The Sun. — London, England, 1835-04-01 00:00:00

it could be only regarded as a misconception on the part of a gentleman of the strong religious feelings of the Right Hon. Baronet. By-the-by these religious people, these gentlemen who are in the odour of sanctity, become at times formidably zealous ; if they are in reality as meek as doves, they bear some resemblance to that animal whose wisdom we are en joined to imitate--( Cheers.) If you differ from them they at once exhibit the proverbial spirit of theological animosity ; their former associates become little better than a convocation of thimble-riggers, and they see nothing but a mere legisla tive shoplifter in Earl Grey—( Cheers.) But of motives of an impure character I entirely acquit the Right Hon. Gentleman ; he acts a disinterested part, and thinks that the Church question is fatal to him—( Cheers.) What ! would the Right Hon. Baronet cut off thirty per cent. from the honest creditor—would he efface the lines of distinction between meum and tuum to that extent ? Would he relieve the great mortgagors of their incumbrances—( Hear)—but refuse to take off the enormous lood with which Ireland was weighed down and overwhelmed ?—( Cheers.) But was he really serious in talking of the immutability of Church property ? If his doc trines were sound the Protestant Church would not be entitled to a single rood of ground. The assignment to her of the property left for purposes utterly different would be wholly void. You talk of vested rights. How did your good ancestors, those pious shoplifters, deal with the Catholic Church ? The Right Hon. Baronet raised a question as to what arc the uses of the property of the Church. He ( Mr. Shiel) should not go into the old learning on the subject, but refer him to comparatively modern authority. So close was the vicinage of the Right Honourable Borderer to Scotland that he begged him to pass the boundary, and to accompany him there. The au thority of the Scotch Church on this subject was unequivocal. In Spottiswood's history of that Church, matter would be found which ought to set the controversy at rest. (Mr. Shell then proceeded to quote a variety of extracts from this work.) The efforts made to force upon Scotland an establishment at variance with the feelings of the people were too familiar for expatiation. They terminated as we all know ; and in 1689 that famous Act was passed which in a few words does such great things. The Act is this—mark it, Englishmen, mark it ; it is full of wisdom, and in the briefest compass includes the largest policy,—" Act abolishing Prelacy, July 22, 1689. Whereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right, declared that prelacy ( I leave out mere verbiage) is and hath been a g nat and insupportable grivance to the nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the majority of the people— ( Cheers)—&c., and the King and Queen's Majesties do de clare that they will settle that Church government in this kingdom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people."—( Cheers.) You will ask me, d o I wan t suc h a change ? I answer emphatically, No. If you will be Oust we will be moderate ; wherever there is really and bone fide a Protestant congregation let there be a clergy man well paid, and where there is no flock let there be no pastor. Regard must be had to the circumstances of the country; it must be remembered that there is a large mass of property in Protestant lands; a just mean may be struck, and the entire matter may be equitably adjusted. What a lesson Scotland—happy, well-governed Scotland—affords. What precious and abundant fruits have been gathered by a wise system of Government. Let those who conceive that there is nothing unnatural, nothing monstrous, nothing prejudicial in the Church policy of Ireland make an hypothetical applica tion of that policy to Scotland. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Cumberland Conservative, told us last night that a great advantage was to be derived from the residence of Mark Beresford—( Cheers)—hoc genus omne in Catholic districts, and that to a gorgeous Protestant hierarchy in Ireland there could be no objection. Well, let us suppose that in Scotland an Episcopalian clergyman were to be located in every parish, to be supported (for that is the point) by a cumpulsory im post on the followers of Knox, and that a wealthy sinecure Episcopacy were to be settled in that country (above all let there be a successor to Sharpe,the Archbishop of St Andrew's) do you not know that Scotland would endure martyrdom rather than endure it ? And if such.a measure would be deemed atro cious and frantic in Scotland how does it come to pass that the very self-same system in Ireland is regarded as reasonable, wise, and just? When the repeal of the Union was discussed, you triumphantly bade us look to Scotland ; it is to Scotland, in discussing the Irish Church question, that I bid you loOk. In that country, the ecclesiastical institutions have been adapted to the character, manners, and feelings of the people, and accordingly the country has been conspicuously fortunate. Turn then to Ireland. The heart grows sick at the thought of what she might be and what she is—of what she was made by nature and what she was made by you. She is yours—she belongs to you—you have had the care of her— her faults are yours—her follies are yours—you are answerable for her errors—for her transgressions you are responsible; for her crimes, her atrocities, her bloodshed, her horrors, her mad ness—all, all are yours; and if I tell you this it is not for the purposes of unavailing crimination. Sir, I pass from these general considerations to the proposition before us. It is full, ample, unequivocal ; it renders an official compromise, by which the public interests should be pacified, and it puts an end to every surmise respecting the pure intentions of those from whom it has proceeded. We are asked for a plan. Those have no right to ask for a plan who would object to every plan, because they object to the principle on which any plan could be founded. Neither are they entitled to demand the Commissioners' report, because the report cannot affect the principle ; and, therefore, by the report their measures cannot be swayed. But what stand we in need of to report ? The Member for Cumberland has superseded that necessity, because he admits that the Ca tholics are an immense majority. But I will convict him and his associates on this question by a reference to the Church Temporalities Bill. That Bill was passed without the report of a Commistion. One section of it provides that in any pa rish in which divine (which is a name ,for Protestant) service has not been performed for three years, the vacancy may not be filled up. Does not this establish all that we require? Is not this evidence of a surplus ? What are you to do with such revenues ? The Member for Lancashire will answer, " Dis tribute them anew." Indeed ! How does it come to pass that you never dreamed of a new distribution until we insisted (for insist we do) upon a new operation ? You never showed the least compassion for the poor curates with 73/. a-year and their starving families, until from the more wealthy sinecu rists a substraction was to be made—a sacrifice ; but even for its own relief a necessary operation was to be performed on the swollen, bloated, and hydropsied Church Establishment. Again, I press you on your Irish Church Temporalities Bill. That Bill struck off ten bishoprics —ten mitres went off the heads of the hierarchy at a single puff.--( Laughter.) Did the Right Honourable Baronet, when he acquiesced in that sweeping measure feel any religious compunction? He (Mr. Sheil) should only take a single bishopric, that of Armagh) to prove the bloated wealth of the Church of Ireland. The gross value of that see was 17,000/. per an num, the net value was 14,000/. How did the bishops make out the net? They charged agency of 1,000/. per annum and other items. He (Mr. Sheil) was, however, prepared to show that the true net of the see was 19,000/. The report recommended the reduction of this income and its distribu tion. Was it fair to refuse the appropriation of the residue ? Was the report of a Commission necessary to determine whe ther a Bishop should have no more than a Judge of the land, or whether an Archbishop should be better paid than the Lord High Chancellor of the kingdom ? Were episcopalian ser vices worth more than legal ? Were not the Archbishop of Armagh, with his 19,000/. a-year, and the Bishops, with their 8,000/. and 9,000/. each, too well paid? Was it not too much for them ? What were they paid for ? To keep up and extend the Protestant religion in Ireland. Did they fulfil the object of their original appointment ? He had no occasion to ask the question ; every one who knew Ireland knew they di I not. The fact was, the Protestant Church in Ireland was ut terly repugnant to the feelings of the people ; it was linked in their mind with oppression and cruelty ; it was an ex pensive monument of national disaster and degradation.— ( Hear, hear.) It was anti-national in its principle, anti popular in its practice. It required reformation. He wished for its own sake that reformation should take place. The Right Hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he should support the Irish Church ; and in almost the same breath he said he should carry on the Government of the country in the spirit of the Reform which had taken place in the Constitution ; as if Reform could be Reform unless it first touched the monstrosities of that enormous Establishment. Were not the people of Ireland, he would ask the Right Hon. Baronet, strengthened by the Reform Act ? Did not Reform with them mean only a means to the correction of the evils of the Church ? Were not sixty-three of the Representatives of that country in favour of the present motion ? Was not that a sufficient evidence of the national feeling on the subject to which it related ? Was the national feeling nothing with the Right Hon. Baronet? He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet and the House, whether he who conceded Catholic Emanci pation to the cry of the people, should stick at all concession on this question, and stake the final existence of his Admini stration on its issue ?—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet had declared his intention to do so. He had answered him by anticipation. He should tell the Right Honourable Baronet that he was not a man of the present, but of the past. He let events go beyond him. He lagged behind, while they passed rapidly and won the race. He toiled in vain after them. His conduct on the Catholic question and his conduct on the agi tation of Reform, were cases in point. The Right Hon. Ba ronet was now on the Irish Church question. That question which had been the burial place of so many Administrations, would also prove the grave of his, if he persisted in his determi nation.—( Hear. ) Mr. LEFRO Y (who spoke in a low voice, and was inaudi ble in the first few sentences) said that the cause he advo cated was the cause of truth and justice, and he could enter tain no doubt on the subject. The Hon. and Learned Member had stated to the House in the latter part of his speech that he wished Reform of the Church of Ireland for the sake of the Church itself. But did the Hon. Gentleman explain what was the meaning he attached to the word Reform ? Did he suggest in his plan any project which had for its end the be nefit of the Church itself ? What did he suggest ? He sug gested that the Church should be deprived of a fourth, at least, of its revenue. Did the Hon. and Learned Member attempt to show that by crippling its efficiency he was confer ring on it a benefit. Or did he attempt to establish that there were no objects connected with the Church Establishment itself to which the fourth of its revenues, of which he would so readily deprive it, could be usefully applied ? The Hon. and Learned Member had said that it was essential to the safety of the Church itself as well as the interests of the coun try, that " the bloated and dropsical Establishment," as he was pleased to term it, should be deprived of a portion of its reve nues ; but the Hon. and Learned Member had attempted to offer no proofs, except in one single instance, of excessive endowment in any one of its Ministerial offices. The Hon. and Learned Member had referred to the case of the Church of Scotland to show that one-fourth of its revenues were applied to the sup port of schools and the maintenance of :teachers ; but the Hon. and Learned Member had neglected to state that these were strictly purposes connected with that Church, inasmuch as theyjwere established for disseminating; its doctrines, and were, moreover, superintended by its pastors.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member had spoken of the religion of the Church of Scotland being declared the religion of that country by a Legislature essentially Protestant and of the Church of Eng land ; and he (Mr. Lefroy) supposed he did so with a view to support his argument. But he would refer to an Act of the Irish Legislature of 250 years since quite analagous to the subject, in which the religion of the Established Church was declared by law the religion of Ireland."' But by whom was that declaration made? By Protestants? No. It was made by Catholics; and the Act which affirmed it was passed by a Parliament the great majority of which, if not almost the entire, were of that creed. Thus was a reform in the religion of Ire land, from the Catholic to the Protestant Communion, effected by a Parliament of Roman Catholics.—.(Laughter on the Op position side of the House.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he thought they should rather be ashamed to do so, if by their mirth they meant either to confess their own:ignorance of the matter, or, knowing it, deny such a notorious fact. This Act was repealed in the reign of James 11., re-enacted in that of William and Mary, and repeatedly confirmed in the subse quent reigns. The last confirmation which it received was at the time of the Union between England and Ireland, in which Act it was distinctly laid down as an introvertible proposition. " It was one of the acts of slavery," said the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, " that a liturgy in a foreign language should be imposed on the people of Ireland." But he (Mr. Lefroy) would beg to inquire whether that Hon. Hember knew that up to the present period, as well as prior to that to which he had alluded, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had never had a li turgy in their native language—had never heard a single reli gious service in their own tongue ?—( Hear, hear.) Was that the description of knowledge which the Hon. Member should bring to hear upon such a subject as the one at issue ? Was that the enlightment he shed upon his followers ? ( Laughter.) The great ground of attack taken by the op ponents of the Church was its excessive wealth, and that was the ground which the Hon. and Learned Member for Tippe rary especially selected. The Hon. and Learned Member imputed to the Church the character of being bloated and dropsical with excess of property ; but 'how stood the actual facts, divested of all exaggeration, accidental or designed ? When the real condition of the Church and the exact amount of its revenues were ascertained, how unfounded would the charge of the Hon. and Learned Member appear to the House. The Hon. Member for St. Alban's had stated that the Church of Ireland had a revenue of a million, or thereabouts, per annum, on that occasion ; and he (Mr. Lefroy) on that occa sion had ventured to question the accuracy of the statement. He (Mr. Lefroy), the more effectually to impugn :it, had laid before the House a statement of the actual and exact revenues of the Church of Ireland. By this statement, it appeared that, in place of close on a million, the Church of Ireland had not more than half a million for its support—in point of fact that it bad not half a million. The Noble Lord had stated that the income of the Bishops was 141,986/., whereas the real income of that body was 120,6701., giving in that particular item a reduction in the stated amount of 21,2161. There might be reduced from Lord John's charge— let. Off the Bishops as per Parliamentary returns £21,216 Ditto for ten cancelled Bishopricks 2d. Off Deans and Chapters, as per returns, their actual income, deducting repairs, being only 2,206/ 14,936 3d. The Tithes are subject to the deduction of one-fourth, to be made by the pending Bill 133,608 4th. Perpetuity Fund,!as being the interest of a fund pro duced by sale of fines, and consequently charged already in the Bishop's income 30,000 Total deduction, to be made from income as stated by Lord John Russell Leaving a balance of The real income of the Church subject to the tax for vestry cess, varying from 21 to 15 per cent., which will average at least 41,.88 Giving the real net income Instead of an income of nearly a million, as was stated last year by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, or of near 800,0001. as was stated last night by the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) There were 1,456 incumbents, for whom the provision was 400,8251. per annum, making an average of 278/. per annum, subject to the tax for vestry cess, and to the payment of about 700 curates amongst all the rectors. So much for the accu racy of the Noble Lord in that respect. He (Mr. Lefroy) should leave him on that point, and refer to another. A statement had been made by the Noble Lord respecting the proportion of the population of Ireland to whom the duties of religion were administered by the reverend persons receiving that money. With respect to that statement he (Mr. Lefroy) felt bound to say that the Noble Lord had taken a most un justifiable proceeding in forming his estimate of the compara tive number of the Protestant and Catholic population of Ire land.--( Hear.) The Noble Lord had taken his statement from a selection of the returns made by ten dioceses in that kingdom, and from these alone he assumed what he termed his facts. Unlike Lord Althorp, his Lordship did not wait for any accurate information on the subject ; but, having received pri vately from some of the Commissioners the returns of ten dis tricts, he proceeded to act upon them as he should act only upon the entire. Of these ten only two were Protestant dis tricts, the remaining eight were essentially Catholic, some of them, he might say, the most Catholic of any in Ireland. It had been said by the enemies of the Church that it had alto gether failed in effecting the ends for which it had been ori ginally established—the maintenance, support, and extensicn of the Protestant established religion in Ireland. That asser tion was based upon the assumed disproportion between the Protestants and Catholics in that country. The only proper evidence on that subject would be the report of the Commis sioners; but, without waiting for that, he (Mr. Lefroy) was compelled to say that other causes than any connected with imputation of the Clergy might with much more truth than the contrary be assigned as a reason for it. If the Protestant population of Ireland be considered in relation to its number of sectarians, there would appear no grounds for imputing a neglect of duty to the Clergy of the Established Church. What apologies, moreover, did there not arise out of these peculiar circumstances to which the Noble Lord opposite had adverted? The evidence of Dr. Boyle before the Committee afforded some account of the result on the part of the Protest ant Clergy in their efforts to diffuse scriptural information and a knowledge of the Gospel. Whenever they commenced such an attempt, it proved only a signal for a Catholic combi nation against their property. It could not be said that de Protestant Church had failed in its object from neglect of its duty, when every attempt to diffuse its doctrines had been opposed in such a manner. He maintained that no case whatever had been made out against the Protestant Church. Upon the main question of the right of the Legislature to divert this Church property ,from its purposes he would controvert the position laid down by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, and he would maintain that the grounds and arguments by which that Hon. Member had supported it would equally justify any species of spoliation. That Hon. Member had maintained that all property i‘i mortmain was the property of the State. If this were the case he would only beg leave to ask what then was the mean ing of all those Acts of Parliament respecting mortmain— Acts which were as early as the first Edward and Henry, and which never treated property in mortmain as an aliena tion from the State, for if they had the State might at once have resumed it. Did the Hon. Member for St. Alban's mean that the property of the State was in the King, the Lords, or in the Commons ? The House had been told by one Hon. Member that it was all in three. He, however, would say that no lawyer would assert that either or all three possessed and such property, or was capable of possessing it. He would allow that the King, Lords, and Commons had a right to legislate for property, but still he would contend that they had no property, and that they were not a body which was allowed by the Constitution to be possessed of property. The right of ownership of property was in the great aggregate of the population, and the right of Church property lay in that great aggregate of Ecclesiastical Corporations which consisted of the Ministers and servants of the Established Church of England. It lay in the Bishops, in the Chapters, and integral members, and in the Rectors and their successors. They had a duty in the trusteeship of this sacred property. To any ex tent of modification in respect to this property might the Le gislature go for the purposes of enforcing the duties and the obligations of the trusteeship, but he utterly denied the right of the Legislature to sever or misappropriate this property from the trust to which it had been annexed in the original endowments. Was that House to be told that the Church of England was the only existing body that could not hold pro perty for its support ? Every class of Dissenters was allowed to hold property for the maintenance of their respective reli gions, and there arose from these considerations a duty on the part of this House. That House had to see the trust as re garded the ordinances of religion, and if there were a surplus not requisite for the ministration of the Church, it was, he con tended, the duty of that House to appropriate it to the reli gious instruction of the members of the Church of England, and of persons connected with it. The House ought to re collect that Government had lately withdrawn its countenance from the Protestant schools of Ireland, and that those schools had not now the advantages which they had formerly had. He stated this upon the authority of a distinguished traveller in Ireland (Mr. Inglis) who had given a statement of the con dition of the schools under the National Board, to which the Noble Lord would apply the surplus funds of Church pro perly in order, as he said, to apply them to the use of all per sons of every religious persuasion, without any distinction of creed whatever. Mr. Inglis had said that in the county of Galway two of the schools received aid from the new Educa tion Board. In each there were five hundred children. He BMr. Lefroy) could not think that the funds of an Ed ucat i on oard were legitimately applied in aid of one of these schools which was under the management of a set of nuns, and the chapel of which had all the characteristics of a Popish chapel. This was a sample of the schools of Ireland maintained by the new Education Board, and he was convinced that these were schools very different from those contemplated by the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire when he first established this system of education in Ireland. He could only add that the Presbyterians, to a man, had refused to let their children go to these schools. If such were the case, and if a surplus of Church revenues of the Protestant Church should be found to exist, it would be the duty of the House to appropriate that surplus exclusively to the education of the children of Pro testants in Ireland. The Honourable Member for St. Alban's had said that non-residence had been imputed to nearly one-half of the number of the Protestant Clergy of Ireland. When he (Mr. Lefroy) had looked into Parliamentary documents—he was sorry to say that the Parliamentary re turns were so far back as from 1814 to 1819—but when he looked into the Parliamentary returns, he found that in the course of from 1814 to 1819, the increase of residence on the part of the Protestant clergy had been from 644 to 755 ' and he was convinced that, w ithi n th e l ast year, if there were any returns before the House, they would show a still greater pro gress. He had every reason to believe that the residence of the clergy in Ireland now was at least as strict as that of Eng land. It had been stated by Lord Plunket, when he had been a Member of that House, that upon inquiries which he had instituted he had reason to believe that the whole number of absentee clergy of Ireland did not at that time amount to fifty. Such had been the statement of that Noble and Learned Lord. The resolution before the House, he (Mr. Lefrov) would maintain, was totally subversive of the Church of Ireland ; for it was not merely a proposition of a diversion of revenue to another purpose, but it went to the establish ment of the Roman Catholic religion on the ruins of Pro testantism in Ireland. He trusted that his Right Hon. Friend would not suffer the question—a question which did involve the fate of the Church of Ireland, to be disposed of by any factious vote, or by a coalition such as the coali tions that had recently been witnessed in that House. • He hoped that his Right Hon. Friend would meet the question with that firmness and with that honour for which all parties so cordially gave him credit. Mr. C. WOOD firmly believed that unless this question was settled, no measure for the collection of tithes could be executed in the sister country. It had been unfortunately the case, that in all legislation for Ireland, the House had been invariably behind the time in which its measures could be useful. He might illustrate this by a reference to the Ca tholic question ; and when the Hon. Member for Cumberland reproached the Hon. Memner for Tipperary and others, for a want of gratitude for the Emancipation Bill, he ought to have remembered that Catholic Emancipation had not been conceded on either the petitions or rights of the Catholics. In the present agitation of the tithe question, the House was now reaping the bitter fruits of all the lessons given to it at the period when the Irish people saw that they had pleaded to the justice of that House in vain until they were able to appeal to its fears.—( Loud cries of " hear, hear, hear.") The present question on collecting tithes afforded abundant proofs of the tardy legislation of that House. It was at the end of the last session that his Noble Friend had read to the House a despatch which his Noble Relative (the Duke of Bedford) the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1807 was about to transmit to the Government, had he not at that time been removed from office. The despatch was important, as it showed what were the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land nearly thirty years ago, in favour of the question upon which the House was now called upon for its tardy legislation. Even twenty years ago, when the Irish Government had had this question pressed upon it, Ministers had introduced a measure for a composition of tithes. The measure then passed was intended to have been compulsory, but the unfortunate genius of' a certain Judge had interposed, and had made it vo luntary, and had destroyed all the benefits of the Bill. Five years after the composition of tithes was made compulsory, and last year a measure had been introduced with every pros pect of proving satisfactory ; but that had been rejected in another place, and now again was the House called upon to settle the question. He thought that he was now justified in pressing the question of appropriation. When his Noble Friend had first pressed the question of tithes the House had been told by Irish Members that unless it dealt with the measure of appropriation, it had no chance in succeeding in the collec tion of tithes. He would not quote the Honourable Mem bers for Dublin, Tipperary, or Cork upon the subject, but he would refer to Mr. Brownlow, to the Hon. Members for Mayo and Leitrim, and to Lord Carew, and from them the House had had the same opinions as it had had from all other Irish authorities, except from the few Members who represented the extremes of the Protestant and Orange party. The House had had a warning from all these parties that unless it adopted the principle of appropriation any course it might pursue with reference to tithes would not succeed. The Government had, however, attempted the collection of the tithes without the principle of appropriation, and had they succeeded? The Gallant Generals opposite —men not likely to shrink from danger or difficulties, or to be deterred by imaginary evils— had confessed that they could not gather the arrear of tithes ; and the Right Hon. Baronet himself bad confessed that in the collection of tithes the Government was powerless. • Govern ment was now reduced to the alternative of sacrificing a part or of losing the whole. What was the use of insisting upon a principle whilst all the clergy were starving ? It was a mockery to tell the clergy that their right should be maintained, when they were obliged to confess the impossibility of enforcing those rights. How did the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he would ask, expect to carry his Tithe Bill through the House without dealing with the principle of appropriation ? He would beg to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman of the division the other night, when, although many Members of his (Mr. Wood's) side of the House were intentionally absent, the Government were only able to obtain a majority of 15. For his own part he should not consider himself justified in voting for any Tithe Bill until the question of appropriation should be disposed of.--( Cheers.) One of the greatest sources of discord was the mode of collection, and this would have been remedied by the measure of last year, which placed the pay ment of the import on the landlord. It was against the nature of the impost and not against the amount that the people of Ireland, the great majority of whom derived no benefit from the fund in any manner, were so decidedly hostile. Was this any new feeling that sprung up in Ireland? No, it existed there ever since the Reformation. The Reformation was car ried in that country by the arbitrary mandate of the Monarch against an ignorant and unwilling people, and from that time the majority of the people were Catholics. In the reign of Elizabeth the state of the Irish Protestant Clergy was de scribed to be " abundaut in abuses, far beyond any that were to be found in England." The Clergy were slothful and lit" terly negligent of their spiritual duties ; and, besides these and other particular enormities, most of those who held benefices were laymen. He feared it was now too late to effect any change in Ireland that could lead to the end that was sought in those days,the conversion of the Roman Catholic population to the Pro testant religion. Where, ho would ask, was the parallel of the state of Ireland to be found in any nation on the globe ? A Church richly endowed, while the country was overwhelmed with a pau per population ; and this impoverished population too bad to sus tain a double Establishment ; first, they had to maintain one with which they felt no religious sympathy, and they were im pelled by their attachment to their own religion to the support of the other. The feeling of hatred that existed to the tithe system, and to all who upheld it, in Ireland, could only be re moved by striking at the root. He wished it to be understood that he was one of the last men in th a t H ous e who would wish to subvert or destroy the Protestant - Church in Ireland, nor would he deprive any Protestant Clergyman in that country of what he at present enjoyed ; but he would apportion the revenues of the Clergy in a manner mere adequate to the du ties performed, and the Protestant population of each parish. According to the scale laid down last year, it was agreed that there would be a sur pl us o f 100,000/. a y ear , a fter paying the Irish Protestant Clergy in the same proportion that the English Clergy were paid ; but according to the statements of that night, which, he confessed, were to him unintelligible, there would not be any surplus whatever. That there really would be a large surplus, however, he believed was not doubted by any Member of that House, although he confessed he did not know the best means to obtain that surplus. He certainly was not disposed to pay the Protestant Clergy of Ireland at so much a head, in proportion to the number of Protestants in the county, but at the same time he thought that some re gard should be had to the Protestant population of each parish, and the mode of living of the Clergyman who resided in it. He agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin, as to the advantages of as general a system as possible of Protestant education, but this he did not think enough for the present stat e o f t h e I r i s h p o p u lation. The late Government, with which he had been connected, were unanimous as to the establishment of one general system of education in that country, as a great national benefit. It was to education alone that they must look to raise the Irish people from their present state of superstition and ignorance. But this was not to be attained by a Protestant system of edu cation alone in a country seven-eighths of the population of which were Catholic. It must be attended with the utmost national advantage to have Protestant and Catholic children brought up together in the same school, where they would each imbibe those enlightened and liberal principles which would establish future unanimity in the country, and learn from the same Gospel that peace and Christian charity which it prescribed. Surely it could not be denied that a portion of the revenues of the Church ought to be applied to such a pur pose as this. The Church Establishment in Ireland had failed to produce any beneficial effects in the condition of that country. He might rest his case here ; but if there remained any scruple as to the legality of the appropriation involved in the motion of his Noble Friend, that might be removed by a re ference to the eleventh report of the Commissioners of Irish Education. That report quoted the Act of Henry VIII., by which all Protestant Clergymen in Ireland were bound to maintain a school in their parishes, not for the purpose of Pro testant education, but with a view to the civilization of the people. Two of the Commissioners who signed this report were the Archbishop of Dublin and Mr. Leslie Foster, neither of whom would be suspected of a want of attachment to the Protestant Church. From the reign of Henry VIII. to that of Anne, the Protestant Clergy were liable to maintain paro chial schools of this nature. Now his object was to deal with the acthlloisbsr ibi revenues prseertßint:.cawitipNhi of the Irish Church at pre sen t so as to carry out teoGh.,Lei os same , on this M t r h sC occasion,o moment,a E s T, there a w n d a s w Colone lseatede r elo u DA on a c r m t s t e t forshavinge c Mo n rd. Ministerial bench, immediately behind Sir R. Peel. The SPEAKER, however, decided that Colonel Damer was in possession, and the Hon. Member proceeded to address the House. Colonel DAME R said that the events that had taken place in that House since the meeting of the present Parliament con vinced him that the present resolution was only brought for ward by the Noble Lord as a means of embarrassing his Majesty's Government, and of forcing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon that post which he at present occu pied with so much advantage to the interests of the country. Cheers.) As an Irishman he would not conceal that he thought the best means of settling down the Irish people into a state of tranquillity and repose would be to create an alliance between the State and the Catholic Clergy.—(Hear.) The poor population would then be relieved by that means from a demand that now pressed heavily upon them, and they would be the better able to apply them selves to industrious habits. If the people of England were only half as liberal to the Irish Catholics as they were to the slaves of the West Indies a fund would soon be raised suffi cient to provide for the wants of the Catholic Clergy and to ensure the tranquillity of the country. In France, where there was a population of thirty millions, the whole of the clergy of all religious denominations cost the state only 1,600,0001. an nually, and if 400,0001. were set apart in this country it would be amply sufficient to pay the Catholic clergy of Ireland. In Prussia the utmost concord reigned amongst all classes, whe ther belonging to the established religion of the State or not, and he could not see why the same cordiality might not sub sist in this country. Holding himself wholly unpledged to any particular course, repecting this measure on any future occasion, and declining to give any opinion upon the resolution of the Noble Lord, he should in the present instance lvote against its adoption. _ _ - Mr. COBBETT and Sir R. INGLIS again rose together, amidst loud calls for Mr. Cobbett, but the Speaker called on Sir R. INGL I S said he did not lispars:;, , I % t = value of the speech delivered that night by the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood), but he looked upon that speech as more applicable to a Tithe Bill than to the subject of ap propriation. The views stated by the Hon. Member ( Mr. Wood) with respect to the Established Church of Ireland would apply with equal force and propriety to the whole em pire. The principle laid down by the Hon. Member was cheered by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's. But after all of what value could the principle be if so inconsiderable a sum as 100,0001. was still to be supplied for the support of the Church Establishment in Ireland ? The objections and the difficulties would still remain as strong as ever. Pacification would not he secured in Ireland by a transfer of a portion, or even of the whole, of the revenues of the Established Church. This was a Serbonian bog which the Hon. Member did not dare attempt to trace. The Member for St. Alban's was much more decided and more candid in layine; down his principl e , f or h e conten d e d t h at Parliament had a right to deal not only with the whole of the Church property but with all corporate property whatsoever.—( Hear, hear.) They who maintained such a principle ought, before they at tempted to act upon it in a single instance, to reflect seri ously how far they might eventually carry them. The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) put the case last night upon this point powerfully and unanswerably. For his own part no power on earth could ever induce him to ad mit such a principle to regulate Church property. It was property not conferred by the State, and the State had no right to take it away.—( Cheers.) They who broached such a theory, whatever they may say, or whatever they might pretend to the contrary, could entertain no very deeply rooted respect for the Church property of England, when they proposed the application of the principle to the tem poralities of the Irish Church. One Hon. Gentleman said he would limit the application to that country, in which the Protestant Church was an evil, but would not extend it to that part of the empire in which it was found to be a bless ing. By whom was this measure brought forward and sup ported? All those who spoke in the debate of yesterday admitted themselves to be members of the Established Church ; they professed a veneration for its doctrines, and a wish for its con tinuance. They said they were Protestants, but in their pro ceedings he firmly believed they looked as much to the satis faction of those who were not of the Established Church as they did to any of the objects which they professed. He was entitled to exp ec t f rom t h e d oc l arat i ons of the Roman Catho lics themselves that no propositions would emanate from them having a tendency to overthrow the temporalities of the Es tablished Church. If the import of language was to be taken from the plain meaning of words, all Catholics who took a seat in that House were bound to uphold the present settlement of Church property as by law established. He should like to know how the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Tipperary could reconcile his speech upon this question with his declarations upon former occasions, and with the oath he took as a Member of that House. This was the security, a feeble one indeed, given to those who conceded Catholic Eman cipation; but they never could have expected to see such a crisis as the present arrive. Who was it brought this question now forward ? Technically, indeed, and in the usual forms of Par liament, it was brought forward by the Noble Lord (J. Russell), but in reality at the desire and by the instigation of the Ca tholic body. In place of going back to former periods of his tory, the '' ()Teat consideration wi th th e H ouse oug h t to b e w h at was its character—how great was its usefulness in the present day, and to the present generation. It had made rapid ad vances of late years. In 1762 there were only 342 Protestant churches in Ireland. They soon after reached the number of 643. In 1800 they were 689, and since 1800, not less than 312 new churches were erected, and 64 more were in progress. If the principle now proposed for adoption had been in opera tion in 1800, this great advancement of the Protestant reli gion, this support of the best interests of Christianity, this great number of Protestant places of worship must have been lost to the great cause of morality and of the Protestant faith. How could the Member for Halifax be, as he professed him self, a friend to the Protestant Establishment while at the same time he said he would vote no money for its support ? Mr. WOOD—I did not say so. Sir R. INGL IS—The words of the Hon. Member were— " I cannot agree to extend the Protestant worship by increas ing her means." How could he expect to extend the Pro testant Church without affording her means? They had heard upon this occasion a great deal urged about the distresses of the people of Ireland. Unless the grievances and sufferings of the peasantry of Ireland could be clearly traced to the existence of any Established Church, which had not yet been done, their distresses could have nothing to do with this ques tion. Let Protestantism be destroyed in Ireland and it would be impossible to maintain the Union.—( Cheers.) Weak as the bonds of that Union were at present, they never could be entirely broken until the bond of Protestantism was destroyed. At all events these were not the times in which such au at tack should be made upon her, and these were not the men by whom it ought to have been made.—(Cheers.) Mr. PO ULTE R observed that it was once considered true that everything greater included in itself that which was less; but it was now contended by a Church, whose sole title was a Parliamentary title, who claimed by the dispossession on the part of the State of another Church, with - out the slightest regard to vested interests, that that State had not the power in the most extreme case to apportion or reduce that Church even under a most distant recognition of all vested rights. Who could doubt what the tithe of the Church was, who would read the statute of 2d and 3d Edward IV., by which the clergy were bound to the use of the Common Prayer, under the penalty of deprivation ? Who could doubt what it was, who would read the statute 17th Elizabeth, by which all benefices were taken from those who refused to subscribe to the articles and doctrines of the Church of England ? If this extreme severity of legisla tion was adopted in this country, what must have been the course of things in Ireland, where there was not the slightest pretence for a reformation ? Here there were the title-deeds —here was the commencement of the title of the Protestant Church, to the use and support of which, by the will and decree of the nation, a vast property, granted principally by private Catholic individuals to the ministers of their own persuasion, was forcibly, and contrary to the intent of the granters, applied and converted. If this statutable dis position had been made for a year only, and had been from that time down to the present day annually renewed, the case would have stood in principle precisely as it does at this mo ment. He put his support of this motion entirely on the dis tinction between the principles of the two establishments. Both stand in need of great changes, but while a better admi nistration and distribution is sufficient for the one, diminution is absolutely required for the other. If Hon. Members will persist in identifying the two, let them do so—he was as reso lute in separating them. He saw no danger to the one from any degree of correction necessary to the other. The Refor mation was in unison with the national feeling in one country, but was founded upon conquest and violence in the other. Is there no difference between charity and the power of the sword ? For such are the exact measures of the difference between the foundation of two Churches ; and it would be an insult to truth and justice to permit the temporal immu nities of the one to find shelter under the cover of a similarity in spiritual doctrine to the other. No length of time, no lapse of ages, should prevent his hearty concurrence in an effort to redress a great national iniquity. No appeal to the rights of property, beyond existing lives, can ever be main tained where such rights were never united with the real and religious interests of a nation. In such a case no prescription can be urged against the cries of a people, and the voice of a people becomes the voice of God. It may be admitted that any change in long-established things is an evil, and that no thing can justify it but the niost powerful necessity. If the peace and prosperity of Ireland be essential to the welfare of the empire such a necessity has now arisen. Antiquity, when utterly opposed to the improved wisdom and intelligence of thousands, is the richest of all justifications. Whatever force it may have on the minds and prejudices of some, it would be lamentable indeed if a Legislature should ever forget that antiquity is the real infancy of the world, and that the period of its most advanced age and of the most extended human ex perience is that instant of time in which he had now the ho nour to address the House. What would be thought of a State which should devote nearly a million a year to the spi ritual wants of about half a million ? What would be thought of a policy which would carry a religious war into a country, and, having triumphed over it, should set up the monstrous pretence of a united Church of the two countries ? No Acts of Parliament could ever sanction the using the name of reli gion against the principles of religion itself. The Hon. Mem ber asked when the argument of distinction would cease to be resorted to, for there never was a great measure of improve ment proposed which had not been met by this argument. So long ago as the Bill of Catholic Emancipation was passed this was the language of its opponents. J us t b e f ore lh e passing of the Reorm Bill some small remains of irritability were still found to exist in the nation ; but this was to be utterly annihilated by the abominable Reform Bill. All of a sudden this measure of total distinction has become an unchangeable, unconstitutional law—a law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Now we are to be a third time destroyed by the proposition of the Noble Lord. This nation, with its three lives, is the most extraordinary that ever was heard of. He might liken it to the famous serpent of antiquity, whose heads grew again as fast as they were chopped off. He might liken it to the zoophyte, which, though cut into separate pieces, continued to survive with a multiplied instinct. He would rather compare it to that peculiar monster on whom its mother is said to have bestowed exactly three lives and no more— K Nascenti cui tres animas Feronia mater, (Horrendum dictu) dederat : terna arna movenda ; Ter leto sternendus erat : cui tune tamen omnes Abstulit liwc animas dextra, et totidem exuit armis." The Hon. Member said that they were taunted sometimes with apportioning the Establishment of Ireland by the rule of three. How much was there to be for ten, how much for twenty, how much for fifty Protestant communicants ? This might be called an argument, a ridiculo, and though it might produce laughter and pleasure, did it ever produce conviction ? Was there ever a question of general reasonable ness—was there ever a question of degree—was there ever a question including the ingredients of amount and number, in which such an argument might not be used ? The very uni versality of it totally destroyed its force ; for it might be used, in every instance. Was not the same line of argument used on the Reform Bill ? When the number of 2,000 was taken how much ridicule was cast upon it. It was said suppose you had 1,998 in any small borough would you dis franchise it for want of two—unless indeed some good lady by graciously producing twins should step in and save the bo rough ? Were not some of those who now resorted to the same argument the first to answer it on that occasion ? For himself he would only add, that no one could estimate more highly than he did the value and the absolute necessity of re ligion. No one was more sincerely disposed to look upon hu man life as a dreary waste, as a scene of sorrow and despair, without the support of its consolations. Nothing could have induced him to support this resolution but the strongest con viction that the overgrown and unnatural extent of the Church Establishment of Ireland had materially ob4rtieted the cause of Protestantism in that most misgoverned country. Mr. GL A D STONE said his own mind was made up, and he thought more completely made up than that of many Hon. Members opposite, on the question of the appropriation of the property of the Irish Church. With respect to the dis tinction drawn between private property and corporate and re ligious property, he should say that the former, private pro perty, involved the sacredness of persons ; and the latter, reli gious property, included the sacredness of purposes. Did the Noble Lord ( Lord J. Russell), wish to violate the sacredness of Church property ? If the Noble Lord did not, he would keep it up as it was now, and apply it as nearly as possible to the pur poses it had been hitherto applied to. With respect to the arguments adduced from the change that had taken place in Church property at the time of the Reformation, he begged Hon. Members to bear in mind that at the time of the Refor mation the Legislature had completely altered their religious belief—had altered it from purely conscientious motives--and that the consequence was an appropriation of Church pro perty in unison with that change in religious sentiments.— ( Hear.) If a similar change should now take place in the opinions of the Legislature, and the different legislative bodies should agree to return to the old faith—to the Catholic creed—he considered that that would be a fair case for coming again to the original appropriation of the property of the Church. But until the great bulk of the Legislature was represented by persons of the Roman Ca tholic persuasion, he protested against the adoption of any such doctrine.--( Hear, hear.) The great grievance com plained of in Ireland was that the Protestant Establishment there was paid for by the Roman Catholic inhabit an t s . Now was such in reality the case? Was it so paid for? 'Were tithes paid for that purpose, or were not tithes rather a part of the surplus profit of the land, which went not to the cultiva tor of the soil, but to the owner of it 7—( Cries of No.) Tithe was paid by the landlord—( No, no)—and the grievances on this point complained of by the people of Ireland were rather in theory than in reality. But if there were evils arising out of this question of tithes, was not the present Government prepared to redress them ? Had the Government not a Tithe Bill in the course cf progress through the House, the object of which Bill was to place the payment of tithes where they ought to be—on the landlords 2—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") One of the arguments, and indeed the principal argument, of the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire, by which he pressed the House to agree to the invasion of the property of the Protestant Church, was that that property was not pro perly applied, nor did it carry it out for the purposes for which it was originally intended. Well, he might admit that, and suppose he also granted that there were general abuses and neglect in the administration of the Church of Ireland. Having made such an admission, was it not then fair for him to ask, had not the same general vice that prevailed in the religious government of that country pervaded also, and to a like extent, its political government? The Roman Catholics in Ireland called upon them to give up the Protestant Esta blishment there, because they were told by persons in that House, that the Protestant Church must surrender.—(No, mi.) What was the remedy proposed for the grievances of the Roman Catholics, that would make them give their sup port to the Protestant Church ?—( Hear.) In principle they proposed to give up the Protestant Establishment. If so, why ndt•propose to abandon the political Government of Ireland— to cede the repeal of the Legislative Union ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) On some admitted facts of misrule in the political government of Ireland the people of that country would call upon them to grant them the repeal of the Union. Such would be the fatal results of concessions similar to those now about to be made. As regarded the Perpetuity Fund, it ap peared from the statement made by the Right Hon. and Gal lant General ( Sir H. Hardinge) the other night that it would be in debt for fifteen years to come, so that the period was not as yet arrived when the question of a surplus could be raised with respect to that fund. The amount of tithes was, in round numbers, 540,000/. per annum. On that a deduction of one quarter would take place by the Tithe Bill now passing through that House, which would reduce the ori ginal amount to about 400,0001. a year. Then the amount arising out of glebe lands, as stated by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), was 68,0001. a year. Under the Tithe Bill now proposed by Government, there would lie Are fur ther deductions, on the 400,0001. The first, in the shape of a rent charge on the land, would be followed by a diminution of the income of the Church to the amount of ten per cent. Then a taxation of livings would amount to 20,0001. a-year, and the suspension of livings in some places would leave 400,000/. a year as the parochial revenue of Ireland. Could that sum be considered as enormous for the Irish Church ? The number of benefices in Ireland was 1,450, and according to the returns the average yearly income of each was 2751. Now, was that too much? Why, taking the Scot& stan dard, which was considered the beau ideal of economy, the average income of benefices by it was 2501. a year.--( "No," from Mr. Warburton.) If it fell short of that in Scotland, he would ask whether 275/. a year was too much for a Minis ter in Ireland, when it was considered how many duties he had to perform, and how many expenses he was obliged to go to. Was it anything extraordinary that there should be 400,0001. a year allowed for the parochial institutions of, the Irish Church ? The Noble Lord who brought forward the present motion calculated that the number of persons belonging to the Established Church in Ireland was 750,000; now he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that they amounted to upwards of a million, or at least to a mil lion.—( Oh, oh, from the Opposition.) If he was wrong in his calculation with whom rested the fault ? Did it not rest with the Noble Lord whose conduct brought on the discus sion of this question before they had received full informa tion on it ?—( Hear.) Allowing that there were a million of Protestants in Ireland, the result would be that it would give to each of 1,450 rectors a flock of 700 souls, and that in a country where those souls were scattered over a wide extent, and lived at a great distance the one from the other. Was that amount too small to occupy the attention of a clergy man ? He thought that it was not. Taking eight millions to be the population of Ireland, and 1,000 persons to be placed under the spiritual care of each minister, and allowing 300/. a year to be the income of every minister, the result would be that the parochial revenue ought to be upwards of 2,000,000/. instead of 400,0001., its present amount.--( Hear, and a laugh.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh and think it ab surd to assert that one elergyman ought to be allowed to every thousand, and that each clergyman ought to be allowed 300/. a year. The above amount would be four or five times what the present income of the clergy was, and it would be six times their income when the property of the Church was placed on a sure and satisfactory footing, as it would be by the measures in the contemplation of the present Government. He considered that the proposition to which the Noble Lord asked them to assent was alike impracticable and unnecessary ; that it was, moreover, unjust, because the only principle on which the Protestant Establishment could be maintained was that it was founded on truth..—( Hear.) As a Government was bound to maintain that religion which con tained the greatest proportion of good with the smallest mix ture of error, on that ground he contended they ought to maintain the Protestant religion and give up the Roman Ca tholic. It was refreshing to the House to have its attention recalled from the lower and minor features of the question to its higher parts, as it was last night by the noble and high minded speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland.—( Hear.) He would not eulogize that speech —any praise of his would be useless—but seeing that it 'had changed the character of the debate he thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to it. The most important consequences would attend the success of the motion before the House. In the first place it would enfeeble and debase, and then altogether overthrow, the principle on which the Church Establishment rested..—(Hear.) The Noble Lord in vited them to invade the property of the Church in Ireland. He considered that they had abundant reasons for maintaining that Church, and if it should be removed he believed they would not be long able to resist the repeal of the Union, and then they would become fully aware of the evil of surrender ing the principle the Noble Lord called upon them to give up. —( Hear, hear.) The remedy of the Noble Lord was a mi serable refuge from the adoption of a bad principle. Hon. Members were called upon to accede to that principle ; they were called upon to support a religion as if existing de facto, and not founded on the true basis of religion. In New England formerly the Government called upon each in dividual to support the religion he belonged to. As soon as that system was known in this country it was called the Ame rican system, and immediately abandoned here, and it only now existed by tradition in America. The system they were now called upon to agree to was in its essence transitory, and yet it involved the existence of all Church Establishments. He hoped that he should never live to sec the day when such a system should be adopted in this country, for the consequence of it to public men, and to the character of the country, would be lamentable beyond all description. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that the Hon. Member who had last spoken had praised the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) ; but that was rather surprising, for the Right Hon. Baronet said that he opposed the motion on con_ scientious grounds, whilst the Hon. Member's opposition was of a contingent nature. The Hon. Member said that if the time should arrive when the Legislature should be formed of a majority of Catholics, then would he feel bound in matters of religion to bend to them. The people of Ireland would be more gratified by the concession of the principle now con tended for, than by a removal of two-thirds of the taxes now imposed on them for the support of a religion they did not be long to. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir James Graham) was guilty of a strange inconsistency, for he now said that he would not vote for the present qUestion ' since it involved the appropriati on o f corporate property. When he saw the Right Hon. Baronet associated with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) he could not help looking upon him as one of those insignificant persons whom the Noble Lord said he carried about him in his pocket. On the amendment to the address the Right Hon. Baronet said he would not vote for it, because it did not go far enough on the subject of Corporation Reform. They were taunted with a want of fairness and con sistency by the Right Hon. Baronet the Paymaster of the Forces for opposing the present Government, when, on the questions of Irish tithes and the marriage of Dissenters, it gave fuller measures than those proposed by the Government of last year. Was it unfair or inconsistent to wish this year, on great questions that involved the interests of the people, to go farther than last year ? Were they still to allow the Church to remain always recipient, and never try to make it donative? Was that a principle never to be broached ? Why, it was car ried into effect by the measures of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who took from the landlord and the tenant in order to better secure the property of the Church in Ireland. With regard to the absurd distinctions which had been drawn in favour of Church Froperty, let it be recollected that all property, not excepting landed property, was only protected by the law, and that tithes were the creation of the law. As to the principle being a precedent for the diversion of the corporate funds of Liverpool to the completion of a ship canal between Kingston and Dublin, the proposition was ridiculous, and if it had proceeded from any Hon. Member of less reputa- ton than the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J. (:raharn) would have been met with shouts of laughter. The Hon. Member, after declaring that the present Ministry would in troduce their measures only for the purpose of retaining their seats, and that the people were now only demanding their rights, the first of which had been restored to them by the Emancipation Bill, said that the applications of the people had heretofore been met with Coercion Bills and martial law. The admission that some change was necessary, entirely justified the agitation that had been resorted to, and even if it did not lot them as men, and not as legislators, place themselves in the situation of the people of Ireland, who were compelled to sup port Ministers of a different creed, and then candidly declare whether or not mortal men suffering 'under such grievances , could have been more gentle in their proceeedines. Let Hon. Members ask themselves what would be their feel ings if an unwarrantable claim to ascendancy was placed be: tween them and their just rights. To speak of the number of Irish acres belonging to Protestants was ridiculous ; no longer was the question one of pounds, shillings, and pence. Whether the Ministerial Tithe Bill was or was not a beneficial measure—whether it went beyond that agreed to by. the Melbourne Administration—had no connection with the ques tion then before the House.—( L ou d cr i es o f " H ear , hear.") The question involved a great and important pro' ciple, upon which the subject of tithes must hereafter be con sidered. They had no right to take from the landlord for the purpose of giving to the Church ; and yet under the present system such was the practice. In a bad season the landlord reduced the rent of the tenant, but no reduction was made by the Clergyman, who, upon averag es p rev i ous l y fi xe d, exacted tithes to the full amount, and in the same proportion that the very best of seasons only could afford. If the of th! Noble Lord were fairly carried out, it was his well-considere d opinion that the cause of the Protestant religion would be ma terially served. The Clergy would be compelled to pSY greater attention to their duties, and the disgraceful conten tions between those who professed different creeds would be extinguished. The Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Jame s , , Graham) had asked 'of what u se wou ld b e t h e rec ognition 1 that principle, when at the ut mos t 100,0001. was t he amount . which would benefit the pe o pl e o f I re l an d. B ut 100,000 1 . , though nothing in the estimation of the Right Hon. Ba ronet, was of great importance to the impoverished peasantry These, however, were not put forward as objections when the celebrated Bill with the 147th clause was before the House. Since that time, in proportion to the enlargement of the views of the Noble Member for Devonshire, the opinions of the Noble Member for Lancaster and the Right Hon. Member for Cum berland had become narrow and unpopular. Would the country continue to tolerate the neutrality of that party—a n eutrality which in these times a moun t e d t o a cr i me ? W ou ld they al low, such an army of occupati on i n th a t h ouse ? — (A Would they allow the Noble Lord and his party to sit on t he flanks of the Government—( A laugh)—and at the same tim e to declare that the Government possessed not their confidence —that their measures were f ar f rom affording them satisfaction ? A more anomalous, and a more ridiculous, opposition ,wa s never heard of. The question before the House was tants; mount to one of confidence or n o con fid ence i n t h e pre Administration. The speeches which had been made from this side of the House had afforded him much pleasure, and he hoped that when they were read by the people the s e ntiment: they contained would inspi re a grea t er con fid ence i n that House than had ever yet be en entertained. Greatly cli it gratify him that so much respect was now paid to the Irish Members. During the last _Session they were treated with disrespect and contempt. Whence the alteration had no; ginated he could not say—but certainly a more decorous Ine' gratifying attention was now observed towards the Represen tatives of Ireland. The Hon. Member then adverted toth e non-residence of the Irish Protestant Clergy, and declarw a that the Rector of his own parish he had never seen, nor hi the oldest inhabitant.—(A l a u g h.) Th e curate li ve d out °t the parish, the clerk resided at a distance of fourteen mile s From the church, and the sexton sold spirits without a licens e in the churchyard.—(A laugh.) Thi s h e state d b e f ore , h t .' t the Right Hon. Representati ve o f th e U n i vers i ty o f Dublin was enabled to deny it, because the clerical authoridl fearing an exposure from the f requent d e b ates on t h e Iris Church, took care to introduce pr o t em p ore a more i m prorr discipline. If the recognition o f th e pr i nc i p l e o f the ISTobid Lord's motion would cause a saving of only 1,0001. h e Won strenuously advise the House to adopt it. Such a cor e , would show to the Irish people th e d e t erm i nat i on o f Peril" ment to correct all existing abuses; and indeed the principle rather than the amount of th e t ax was cared for by the people. Give them an interest in the tax levied upon them—give them an advantage to the b ene fit of five shillings on ly—and they would willingly pay th e o th er fif teen s hilli ngs. Sooner o r later must the great principle be affirmed. If not, the pe°P, e would be rou se d t o ma d ness . Did t h e H ouse think t h a t ta people who had been so clamourous and vehement when dis couraged by Hon. Members would be less vehement, less de termined, to attain their point now that their right was t l i e ; knowledged and their clai ms encourage d b y no i ncons iderable number of the Members of that House ? Did not Hon. Meet hers opposite foresee that their friends they would place in $ most odious position, and their enemies in the most advanta geous situation they could wish for ? The Right Hon. ber for Cumberland said th a t th e art i c l es of the Union would be violated, but he would ask whether in 1823 they were 0° violated by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home DePat t : ment ? The Right Hon. Baronet also declaimed on the ac tation for a repeal of' the Union; but he wou ld as k whether 3 was not better that the decision of a question should be u pon. its merits alone, and no t i n re f erence to other exc i t i ng topics?To this he would add th a t if t h ey recogn i sed this principle they would considerably narrow the discussion as to the policy of repealing the Union—they would enforce its considerati on and disposal on, its own immediate merits. He should feel I t his duty to support the Noble Lord who had introduced ti le motion, and the Noble M em b er f or N ort h um b er l and, b o th 0 t whom had acted laudably in marching in the spirit of the ag e ' The movements of the Noble Member for Lancashire and the Right Honourable Baronet were retrograde, while those of the other two Noble Lords' were progressive, and in accordanc e with the spirit of the Reform Bill, and the rapid march Ofil l . A ; tellect. From the Noble Member for Devonshire the Im' people had much to exp ec t. H e truste d t h ey wou ld mee t with no disappointm en t. H e truste d t h at t h e prac tice ° t making the Irish Members a mere dead weight in a divishl e ; and of bandying them from one party to another, would nev e id again be resumed. He t rus t e d th at h ence f orwar d they Wfalbe be invariably found voting with an i mpos i ng ma j or ity in t oe cause of civil and religious liberty throughout the world. cit . could have wished that the Ri g ht H on . B aronet oppos ite (Sit R. Peel) was u n f e tt ere d, f or h e was sure h i s goo d send would not have suffered him to hesitat e as t o th e propriety of se_ ceding to the principle. B u t, un f ortunate l y , t h e - Right Il e: Baronet was hampe r ed by hi s connect i on w i t h a party ill t possession of whom an unrighteous ascendancy had long r i ; maimed. The members of that party were in many, perhalr h „, r most instances excellent l an dl or d s an d most respecta bl e c oon gentlemen, but as magistrates they acted tyrannically, an_ no degree mitigated the effects of the political as cends"; they possessed. They had b een t o ld t h at i n every pariephe„. lieland dwelt a tyrant wh o assume d t h e name of " Th e ple ;" but there was also a tyrant who called himself t he law, the constituti on , th e re li g i on, an d the loyalty of bb country." To this ty ran t a c h ec k must b e g i ven, an d he lithe every reason to belie ve th a t t o recogn i se an d carry o ut principle of the Noble Lord's motion would effect that ject, and considerably benefit the people of Ireland. 1 141 _, 4 , 0 glad to find that he and the Noble Lord had hit upon a quoni e on which they could agree—(Laughter and cheers.) was glad to find himself assisted by so powerful a P a ' o f Under what circumstances he received that assistance 5y5. 4 . 40 no importance.—(L aug ht er an d c h eers. ) Th e principle Tdd, all he looked to, and in explaining the justice and pro ll ie operation of that p r i nc i p l e , h e h a d f e l t i t hi s d uty to trout the House at such length. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL felt that the House u llsl , l , without any suffi c i en t ev id ence, e i t h er d ocumentary or et" -or wise, to justify the adoption of any legislative measure' p a the sanction of any important resolution. On that t be r alone he would no t support the motion of the Noble e el s . for Devonshire. B u t even if t h e House had been in Y ,- it session of the requisite data he should have objected to on other, and, as he believed, on far higher, considerat ion " —(Cheers.) He objected to the principle involved ev en its • the language of the motion ; he objected still more to ultimate application, as disclosed, if not by the Noble 02 ' he ber himself, at least by the Hon. Members by whore ber had been followed. He admitted that the Noble Me n lo! for Devonshire in the speech introductive of his m otion eo adopted a mo re mo d era t e tone t h an t h e H on. Gentlemo,) who afterwards spok e ' rom his side of the House,--(Che e a. Some of the t o pi cs , it seeme d to hi m , were calculated l to increase the party an i mos it y so unfortunately prevalen t : or Ireland, and to i n fl ame to a st ill hi g h er p i tch t h e 10 00 choly spirit of religious discord and strife.—(Cheers.) bac k. knew not why. the Noble Lord th oug ht proper t o goo A an d to the early history o f th e connex i on between Engle!'" a ti Ireland.—(Cheers.) He knew not why the Noble went back to the barbarous legislature of our Edward s re . (Cheers)—or even of much later periods—why b e an of ferred to Acts of the B r iti s h P ar li ament to w hi c h nom be, whatever party, or whatever religious persuasion he raigh t ..,.. could look back without f ee li ugs o f t h e d eepest reg re t ; ce d (Cheers.) He knew n o t w h y t h ose top i cs were introd ool into this discussion—(Ch eers )— nor , a b ove a ll , did he 1 ‘ why the Noble Lord sh ou ld say to t h e C at h o li cs o f Irelat i l_ on . " From the justice o f E ng l an d you h ave not hi n g to —if anything you get, by force must it be extorte?_ l i c s (Much cheering.) Why did he say this to the Catn_o_lo, of Ireland—why did he say this of the English House of u r u er . moms ?—( Much cheering, amidst which an Hon. Mere NT claimed " No, no.") He was not misrepresenting the If the Lord. What he understood him to say was this one House of Commons do not sanction my if they will not hold out to you, the Catholics of 1r e1e t ,...41 prospect of the removal of the Irish Established th e they will not promise the relief which my resolution cono then what I say to you is Clamour for the repeal„,, o ber Union.' "—( Great cheering,) Did not the Noble 'lase for Devonshire say this to the Members of the Englis ll , o „ t ion of Commons :—" Although it is my belief that the a" gsta of my resolution is pregnant with danger even to the_ it je resolutiod, blished Church in England—although I believe thal ig h e d pregnant with danger to the most sacred, the most che'.. e for of tine institutions of the country, yet I ask you to vu_' vote that moti on , an d if you do not, I call on you no t t° Thus against the Repeal of the Union.—(Loud Cheers.) lisle had the N o bl e L or d addressed the Members of t he of House of Commons. Now he ( Sir W. Follet) as a m ele b, be that House a n d as a member of the Established Chi"ye the lieving in hi s consc i ence that if this resolution did rec ° untry c e sanction of th e H ouse the Established Church i n this _ e ff e ct, would be endangered ; believing that such would be the ta the lre could not by any motive be induced to give his vote.! rt was Noble Lord's motion. And whenever any resolution t he brought forward for the repeal of the Union, eit he , r eer ing) Noble Lord or by any of his new associates—( Muc - 111 .. e t; t o bill —he should feel that he did not discharge his "" • .. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1835.