important to ascertain the views of Ministers on that, the motion of the Noble Lord became perfectly expedient and proper. But much as they were interested on that side of the House in all that could lead to the advancement of the honour and the stability of the consistency of the Noble Lord, the House of Commons would decide the merits of the present motion in its effects, and as it regarded the interests of the country.--( Hear, hear.) He begged to say that in rising to address the House, he had risen as a zealous Protestant. He addressed it as one firmly convinced of the necessity and advantage of a public Esta blishment, ready and determined to support any Government to the full extent of his most humble power in the support and maintenance of that Establishment.--( Hear, hear.) He would not be a party to give away its profits or its emoluments in any way, and in what he offered to the House, he called upon it, as a Protestant and a friend of Protestantism, to fur ther Protestantism and not to further Catholicism.—( Hear.) He called upon the House, believing his duty, and the duty of every Protestant would incline him, to support most heartily this resolution. He could very well conceive a Catholic objecting to a proposition of this kind, but he could not give credit for statesman-like reasons to a Protestont who would object to it.—( Hear, hear.) He could assure the House he had paid the most profound attention to what passed in the course of the debate—he listened with great attention to the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor- General, from whom he knew he could have whatever lights upon the subject that great talents and diligence could supply. He heard that Learned Gentleman say, that the present pro perty of the Established Church was originally Catholic pro perty ; but he never said that it was inviolable. He (Mr. W.) defied him or any other Hon. and Learned Gentleman to state, with any regard to his character, that Church property was inviolable.—( Hear, hear.) There w as no co l our f or suc h a doctrine in E ng li s h law. Much time would be saved to the House, if they on his (Mr. W.'s) side of the House had none to contend, with but the Right Honourable Baronet ( Sir J. Graham). He advocated no such absurd notion as that Church property was inviolable ; but, on the contrary, he ex pressed himself in favour of an equitable transfer of the reve nues of the Church, never doubting the power of the legisla ture to dispose of it, as, appeared most admissible. What, ar gued the Right Hon. Gentleman, can you make by passing a resolution recognising again and again that Parliament has the power to regulate Church property ? He (Mr. W) would refer to history on the subject, and with confidence would as sert that at various times, Parliament had applied the surplus revenues of the Church to other than ecclesiastical purposes. At various times, after Henry the Bth had suppressed the mo nastaries, he granted the revenues to lay impropriators, and to the ecclesiastical establishment. One statute was enacted by Parliament imposing 10 per cent., another imposed 20 per cent., on the Church revenues for State purposes. Pray, he would beg to ask, what became of the title of lay impro priators--if it was not in the power of the Legislature to im pose taxes upon it. Parliament, supposing that the ecclesias tical establishment possessed excessive and undue wealth, took possession of the monasteries. This property was granted to individuals, and here he could not help expressing his sur prise at one remark made by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor- General. The property, he said, belongs to the Church Establishment, whether as a gift of individuals, or a grant from the Crown; and he adds, that it was not transferred from the Catholics to the Protestants, but that the religion of the country had changed, and instead of the property leaving the Catholics, he contends that it was only the Catho lics left the property.—(Laughter and cheers.) That pro perty, which zeal for a religion that excites as much as any other to acts of beneficence and piety, was all intended, as the Learned Solicitor-General argues, for the established religion of the country for the time being, as if a particular religion had no place in the bosoms of the men from whom the property was taken. Many Members of that House were zealously devoted to the Protestant Establishment ; he thought if they compared the acts of beneficence which took place in former times, whether the Established Religion were Catholic, and not Protestant, with those of the present, they would not have much to be proud of, or to say in its favour. What was the Establishment in Ire land ? Originally it was devoted to the support of the Catho lic Religion ; afterwards it was appropriated to the support of Protestantism by Parliament. Parliament had a perfect right to make such appropriation, when the religion ceased t o b e the religion o f th e State.--( Hear, hea r .) n many instances the property could not be applied as the donors intended. What was then to be done ? It could not be returned to the don Ors, because they were dead arid gone. Parliament there fore took possession of it, and applied it as public property for the maintenance of religion ; it remained so now, and he would be no party to withholding or shrinking from the pur poses to which it was now applied, till every want of the Pro testant Church was amply supplied. In a reformed Parliament, however, could any party doubt that the Irish Church required reformation, when its property increased and its religion de creased ? He would now look at the subject in the way it had been considered by the Right Hon. Bart. the Member for Cum berland ; he would consider it as trust property, and doing so he would ask whether they Isere not grossly abusing that trust? --(Cheers.) The present motion called upon the House pro perly to execute that trust--( Cheers)—and he trusted, there fore, the House would adopt it. A great mistake appeared to have been mad e by a ll w h o h ad taken part in the present discussion. For whom was the Church Establishment pro vided —for the Minister or the congregation ?—( Cheers.) The question appeared to him to have been argued, as if the Church Establishment had been erected merely for the pur pose of supporting so many clergymen.—( Hear.) What had Dr. Palsy said upon the subject ? Why, that the Church Establishment was no part of Christianity, but only the means of inculcating it.—( Cheers.) That the funds of the Church should be applied in the most beneficial manner to the country, must be the natural conclusion of every rational mind. He was surprised, on account of his unfeigned respect for the judgment and abilities of the Noble Lord and the Right Honourable Baronet opposite—he was surprised at his own want of intelligence when he could not understand how they could contemplate the present state of Ireland with so many parishes without flocks, and yet consider that this was a faith ful discharge of the trust for which Church property had been given. Were there, then, to be Ministers Without flocks, and an establishment without a people ? But those who could despise Schedule A in politics were contented with it in reli gion.—( Hear, hear.) If they reflected upon the wretched paupers who they were told were misled, and open to improper influence through their ignorance, surely it was time to remedy such a state of things.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Looking, therefore, to the destitution of the poor Catholics in Ireland, he would ask the House not to deprive Protestants of any means of propagating their religion, still less of de priving them of spiritual aid to their flocks. But he would ask them to practice the principles of the religion they professed, by applying the surplus of such property to purposes generally beneficial to the community. The Right Hon. Baronet had declared of himself that which he ( Sergeant W.) hoped every Hon. Member could say of himself—that he was a religious man. But he trusted that they would not be called upon to make each such a declaration, for that was a characteristic of a worse age than the present. He knew that such sentiments had place in that House, but he was well aware that it did not apply to the Right Hon. Baro net, whose sincerity and manliness of character were well known. But he would now ask, bad the appropriation of the revenues of the Church been so applied as to produce all the benefit-of which they were capable ? If they had not, what should be done ? It was stated they were not in a situation to act, and they had heard arguments from vari ous gent l emen on the necesity of waiting for the report of the Commis sion.. He would wish to call the attention of the House to the opinions urged in favour of this course, particularly to those advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet on the issuing of that Commission. He had declared that he objected to the opening of that Commission, because all that could be required t o i n on tli o is f gr th e a a t t p gre ri a n t ci p p i l i e n w ci a p s le kn th ow ey n, w a e n r d e of the practical alrendyinpossienssstiiote n. - oIV much time had been expended to show that th e y were not , in that situation. If the question were important then, it was certainly more important now, when a different impression was entertained in that country with respect to its ancient privileges. Did they think it proper to keep the people in Ireland in abey ance ? He answered them it was destructive to keep them in abeyance. Yet they were •in abeyance now, and was it he would ask in a more fit or proper state to seep it in abeyance now than it was then ? They had been urged to keep this question back, as this was not the best time for its discussion. The resolution proceeded also to observe that the question was merely this, whether Parliament had the right, not the abstract and legal right, for there could be no doubt about its right in that sense—( Hear, hear,)—but whether Parliament had really the right to appropriaae the Church propertty to secular purposes ? That was the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, then, and the House must be anxious to have this subject decided. Let them settle this with the Right Hon. Baronet whether, if he was correct in stating that there was a power sufficient in the Government to enable it to adjudicate on this question, there was not also now ? One said the question was not ripe for discussion —another maintained the contrary. He thought it was in a position for the decision of that House. The public would notice, or at least would suspect, that the question then stood on a ground, not for partial but general enquiry. Let them look to the state of the Irish Church. The Noble Lord, whose confidence in opposing his views to the opinions of every one else in that I House, no one could doubt had not fairly dealt with the argu ments in the speech of the Member for Cambridge. How did he treat the arguments from that side of the House ? Why, in no way. They presumed to say, and with the sanction of the Right Hon. Baronet, that Parliament had the power of dealing with Church property. What answer was given to that argument? Now was tiros time to debate a principle of so much importance, not limited to some paltry question. He hoped the cause of reform was but begun.---( Hear, hear.) He was glad that a question was b roug h t forward, not of trifling moment, but involving a mighty public principle—he was happy that it related to the National Church, for if abuses were found to exist in it, there was no place so fitting for re form to commence, as its purification would tend to draw to it more closely the affections of the people. The Church of Ireland necessarily presented itself . first to their view, and while it was admitted on all sides that abuses existed therein, it was not fit that they should be perplexed with figures when they had facts before them. If they would take the clergy who had no congregations, and those who had, it might be that there would not be more than 3001. a year for each. But if they took away those who had no duties to perform, how much would it enable them to pay ? How much, if they were paid according to the services performed ? The facts before them were such as justified legislation on the subject. Let the House recollect that the Protestant Establishment was at this time as great as it was to support the clergy, when the Catholic religion was the religion of the State, and when that was followed by the statement, that as it was the Legislature first conferred it, so it was now in their power to take it away, he had no fear that the public would be led astray or mistaken, but they would be convinced that the measures proposed were intended for the support, not the destruction of the Church itself. That was the object of the resolution before them, and unless Hon. Gentlemen were prepared to assent to the motion, it would not be difficult to show the country who were and who were not sincere in their professions of Reform. The revenues of the Irish Church had not produced all the beneficial effects which had been antici pated—the cause of Protestantism had not advanced by the plan that had been hitherto adopted, and the question was how would they now apply the surplus revenues of the Church ? They had no objection to provide that the Clergyman, whose spiritual care was required, should have the means of perform ing his duties amply and efficiently, and of devoting a portion to that charity which was the peculiar characteristic of a Christian Minister—they were not the advoeetc , s for any strict allowance to those clergymen who had spiritual duties to perform ; but after these had been provided for, would the British public be satisfied until they had ascertained the amount of the surplus that remained ?—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. the Member for Cambridge had last night proved to them pretty clearly that the education of the people was a distinct charge upon the Church ; and he had been answered by the Noble Lord opposite, that such appropriation had been the act of a conqueror. From whom, he ( Sergeant Wilde) would ask, had the Church and its revenues been obtained ? The principle was not thus to be got rid of in a sentence. All they sought for was 'to apply the surplus revenues of the Church to the education of the people, without inquiring what their religion might be ; and they could not be answered by saying that that was the act of - a conqueror. How had the question been treated by the Right Rev. Prelates who had been alluded to by the Noble Lord ? No, they had not con sidered that such a proceeding would be an act of spoliation— they felt that the Church had failed in its duty to the people, and had kept its revenues in its pocket, instead of applying them to the education of the people. Was not this principle recognized in various Acts of the Legislature ; and had not in various instances grants of surplus Church property been made, after the wants of the Church had been supplied 2—( Hear.) What was the cause of the lamentable state in - which Ireland at present was ? Did it not originate in the ignorance of the lower orders, and the influence of interested individuals acting upon that ignorance ?—( Hear.) What would give the advo cates of Frotestantism the greatest chance of proselytism ? Instructing the people of Ireland.--(Hear.) Much misre presentation had been used with respect to the arguments of Hon. Members on his ( Sergeant Wilde's) side of the House. —(Cheers.) It was necessary to refer to the grievances which had been inflicted upon Ireland to account for the posi tion in which she was at present placed. A church had been imposed upon her, to the doctrines of which the majority of the people of that country were opposed, and who re garded it as a mark of degradation. What followed? Under pretence of advancing the interests of religion, a series of the most cruel persecutions had been inflicted upon the people. —(Cheers.) He was not seeking to bring discredit upon that Church, nor did he feel that there would be any advan tage in calling the attention of the House to the scandalous barbarities and injustices that had been practised there under the pretence of promoting the Protestant religion. What was the Church of Ireland but a monument of persecutions and in justices?—( Hear, hear.) What did they desire?—that it should no longer possess that character —that it should be no longer hostile to the feelings of the Catholics of that country Hear, hear)—that th e y s h ou ld correct their former errors—that they should propitiate and strengthen the Protestant Church there —not that they should confer a benefit upon the Catholics, but that they should do what was benefi cial to the Protestant Establishment. If they wished to pro mote the interests of that Church and extend its doctrines, what could put them in the way of doing so more effectually than to educate the people ? From the feeling which it was well-known exi s t e d b etween P rotestants and ri Catholics need he refer to the beneficial effects of having them educated to gether. They were all aware of the good effects of bring ing up children at school together, and no Roman Ca tholic child could be ill-affected towards a Church to which it was indebted for the education it had received. He thought that the ardour and vigour of the opposition given to the proposition of the Noble Lord was much enhanced by the fear of a large surplus, and that if it were not to cost them nothing, they would not fight so hard for it.—( Cheers.) When he looked back at all the speeches that had been made upon the question, he was bound to say that in his conscience he believed that all the strength of argument was on their side. No man could urge that Church property was inaliena ble who had ever given the question the least thought.— (Cheers.) It had been said, " You must not grant this, for it is only the first of a series of demands." There was no doubt but it was the first of a series, but who was to judge of the next? Was it the Catholics of Ireland ? No. It it was the British Parliament who were to decide 'upon the case whatever it might be, and it would depend upon the character of the demand whether it would be granted or not. If they asked anything that was inconsistent with the mainte nance of the Protestant Establishment, or dangerous to the interests of the country, it would be refused. But because that such demands might be made, was it just to refuse that one ?—( Cheers.) What statesman, he would ask, had ever said—" Tell me what you are going to ask next, and then I will decide upon your present demand ? "—( Cheers.) Such had been the conduct of the parties opposite in former times ; and what was it gave rise to the demand which carried the Catholic Bill and the Reform Bill, but the wild and unstates man-like conduct of the Honourable Gentleman opposite ? —Great cheering.) They were pursuing the same course now ; and he prophecied that if they carried their opinions on that question, the result would be the same as on former ones. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had likened the question to a wedge. What was the Reform Bill but a wedge ? It was passed for the purpose of placing a wedge in the hands of the people of England. Another argument used by the opposite side was to call those on his side of the House Destructives. Destructives I —what should they wish for a destruction of property for ?—they were possessed of some. They had prospered under the British Government, and had received their instruction from the Church, and were attached to its principles. He disclaimed the imputation so far is regarded himself, and threw it back with scorn. He trusted that would only be the first of a series, and that the next demand on the part of the people would be one which the country had as much right to expect to have granted as that one.—( Cheers.) The same arguments as were now put forward were used in opposition to the Catholic question. The Hon. Gentleman opposite said then, " that question once settled in your favo ur , y ou w ill come for more." But what was the consequence ? The people gathered fresh strength, and made the demands in such a manner that the very same Hon. Gentlemen were obliged to come down and grant that which before they so strenuously opposed. To them he would say--" If you refuse this boon the character of your Government is stamped by your refusal ; you say, in fact, to the country—We refuse all those practical reforms which you have been taught to expect from us."—( Hear. ) But where would be their sense of fairness ? He agreed with certain Gentlemen in that House, although he was of no party, yet he was ready to support any measures which were likely to benefit the people. He had no vow, no alliance, no partiality, to any particular Government, but to that which would best promote the interests of the nation ; and if he found the Go vernment of the Right Hon. Baronet to be of that character, he would certainly soon take his seat on the other side of the House, but he could not believe or hope for such a prospect.—( Cheers.) Much had been said about inde cision and difference of opinion amongst those who supported the resolution ; but if he agreed with certain Gentlemen on this question up to a certain extent, where would be the absurdity of his voting with them ?—( Hear, hear.) Reform of the Church was the point at which he aimed, and the point to which they went, but beyond that they might travel by them selves.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentlemen opposite amused themselves, as though they were all agreed—( Cheers and laughter) —they amused themselves with stating that one Right Hon. Gentleman had said something in favor of the Re peal of the Union, and another something else ; but he was happy to act in concurrence with them as far as what they professed and supported what was calculated to benefit the country, and no fur ther. Why should this question be considered in referenc to some ultra opinions on other points of some Hon. Members ? Let the arguments be looked at in reference to the particular measure now proposed, and where was the inconsistency of doing so ? Was not the inconsistency on the other side ? For, why were the public to be deluded by statements that all the Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were agreed to attack and destroy the Protestant Church, when in fact they were only asking to render it more substan tial, beautiful, and efficient 1 The arguments of the gentlemen on the other side were not founded on their own opinions, but upon those of others, and the general character of some who opposed them. That was unjust both to themselves--those Hon. Gentlemen and the Church which they professed to sup port.—(Cheers.) He trusted he should have some arguments to shew that it was not consistent to educate the child without enquiring into the religion of the parent.—( Hear.) It was proposed temporarily to apply the surplus revenue of the Church to the purposes of education, thus returning it to its proper and original channel, th oug h i t would flow with tenfold benefit to that very Church, and deprive the Catholic Church of that advantage which had given prosperity to every Church, and even to our own Church namely, persecution. Let the Right lion. Gentlemen opposite state their objections, and not treat him and the question with ridicule, by saying that they would decide upon the question at a future time, but merely content themselves with speculations at present as to some unknown series of substantial Reforms. He trusted this would be the first of the series --(hear, hear)--and he ap pealed to them, by the love which they bore to the Church, and their sense of duty towards it, and by their regard for those who were now Catholics, but whom h e h ope d some d a y wou ld become Protestant, to allow this Reform to take its course, and to seek to perpetuate the Church by passing this resolution. Mr. G 0 ULB URN was aware that at that late period of the discussion he could not offer much to command the atten tion of the House, or that the House would be willing to at tend to any arguments upon points that had been so long under discussion. He was sens ibl e o f the disadvantages under he laboured i n o ff er i ng hi mself to the House, but on the We hand, he had a t th a t l ate per i od of the debate great adoo. tages—for, in common with the House ; he was ill P ese e s rt sion of the ' views of those different parties who suPPe e. the motion, as announced in the speeches they had made' He had before him not only the motion, guarded as it " s eed its terms, and framed by the Noble mover—necessarily framed with a view to combine the greatest possible amount of s,ul! d port in favour of the motion—( Hear, hear)—but they learned from the speeches of the Honourable Gentlemen who support the resolution, much more expect' the resolution itself, :the object which they so ed to derive from the resolution, and what were to es e of its final results.--( Hear.) They had not only the speech Hon. Gentlemen, but they had what was, perhaps, more s . ; an nificant; the silence of others from whom they might expect distinctly hall indication of opinion. —(Loud cries of " Hear.") He had one doubt but that silence indicated as strongly on the side what wer e th e f ee li ngs o f those by whom i t was ob served, as the s p eec h es o f t h e other parties showed what were. their feelin gs . Th e Honourable and Learned Gentleman_ who bad just sat d own taxe d t h ose who were op pos?d _ i t l him with e. d e t erm i nat i on to resist the reform el floo abuses, and in applying that argument to the eti,eal:,„ b before the House, had assumed that as the Irish Glut_ was, in his opinion, a sinecure Church, if the Gee o e_7 e ment did not consent to adopt the proposition of the P , „ o ' ) e Lord, which was not:to reform but to destroy, that, therefore they were not Reformers. He (Mr. G.) denied that proripool_ tion. He denied it on the part of the Government, a. his own part. He would say, that the Irish Church did not answer the terms of a sinecure Church—that heavy and portant duties were discharged by the Ministers of that Cbure. —( Hear, hear, b ear )— an d t h at t h ose duties were no t t estimated by the n um b er o f t h ose who by the e ure ligion of the Ch urc h o f E ng l and, but by the difficulties that obstruct e d th e execut i on of those duties.—( Ch e er..) bad The Right H on . Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge, eo produced thi r t een i nstances of parishes in which there were resident Protestant s ; b ut even supposing that out of the extent of the Chur c h o f I re l an d, t h ere were ten or twelve suc h pa' !. rishes, did th a t j ust if y t h em i n denouncing the who l e e s blishinent as a sinecure? He did know the particular circum stances 17 stances of those p ar i s h es , b ut h e t h ought he could affara, explanation of th ose c i rcumstances, and prove t h a t Ile absence of individual Protestants in those parishes ar e ' not from the f a il ure i n t h e d i scharge of t h e i r _ r du ties on the p ar t o f t h e c l ergy, or that there was 311,4. thiug to whi c h t h ey cou ld really attach the name 5 sinecure.—( Hear, hea r .) H e h a d b een a l ways at neou a, to remedy th e a b uses o f t h e Esta b lishment, but it `lB i impossible to d o so w i t h out ma i nta i ning its revenues. le`s was confident th a t th ose par i s h es f orm part of Unions. It `25 not new to the H ouse nor to t h e country that he ha d always, denounced the system of Unions of Parishes, and he had ul tended to bring forward a measure for the dissolution of Unto He was not a Reformer in the sense of the Hon. and Learn . ~ Gentleman ( Ser gean t Wild e ). H e was anxious not to d stroy, but to reform. He would therefore say that the parise in question must have formed parts of Unions, and it very obviou s th at w h ere a great many parishes ' , 111 .21 united to f orm a b ene fi ce, the Protestant n(41111147, was necessarily d rawn to t h at part of th e Union which the Clergyman's house was situated. If, therefore* they drew from those parishes the Protestant population whic necessarily belonged to them, and got them all into one paria h he put it to H on . G ent l emen whether those parishes were t, be taken as instances of the general character of the &tit lished Church of Ireland ? He was quite confident, withal"' reference to any documents, that those were the el l '', cumstances upon which the Right Honourable Gentle= man (Mr. Spring Riee) had founded his argument. What was the way in which sinecures were dealt with ? if there was an office, which by misconduct on the part of the ; owner had become a sinecure, and yet was a necessary of was made for making that office efficient for the 1 011% * poses for which it was instituted —that course was morn system of reform than of abolishing it altogether. He would say, apply that principle to the Church —reform all abuses, but • do not destroy the Church itself--( Hear, hear, and cheersJ" That was the mode in which he would reform those abuses to which the Honourable and Learned Gentlereau had alluded. If there was an instance in which the ITU' gious duties had been neglected, whether by the fault of the incumbent —whether by the previous crimes of Perlis.' ; ment—or whether by the neglect of former Govern.e,nents--h ° would say it was the duty of the House, in the first instances to redress those abuses. But if the resolution of the Nobl e Lord was adopted by the House, they would effectually capacitate the Government and the Legislature from putties the Church o n th e f oot i ng required. Moreover, in the view,it took of it, they wou ld v i olate the sacred principles on whir" the Establish e d Ch urc h i n Ireland was founded, to the sub serviency of the establishment itself. What did the resolu tion of the Noble Lord profess to accomplish ? It assumed ill the first place that there was a surplus of the revenues of the '. Irish Church, after having provided for the spiritual purposes' that were required. He said the resolution assumed, it' because it was impossible to advert to the debate wiehou r observing that no Honourable Gentleman who had sp had specifically assured the House that there was any sierel us ,i They had h a d statements from those who wet e best in forme d upon these subjects, that the present income was not adequa te to the Establishment in its present form, still less to Vac inalr tenance of that i m p rove d state which they were now approaea" ing. They had statements to show that the funds. were ffi ;II : 4 sucient to p rov id e f or those objects which Parr es enent had already pointed out.—( Hear, hear.) The expectrstions of th m e Catholic p o p u l at i on h ad been raised, that they well,: benefit by a surp l us that was to be created out of the r" venues of the Church.--( Hear, hear.) The course of the Me sure must be taken to be this—to satisfy the clergy oft Established Church out of the pittance that might be le l ' after providing for other purposes. That was the true essenc e of the destructive nature of this resolution. It excited a boll ' which it was i mposs ib le ever to realize. He had obs erc e t with delight, i n t h e course of that discussion that that Para of the Est a bli s h e d Ch urch which was in Ireland was co nsidef e e an object of a tt ac h ment and veneration by those who were r'e acknowledged M em b ers o f t h e Church of Engla nd.—(ll"r') But the H on . an d L earned Member was mistaken as try the e meeting which was h e ld i n support of the P ro t es t an t Chain It consisted of P res b yter i ans, as well as of Protestants,. an. was held in th e m id st o f a Presbyterian country. These Pres byterians wer e d es i rous to ma i ntain the Protestant C letTc f not as the representatives of their adherence to the doctrines the Church of England, but because they looked upon. it as the bulwark of Protestantism, which their duty and cons/ e'er. alike compel them to respect. Because he saw in the .rese' tion proposed by the Noble Lord the first invasion of the tee by which the doctrines of the Church Establishment eal l ;, propagated, h e wou ld oppose it.—( Hear, h ear , bear.) e. Honourable and L earne d G entleman (Mr. Wilde) Inas , us that he had no objection to the alienation of Chu '4, property to any other objects than those connected svith r' Established Church. It would be presumption in hi .n 1 ( Goulburn) to differ from a lawyer of such emineio ce 4341 legal question, but when he heard the argument he load us in support of his opinion, he (Mr. Goulburn) was itastiene u ; its futility. H (Mr. W.) had said that in the time I . Henry the Bth, e: seized upon the monasteries, and gave dte possessions to ' enlarge the incomes of private iauslividueel k All considered that act as a violation of property, ,no tnartr whether their opinions may be on the property of Vae refo ' tion which followed. It was a violent abstraction of proPer i r and it was most disgraceful, the conferring it upon earner Can any man who so considers that act now agree that Protester Church? is a fair groun d f or the invasion of the property of the Protester W ere t h ey to go back to the times 'of Henry VII' and to act u p on t h e pr i nciples which governed his condi ►lc4o and learn f rom hi s ar bi trary acts how they ought now 1i legislate? If that was a great act of spoliation, were t l U'„ justified i n p ursu i ng a s i milar course after a lapse of so ir years ? What had they not to anticipate, if, after such an weal ",,t ple, they p rocee d e d to di vert Church property from its oriteir '1,74 purpose? A n d w h at h a d t h ey not to expect after ? But, s `f it the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Church has no 141 ,be to this property, as it was originally in the possession of I Roman Catholics ; and he asked was it not just to with& it from the Protestants and restore it to the Catholics (Hear.) He (Mr. G.) concurred in the argument of ; rt y Solicito r -G enera l, an d was of opinion that this props ' r e devolved on th e Established 'Church without re f erenc e to tbe circumstances connecte d w i t h i ts transfer. If they look to 04 times when thi s p roperty was conferred on the Pro the Church of E ng l an d an d I reland, they would find th .at ion greater part of th ese d onat i ons was made when the r el'lgto had become purer than it was before. He objected ans e resolution—first, because that a surplus revenue exist( ;j o next, because it proposed to administer the sur plus a way contrary to that for which it was origin gall tended.--( Hear, h ear .) Besides, the indefinite natter of the declarati on i s f u ll o f danger, and while i viols 7 a principle f or w hi c h h e contended, namely, the ins.' t olabilit) o u f Church property—it would tend to defeat the profess object' the resolution, w hi c h was t h e restoration of the p b 4 ea of country. That will be the consequence, from elites eePef tions which such a reso l ut i on would naturally reeate ; 1)11' had another objecti on t o i t , as i t proposed to invade a e*° e ': e e ey of a private nature, and therefore not only endangered Ch u ;ie t e property, but what was of equal consequence, that of a sp'" character. It was well known that that portion of ( ;flu property which went under the name of advowsons was str le o of a private character. If the Noble Lord proposed to : in s • from those pari s h es t h e means they at present had of r taining the Protestant Clergymen, he wished the Nolot - '7, 1 0 or some friend o f hi s would state how he got rid of th e " culty and dang er atten di ng private property.--(Hear, nea of It might be said that the Noble Lord made an excel i c u ll re it the advowson s . C ou l d that be called a reform in the ( %el'itee when it would h ave t h e effect of leaving some cleagymers so full possessi on o f t h e emoluments of these livings, a, act 'ar :r s be priate that of others to different purposes ? Could s ads.: tw ; m ei intention o f th e N o b le Lord?—he should think n'Jt 11 so that allay the feeling of irritation that had hewn to tic' yea much of, of the peasantry of Ireland ? It would have j a d in- d different effect. It wou ld arm t h em against the lan 0: 1 ! ' ea terest of the country. It had been said, that Parlian n ot " the perfect right to apply the property of the Church „ - nt sre purposes. That argument bad been used by the t r i° Thad able Member for Nottingham, who,'as an author as adverted to Bl ac k stone, who stated that the Chu %d w be established by law, and therefore that its revenues ( " :)- f the applied to oth er purposes of the law. If the revenue: ; o ° f t he Irish Chur c h were applied to other purposes than those .liat support of th e Church, was the Hous e p repare d to say lee rs ,) same principle would not apply to the English Church. ( C 1, In his o pi n i on the question involved not a he only the right: Church of I re l an d , b ut those of the Church of En Pe/ ! had They had been t o ld b y the Hen. Gentleman opposite that they .1° dulged in personalities. No one deprecated personalities' more r himself; but he did not thi n k i t a personality to advert to the co ne af• of individual Meikibers to illustrate arguments. They had bee . ? 0 mired, that h a d th e l ate Government remained in office they woulcill 0 3 4e e h