The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-24 00:00:00

1 - ~1 U. ~; ~: • e „ _ -• IMO necessity there was for a Peotcetant Church. lie did not believe in what the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir IL Inglis) called the expansive force cf Pro testantism.—( Hear, hear.) The next point to which he objected in the Bill was the great discretionary power which k was proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant. He objected to the delegation of so great a power to an, Berson whatever. He had every reason to suneose, from what he knew of the Noble Lord who now filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that he would exercise any power entrusted to him fairly and justly ; but the powers proposed in this instance to be conferred were so great, that unless Parliament fatal definitively the point at which the reduction should posi tively commence, he feared the whole object of the Bill might be neutralized, if it should fall into unfriendly hands in the person of the Lord Lieutenant. He objected, therefore, to the 60th, 61st, and 70th clauses. all of which gave great eliscretionaes powers to the Lord Lieutenant, both as to the Appointment of ministers, and the amount of salary they should receive. He would not quarrel with the principle of univer saiity, as laid down by his Noble Friend below him—that principle, which said that there should be no part of the coun try which could be regarded as out of the pale of the Establish ed Church ; but he must say, that he regarded the 5/. which, tinder the provisions of the Bill, might redistributed in 150 in stai.ees to the officiating - ministers of adjoining parishes, for looks ing aw^r the spiritual wants of other parishes in which there was a single Protestantresident, as money completely thrown away. Another point to which he objected, was the preservation of the whole, stab of the Irish Church. He thought that one - Bishop for every province in Ireland, with 4,000/. a year, and the Archbishop . for the whole country with 6,000/. or 7,000/. a year, would be' apply sufficient. If lie went into any argumett upon the pc,;:qt,,_ he might say that the whole Pro testant populatforeof Irelai;4 -amounted only to 100,000 souls, that there was double that arnolant in the diocese of London alone, for whose spiritual governii:4l4 there was but one Bishop, and that in the new diocese of :‘.ateellester which the Eeetesulstical Commissioners proposed to establish, there would not be less than 1,200 000. He for onJ, -therefore, could not perceive any necessity that existed for preseassing so - large ai, neer of not did ha see any thillg, irreligious in extendirg the provisions of the Church Tempo ralities Bill, to reduce the number of i;isliopa to the lowest possible amount consistent with a proper episcopal superin tendence of the Church, and to appropriate the revenues of the reduced bishoprics in aid of the fund provided for the parochial .clergy, and for the advancement of the moral and religious instruction of the poorer classes. lie now came to the arguments advanced in the course of the last night against the Government plan, and more especially to the arguments advanced by the Right Honourable Baronet ( Sir James Graham) the Member for Cumberland, whom he regretted not to see in his place at that time, and whose absence lie confessed be was not very well able to ac count for, because the Right Honourable Baronet must naturally expect, after the language he used last evening to wards his old associates—after the bitter reproaches lie had thrown out against them—after the deliberate accusation that they were guilty of a sacrilegous violation 'of .the rights of the Church—after the application of such terms to these with whom he formerly acted in concert, the Right Hon. Baronet must naturally have expected that the first person who rose this evening would be anxious to reply to him.—( Hear, hear.) In the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, therefore, he should not be prevented from using every argument he should have felt it his duty to use had he been present. He would not use any stronger terms than he should have used in the Rieht lion. Baronet's presence ; but his absence on the oc casion should not induce him to abstain from commenting on the Right Hon. Baronet's speech in the terms in which he thought it deserved.—( Hear.) His Noble Friend (Lord Howick) said he had listened to that speech with astonish ment. ( Here an Hon. Member on the Opposition side made an observation.) The Gallant Officer opposite said that the Noble Lord replied to it. The Noble Lord did reply, and replied to it most admirably. But, at the same time, he (Mr. Ward) admitted at once, that the Right Hon. Baronet's speech was a speech of no ordinary length—of no ordinary propor tion—not hastily prepared, and therefore not hastily to be answered. The Noble Lord (Howick) said that he had lis tened to the speech with astonishment. He (Mr. Ward) had listened to it with more than astonishment—ho would not use a harsh term ; but he would say he had listened to it with grief—( Hear, hear)—with grief to see a man, whose name had been attached to measures of reform and liberal improvement, so completely apostatized from his party—( Cheers)—as to hold in that House sentiments of the most narrow-minded and bigotted fanaticism.—( Cheers.) In his speech of last night, the Right lion. Baronet unsaid all that he had previously as serted in the course of his political career. The Right Hon. Baronet knew full well that we never could expect stability in the order of affairs in Ireland, or in this country, until the Irish Church question was settled—yet lie last night held language utterly at variance with that knowledge, and in which, as if not satisfied with his own apostacy, he took the opportunity of alluding invidiously to those with whom he formerly acted.— (" No, no," and cheers.) And all this the Right lion. Ba ronet did with the word " toleration" constantly on his lips. He (Mr. Ward) thanked GOD that his views of toleration were very different • from those of the Right Hon. Baronet. —( Hear, hear.) He took his principle of - what really constituted Christianity and toleration from a very high au thority, and as the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Gra ham) was indulged by the House in reading more than one passage which ho conceived to bear on this argument, he trusted that the House would indulge him by listening to one extract from a work of one of the most distinguished orna ments of the Established Church—he alluded to BishopWat aose_4 Hear, hear.) Bishop Watson said—" By Christianity I mean not that a man should pass his life in theological con troversy, or perplex himself in estimating the worth of the se veral systems of faith with which the Christian world has, un happily, been oppressed, but that he should be habituated to consider the Gospel as containing a rule of life, which nothing should ever induce him to disparage or neglect. I scruple not in giving the name of Christian Churches to assemblies 'of men uniting together for public worship, though they may differ somewhat from each other in doctrine and discipline, provided they all agtile in the fundamental principle of the Christian re ligion, that is the Christ, the Saviour of the world. Each Church is apt to impute not. merely error, but crime, to every other Church. This imputation I think extremely wrong. It is judging another man's servant. It is assuming dominion over _ another man's faith. It is presuming that we are rendering God service, when it may be that we are merely supporting our own prejudices, flattering our own self-sufficiency, and paying homage to our own intellectual pride." Now that was Zdefinition of Christianity in which he (Mr. Ward) most cordially concurred, and he wished the Right Hon. Baro,iet had gathered his principles cf toleration and his conception of the Christian religion from the writings of Bishop Wat son.—( Hear.) Here the Hon. Gentleman went into a state ment to show that the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir James Gra ham) had not taken a correct view of the feeling of the peop'a of Scotland upon this subject. All the great towns of Scot land—Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Leith, Dundee, and fair proportion of the Scotch counties—bad returned liberal Nlembers to Parliament, every one of whom was in favour of the present proposition. God forbid, therefore, that he should so belie tho sentiments of that literal and enlightened na tion as to say their sentiments were fairly represented by the miserable address from the Synod of Dumfries, to which the Right Honourable Baronet had referred.— ( Loud cheering.) What was the Synod of Dumfries ? I low was it constituted ? Was the I louse aware that thirty of its members were actually appointed by the Duke of Buecleuch ? —(Cries of" Hear, hear.") Such-was the fact : and it was his firm belief that the address to which they had pledged themselves was not an address of their own manufacture. He believed it was sent up from somewhere about this quarter of the country.—( Hear, hear.) It smelt of the South.—( Hear, bear.) It savoured strongly of Exeter hall.—(Great laugh ter and cheering.) If it were. submitted to the other Synods of Scotland, with a fair deseription, not a calumnious descrip tion, but a air description of the provisions of the present Bill, he believed it would be universally repudiated by them. There were one or two other points on which the Right Hon. Baronet touched, and on which he (Mr. Ward), though sen sible he had already trespassed too long on the patience of the House, was still anxious to say a few words.—(" Go on.") To his great astonishment the Right lion. Baronet had quoted from the works of Mr. Cobbett—and certainly the quotation was not a very happy or a very appropriate one. He quoted Mr. Cobbett not to decide the point, but for the purpose of supporting the opinion that tithei were as much the property of the Church as family estates were the property of a gen tleman.—(hear, hear.) NOW the misfortune of quoting from Mr. Cobbett was, that if in one place lie had as serted a particular opinion, with a little industry one might almost always find a direct answer to it in another.— (Hear, hear, and loud laughter.) If the Right Honourable Ba ronet were ready to make one admission, and that was, that Mr. Cobbett, like himself, grew wiser as lie, grew older, and that his last opinion, therefose, was - infinitely more valuable than his first—if the Right Hon. Baronet would admit that, lie ( Mr. Ward) would take the last work of. Me. Cobbett, which he entitled " A Legacy to Parsons"—( Hear, hear) — and would quote a passage, which he thought afforded a pretty good answer to the proposition advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet.- - Mr. Cobbett said, " The great question now at issue is thia—Has the Parliament the rightful power to as sume, to take possession of, and to dispose of the tithes and all other property commonly called Church property, in what ever manner it may think proper?" And further on, he an swered the question thus :—" We arc now going to see, that to tither, to oblations, to bishops' lands,. to anything that you po s sess us clergy of the Church, you have no prescriptive right, any more than the Duke of Wellington has to his estate of Stratlifieldsayoe which he possesses in virtue of an Act of Parliament, and solely in virtue of that Act of Parliament." The argument of Mr. C,l)bett was, that what the law consti tuted, it could change ; but the argument of the Right lion. Baronet ( Sir James Graham) Was, that what no law consti tuted, no law could change. ee, Lord STANLEY was understood to v ask, what was the ground of the Act of Parliament that settled Strathfieldsaye on the Duke of Welling - ton ? Mr. WARD replied that the ground of that Act still sub sisted. That ground was the national gratitude—(Cheers from Lord Stanley); and he admitted it would be unjust to repeal that Act. Mr. O' CONNELL observed that the Duke of Welling . might forfeit the property given to him by the public will ; and that Parliament might take it away from him.—( Cheers from the Opposition, and particularly from Lord Stanley-) Mr. WARD did not mind those cheers. He would re peat, that it would be a most unjust act to take that property away from the Duke of Wellington, because the grounds on which he held it were subsisting ; hiit the question was, whe ther the original grounds on which the Church property in Ireland was held by that Church, did any longer subsist ? (( Ministerial cheers.) It was not enough to say that ori ginally there were grounds for the Church holding this pro. perty. Ile called upon the Right lion. Baronet and the F ,i' Noble 'Lord opposite to make out a whole case, and rest upon half a case. Let them prove to him that- those grounds which originally subsisted did still subsist.—(Minis terial cheers.) He would contend that a state of things had arisen in Ireland which could not be healed without trenching upon the property of the Church.—(llear, hear.) It was the inalienable right of the Legislature to effect a set tlement by an interference with that property, if the peace of Ireland _could not be attained without it; and in attempting to effect that settlement, the Legislature was bound to attend to the , interests, not merely of the clergy, but of the community at large. The Right lion. Baronet had also argued that the whole Le of landed property in Ireland was vested in the Protes tants, and that as the provisions of the Church came out of the property of the owners of the soil, and not from the occu piers, it was the most ufijust thing in the world for the Ca tholic community to complain of it. Now, if the Establish ment was in fact supported by the property of the Protestants, then he would say, let the Poestestants take upon themselves the whole charge of the Church, and that would settle the question at once. They then might make what provisions they thought necessary for their own wants. Ile saould be perfectly willing to make that bargain with them. It would most certainly be a much better mode of settling the ques tion than the mode proposed by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir James Graham) who wished the House to adopt the old sys tem of building Churches and glebe-houses—of sending out persons to convert Roman Catholics to Protestantism—and all the other means that had been formerly taken to uphold the Established Church in Ireland. But why, he would ask, go back to this obiolete system ?—( Cheers.) Did not the Right lion. Baronet know that it had cost this country no less than 1,400,0001. from the tirac of the Union up to the year 1825, to carry on that system, when the grants were suspended in con sequence of the recommendations contained in a Report made to the House of Commons on the subject, which pointed out its inefficiency? This expenditure, too, in support of that system, was going on at a time when every . other country was outstripping us in the great work of national education. Let them look at the case of Prussia, where they might see in practice the very principle, to the support of which the Government of this country were desirous of devoting any siirrius of the tithe fund which might be found to subsist after pros isturg, for the legitimate wants of tLe Protestants in Ireland. In Prussia there was a population of 12,000,000, of which 7,000,000 were Protestants. Its that country there were no less than 1,664,218 children actually receiving edu cation in the Government schools from the general funds of the nation. " The masters and inspectors (said the law) must most carefully avoid every kind of constraint, or inter ference with the children on account of their particular creed." Protestants and Catholics were received in the same schools, and even Jews were allowed to send their children to those schools ' • and private religious instruction was to be g iven to the children as their parents might desire. They were merely instructed in those principles in which all Christians of all sects could concur. So great was the care not to impede the progress of instruction in any way, that it was stated that no particular books or mode of tuition were prescribed, in order to impose no shackles upon the constant onward course of improvement. This was the very system which the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), so much to his own honour, had introduced into Ireland, and which he (Mr. W.) believed was working very well there. He wished to see that system coniieued, in order that all those religious animosities, which a f.'nntrary system was calculated to cherish, might be entirely done ii,ay---40 - reerrii) tie now ap proached the last part of the subject :.'.. 1 which he was desirous of addressing the House. He had made ;Yue general ob servations on the provisions of this Bill ; and had also taken a brief notice of some of the arguments advanced by the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for. Cumberland. He had now only to allude to the mode in which the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, proposed to deal with the Bill, by dividing it into two separate Bills, and to give to each of those measures a separate consideration, so that the House might pass them separately into a law if they felt it right to do so, or else to reject one of them and adopt the other. He readily admitted the admirable skill with which the Right Hon. Baronet left out of sight all the real objections that could be urged against his proposition. He admitted the power with which the Right Hon. Baronet had laid before them those visions of peace and conciliation to arise from the adoption of his proposition, which nobody better knew than himself could never be realized. He (Mr. Ward) looked at the question in this point of view—the LegislatUre had to deal in Ireland with an evil of long existence, and most grievous in its operation. No half measures could remove that evil—no palliatives would be of the slightest avail..—( Ministerial cheers.) They must probe the wound to the bottom—(cheers)—if they hoped to operate a cure. But this a mere commutation never could do. A commutation, without a change in the distribution of the Revenues of the Irish Chorch, was worse than use7ess. It was a cruel mockery, carried to a cruel excess. —(Loud Cheers.) . How could the Right Hon. Baronet exiect to re concile a commutation alone to the 895 paaishes which were without 50 resident Protestants, or to the 496 parishes which were without 20 Protestants, or to the 150 parishes which were without any Protestants or any Protestant Church at all? What would it matter to the people of those places, as to the shape or mode in which the money was paid, provided they were compelled to pay it in some shape, without receiving any spiritual instruction for it whatsoever ?—( Cheers.) Upon what plea, or upon what ground, he would ask, was the House to stultify itself by rescinding its former resolution—a reso lution come to a very short time ago—which stated, " that it was the opinion of this House that no measure on the sub-: ject of tithes in Ireland could lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which did not embody the principle con tained in the foregoing resolution"—that resolution being the resolution moved by the Noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, which expressly stated that any surplus of the Church revenues in Ireland, not required for the spiritual care of P ambers, should be applied to the moral and religious educ. •of all ,classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion. ' He need not remind the House that that Resolution terminated a most severe and me morable struggle within those walls. It was that Resolution which drove the Right Hon. Baronet from the lead of the Government ; it was that Resolution which constituted the vital and essential distinction between the Melbourne Cabinet and the Cabinet over which that Right Hon. Baronet pre sided. Why, then, were they to rescind it.—(Great cheering from the 'Ministerial benches.) Why were they to throw them selves open to so gross a charge of inconsistency—( Cheers) — and to proclaim to the world that a struggle, which had con vulsed this country from one end of it to the other, and which might soon possibly convulse it again, - was a mere struggle for party purposes ? ( Cheers from the Opposition, echoed back by tremendous cheers from the Ministerial benches.) What ! party purposes? If ever there was a struggle in this or any other country for a great and vital principle, that was the strug gle. But, at all events, the Noble Lord who so loudly cheered ( Lord Stanley) was the very last person in the world who ought to dispute that point.--( Loud cheering.) Upon what principle, he would ask, did the Noble Lord retire from Earl Grey's Government ?—( Cheers.) It was that principle which, unassisted, alone. and by its own intrinsic and irresistible force had broken up two Administrations already, and would most assuredly break up two more if the attempt here or elsewhere to defeat this Bill should be successful. If those who now resisted that principle, whether in this House or in the House of Lords, should succeed, and upon the strength of that suc cess again attain power, he would tell them that they would not—could not—hold that power for three short months.— ( Loud cheering. )They might appeal to the people—( Cheers) —he feared it not.—( Renewed cheers.) The people of Eng land were unquestionably in favour of the principle involved in the resolution of this House, and of those legitimate changes which his Majesty's Government were desirous to effect in the Establishment of the Irish Church.—( Cheers.) They were tired of these endless discussions—(Cheers)—and anxiously wished that this matter were fairly and finally settled. — Ile believed that the adoption of this Bill afforded the only chance of effecting that settlement. Let them look at the position in which the House would place itself, it' they re scinded this resolution. This point was adverted to by the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Cumberland last night ; but he, as being a late member of the Government, was pro bably under some restraint; but he (Mr. Ward) could address himself to the subject as an independent member, and he would say that if they receded from the principle of this resolution, they would stultify themselves, and put the argument into their enemies hands, and give up all hopes of ever settling this great question. As the rights of the Legislature on this question now stood, the consent of the House- of Commons was necessary to any settlement of it, because there was a mil lion- of money involved ; which had been partly, and which was still partly to he granted to the Clergy of Ireland. Sup pose this House should at once consent to that grant. and the other branch of the Legislature should then so alter this Bill as to enable the Irish Clergy to hold their livings in the mariner they now held them, did the House believe that they should ever have any change in the appropriation of the Irish Church revenue ? They knew what was the feeling en tertained upon this subject from the Noble Lord opposite ( Lora Stanley,) and by, he might say, an innumerable body of the Lords who were members of the other House of Parliament. They advocated their own principles, and so did we. Why should this House concede to them ?—( Cheers. ) We, the Commons of England, consent to a compromise— to a sacrifice of this million—upon certain terms, and upon a certain understanding; and that understanding is, that that million shall purchase a final and a fair settlement of this question. But the Right Honourable Baronet opposite pro poses that we shall make the sacrifice without obtaining the result—to pay for the cure, and yet perpetuate the disease? He proposes that we should, by our own hands, end by our own act snd deed, furnish the only means by which the ex istirg system can possibly be bolstered up. To that propo sition, I, for one, will not consent. It would be unwise, undignified,. dishonourable, for the House of Commons to do so. I say dishonourable—because the House is pledged to apply a remedy to the existing evils. Indeed it is doubly pledged to it, pledged, indirectly, on the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin upon the repeal of the Union—and pledged by the more recent resolution which dis tinctly bears upon this question. If we give up the point res pecting the million advanced to the Irish clergy, without ob taining a settlement of this question, a settlement of it never can be obtained. ,Were we afterwards to send up a Bill to the House of Lords on the subject of appropriation, it would be no sooner sent up than scorned. I ask, then, is it wise, is it pru dent, is it safe (setting aside all other considerations involved in this question) to permit the existence of a constant source of irritation, and of difference between the two branches of the Legislature ? Is it safe to trust to time, to circumstance, to chance, the aettlement of a question which is now in our hands and in our power ?—( Cheers.) You tell me that, by insisting on sending up this Bill to the House of Lords, we shall ruts the risk of a collision. lam no friend to a cal. sion ; lam no friend to agitation. I wish sincerely to see the great and best interests of this country promoted by the settle ment of this great question.—(Cheers.) I wish to see some thing like StebiPty i n the Government of this country ; but I Tan SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 24 1837\ I;new , yes never can have that :3: ability oltil this question be finally settled.—( Cheers. ) I look with horror at the idea of trusting the settlement of this question to chance and to time; and to leave the Irish people, who are now in a state of san guine expectation, with their hopes chilled, and their feelings goaded by constant irritation, into an attempt to cut the knot themselves by violent means.—( Cheers.) Ido not charge the Right lion. 'Baronet with contemplating any such result; but I do, notwithstanding, hold that nothin.. ' - less than an aggra vated state of irritated keeling can folios the disappointment of those hopes that are now excited in the minds of the Catho lie people of Ireland. I therefore most strongly urge upon this house the necessity of at once goirv* into committee on this Bill, undivided in its provisions—of discussing it fairly and calmly in that committee—and of trying to come to some understanding respecting it. But, at the same time, I also urge upon the house the. absolute necessity of refusing to at tempt any oti.er settlement of the question, than that which will connect a change in the appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church with a change in the mode of collecting those revenues.—( Cheers. ) Sir ROBERT BAT E SON complained of the attack which the Right Hon. Member for St. Alban's had made on the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland. It would have been in better taste if the Hon. Member had waited until that Right Hon. Baronet was in his place, before he had made his attack. He did not wish to say anything irritating, but when lie heard the violent observations of the Hon. Member — Mr. WARD explained. !le moved the adjournment last night, therefore be had no reason to suppose that the Right Hon. Baronet would not have been in his place to-day. But-seeing the Noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, present (Lord Stanley), he (Mi. Ward) would not lose the argument which he wished to urge in consequence of the absence of the Right Hon. Baronet, however he might feel himself called upon, by reason of that absence, to refrain from urging it so strongly as he otherwise might have done. Sir ROBERT BATE SON understood that another Hon. ' Member had moved the adjournment. With regard to the measure before ,the House, he considered it not a measure of peace to his unhappy country ; but that it would be the means of promoting religious animosities, and would contribute to a civil and religious warfare—perhaps a rebellion in Ireland. If it should succeed, what would be its effect on Protestants ? There bad lone been a systematic attempt to put down Pro testants in Ireland. This was part and parcel of that system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had attacked gentlemen on his (Sir R. Bateson's) side of the House, with having changed their opinions. This did not apply to him, for he had always been an advocate for an efficient and useful reform of the Pro testant Church. An. -Hon. Member (Mr. Walker) had told the House that he approved of this measure, because it would Christianize the Protestant Church. He also told the House that he was a Protestant • but if those were his opinions, he (Sir R. Bateson) thought the sooner he left that church, the sooner would he act in consistency with his opinions. The Noble Lord (Lord Howick) talked last night of the enormities of the Irish Protestant Church. If the Noble Lord, as a member of the Cabinet, thought such enormities existed, it would be better for him and his colleagues at once to say—Let us extinguish that Church ; let the Roman Catholic Church be established in its place. It was altogether a most extraordinary speech from a Cabinet Minister, and much more worthy of a mob orator in Dublin. He did, in his conscience, believe that it was from the fear of censure from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, who had certainly more power than the Noble Lord, and all the Cabinet besides—that the Cabinet had determined to ad vocate this measure. Allusion had been made to the Irish and Scotch Members being able to carry this measure. It was true, for a majority of English Members never would carry it through the House. But it was his conscientious opinion, that the Roman Catholic Members had no right to give their vote upon this question.—( Laughter.) Mr. SHEIL said that the Hon. Baronet, who had desig nated himself as the representative of the intelligence of Pro testant Ireland, and afforded such proofs of his capacity to fulfil the functions which lie was deputed to discharge, had, in die conclusion of his speech, contradicted the commencement. Ae had referred to a powerful-party by which the Government were supported ; and ,yet in the outset he had spoken of the Irish Whig Members in a tone of depreciation. He (Mr. S.), approved of this Bill because it contained a great principle— that principle of which the germ was to be found in the Tem poralities Bill, and which the Noble Lord opposite had had the merit of depositing. Lord STANLEY.—No, no. Mr. SHE IL.—That Bill contained a clause providing for the suspension of benefices. Lord STANLEY.—For what purposa ? Mr. SHE IL—Some people take the will for the deed ; he should take the deed for the will. He cared not for what pur pose ; the fact was sufficient. Districts in Ireland under that Bill were to be left without a clergyman. The few Protes tant inhabitants were thus de facto deprived of the benefits of spiritual consolation. From these premises, in-fact, a conclu sion in principle was to be derived ; and lie cared not, if the premises were admitted,'whether the inference should be dis puted by one so deeply concerned in its denial. He should pass to the question before the House. The motion was se lected as the ground on which the combined (strangely com bined) opponents of the Government, are to try their, strength. No stand was made on the Corporation Bill ; the Conserva tives had the virtue not to resist what they had not the cou, rage to propose. But, on the Irish Church prejudice may be excited, fanaticism may be kindled, misrepresentation may be diffused; accordingly, round the standard of sinecurism a rally is made, and an alliance (a holy one) is formed between the Conservative party (whom no one can fairly blame) and the ex-Reformers, the antagonists of their old friends, and the friends of their old antagonists—dealers in pious philippics and religious intrigue. To popular excitement, connected with the old horror of Popery, it was manifest that these united forces look ; but they will find (to use a phrase of the Hon. Member for Tamworth) that they mistake the echo of their own delusions for the confirmation of 'public opinion.—( Loud cheers.) Where are the petitions of the people ? Have even the Cumberland yeomen stirred.—(Great cheers.) 'We have heard of a declaration from a fanatical Scotch Synod, but from the mass of the Scotch people has any remonstrance been preferred ? 'How did the majority of Scotch Members vote, on the resolution on which this Bill is founded ? No, Sir ; the people of that country look to this Government with a confidence, which appeals to antiquated theology cannot dis turb. Why was an extract from Clarendon read by the Right Hon. Baronet? Was it to produce an impression in the high est quarter ? The Right Hon. Baronet produced the passage, in which the downfal of the Motarchy was referred to the exclusion of the Bishops in the House of Lords. Now, this very passage had been adverted to, in 1831, by Mr. Croker ; and what was the reply of the Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire? These were his words .‘ At length, when Charles wanted to force Episcopacy upon Scotland, he was forced to call together that Parliament which he had for so many years determined to dispense with. But they knew him too well, to put any trust in him. When he spoke of grievances, they . spoke of subsidies ; and when they properly refused them without better security than promises, the in sincerity of which they were convinced of, he had recourse to a prompt and abrupt dissolution, and thus added wanton insult to continued injury.—( Loud cheering.) He was soon again compelled to call them together. Again he thought to tem porise, and again he met the same resistance; and his tyranny ended, as I hope tyranny ever will end, in base, and timid, and degrading coneession."—( Loud cheers.) Such is the account given by the Noble Lord opposite, .a great orator, and a most valuable historian, of the causes which led to that event, which the Member for Cumberland has attributed exclusively to the fall of the Church.—(Cheers.) But since citations from Clarendon bad been indulged in, be should presume to read one from Rapin, which bore at least as immediately upon the sub ject. Speaking of the Chnrch abuses in the reign of Henry IV., he says :—" The King demanded an aid of money of time Commons, who took occasion from thence to renew their former instances with regard to the clergy. Wickliffe 's doctrine had gained so much ground, that, the majority of the House of- Commons leaned that way. Thus biassed, the Commons pre sented two petitions to the King—one against the clergy, the other in behalf of the Lollards. In the first, they set forthe • ` That the clergy made an ill use of their riches, and consumed their incomes in a very different manner from the donor's in tent; that,their revenues were excessive, and, consequently, it was necessary to lessen them ; that by this means the kingdom's safety would be better provided for, the poor better maintained, and the clergy more attached to their duty." The clergy .considered the petition as tending to undermine all religion. This was industriously insinuated to the King',' with all the aggravation which parties concerned are capable of displaying on such an occasion.— (Loud cheers.) This passage lie re ferred to, in order to show that the doctrine of secular appro priation was not new, and that Catholics were prompt to ap ply it to their own Church when the occasion required. He should return to the matter more immediately before the House. The course pursued by the opponents of this Bill was remarkable. After the second reading they oppose the principle, before the Committee they criticize the details.. They opposed the Bill of last year on the second reading, ' although it did not contain the appropriation clause. This Bill contains an appropriation clause, and much besides, which is condemned—nothing which is approved; yet the second reading passes without either a division or a comment. Every thin g is objected to ; they who would have cut 25/. per cent. from the incomes of the clergy, complain of a sub traction from tithes; and the great author of the metallic currency, who has reduced rents to oncAialf, thinks that the Church ought not in its finances to be affected by the revo ' lutions of Mark-lane.—(Loud chem.) Will the great Cumberland political economist agree in this view ? It is insisted that there will be no surplus. If there be not, no practical harm will be done to the Church ; but the recog nition - of the principle will be a just and conciliatory tribute to the reasonable feelings of the Irish people. But how do you make out that there will be no surplus ? You expa tiate on the property of the Irish Church. Why did you always refuse a Committee on the subject ? It was repeatedly proposed by the Hon. Member fur Middlesex. You state that the revenues had been exaggerated —but what test will you employ to ascertain, then, what is the amount of the . Bishops revenues? You say that they do not 'exceed 130,000/. a year—but their amount really is 150 000/., as returned by the dignitaries themselves. Whether this ought to be con elusive I will not determine ; but this Ido know, that in cal culating the net income, the Bishops have deducted agents' fees 4;p:, all expenses incidental to the collection of their for , tunes. I know that the income of the Bishop of Armagh, which is now 17,000/. a year, will rise to 210001 a year by his own return, and that neither this increase, nor any other is included in the 150,000/. It is stated that the glebe lands of Ireland are worth only 70,0001. a year. Even the Hon. Member for Tamworth has stated that Lord Althorp has un derrated the value of the glebe lands. They are 85,000 acres (fire Irish make eight English). Most glebes have good houses on them, and 12,000/. a year is not an exaggerated estimate, But why has not a return of their value been ob.. tained ? Again, on what authority is the amount of ministers' on4ttig .icings :. , et forth ? I come to a most impogant item, Which illustrates the spirit of depreciation with which the wealth of the Church is reduced by its advocates. I hold a return of the amount of the prop er ty .so f th e minor Ecclesiastical Cor porations. It is stated to be 57,0001. a year. At what sum did Lord Althorp, before that return was made, estimate this portion of the ecclesiastical possessions? At 2,0001. But it la alleged a large portion of that sum is applicable to the .reparation of cathedrals. Granted—but still is it not Church property ? And is it not unfair to exclude it from the account?—( Loud Cheers.) But why are the surplus.fees never mentioned ? They are not fixed, permanent property; true—but in estimating the menus of livelihood of the Clergy we must take this item of sustenance into consideration. Thus it is manifest that there never has been a just and full account of Church property ; and if there has not, the blame lies with those who have refused Committees, and never given us access to the true sources of information. To the leading features in the Report, and to no other, he should tefer. What had become of the three millions of Protestanti, of which the Member for the University of Oxford had so often said so much ? There appeared to be only 852,000 Episcopal Pro • testants in Ireland, and even they included the Methodists, who were attached by so slender a tie-to the Caurch ; they had no episcopal ordination, no imposition of hands (he could not understand by what medium their clergy received the Di vine Spirit.) They might have the same faith, but they had not the same discipline, nor the same Government ; and an alien Priesthood would soon become a hostile one. But look to the Presbyterians. In the Province of Armagh (the north of Ireland) the fortress of orthodoxy, there were upwards of 600,030 Presbyterians, and there were not 600,000 Episcopal Protestants. What inference did he draw from thence? This —that the allegation that the Church is the tie between Eng land and Ireland is a fallacy.—( Hear, hear.) The Pres byterians are attached to England—they arc hostile to the Church - (so says the Moderator of the Ulster Synod, Mr. Montgomery) —the conclusion is obvious. You do not need the Church treasure to fill the military chest, out of which the garrison of Ireland (the Irish Protestants) are to be remunerated for their mercenary allegiance.—( Cheers. ) Thus far for the North ; descend to other districts. He shohld take one only—the province of Tuam. What was its eccle siastical wealth? The returns showed that the episcopal re vitsue in that province amounted to 22,000/. a year at the least. The glebe lands, prebendary revenue, and tithes amounted to at least 100,000/., including the first item. He believed that -it was much more. This was a large sum. Now came the question, " How many Protestants were there in the province ?" There were 1,100,000 Catholics, and what would the House think? 300,000 Protestants? No, Two hundred thousand? No. One? No, no ; only forty five thousand.—(Lotid cheers.) Gracious God ! one hun dred thousand a-year, for the " spiritual consolation " of forty-five thousand Protestants ! This was in itself most gross; but contrast made it monstrous. Turn from Tuam to a neigh. bouring country. Not France. because there is a foolish no tion that the French arc all infidels, and therefore no analogy can be deelved from their example. Turn to a country just near you, where there is great zeal in religion, a zeal which Protestants might regard as almost equivalent to fanaticism— turn to Belgium, your ally, for which you have sacrificed 30 much, the Catholic country with a Protestant King (we Catholics are, after all, not so very exacting)—turn to Bel gium, and what state of things do you find there? There arc four millions of Catholics. Whit hierarchy suffices for that number ? One Archbishop and four Bishops. How much money do they receive? for that, after all, is the question. Why 17,0001. a year, by which the seminaries attached to their sees, as well as their own dignities, arc sustained. Gracious Heaven ! the Irish Primate with 23,0001. a-year, and the whole Belgian hierarchy, and all their establishments, with only 17,0001. ! Pass to the priesthood. Here is the Belgian budget. I have the official document here.—( Loud cheers.) The entire Church establishment of Belgium does not cost more than the sum devoted to the salvation of 45,000 Protest ants in the province of Tuam—(Loud cheers)—and mark— the duties of the Catholic Clergy are infinitely more laborious. The. practice of confession is alone sufficient to render the functions of the Catholic priest far more onerous than those of -the Protestant pastor. And, with this small sum, religion thrives in Belgium—religion never dies except of pecuniary repletion—while the Protestant Church in Ireland, with all its wealth, makes in conversion very little or no way. But you may tell me that I ought not to refer to a foreign country : be it so. I will go to Scotland. I have been invited to travel thither by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cum berland. 1k tells me that scme Scotch Synod or other has interfered in our Irish affairs. I stop not to inquire into their rights, or their discretion. I stop not to ask whether they or their ancestors revolted against gpiscopacy, and won the en joyment of their religion with their good broad swords, and established the great principle, that the Church of the minority should riot live at the cost of the majority of the people. Putting these considerations aside,' I ask the plain question, " How much does the Scotch Church cost ?" Not certainly 300,0001. a year. There are nearly two millions of churchmen in Scotland ; they have about 300,000/. a year (I really believe less) for their spiritual wants. There a-e in Ireland not half the number, and there is nearly three times as much money.—(Loud cheers.) The advocates of the Irish Church, in talking of the amount which ought to be givers to a Protestant clergyman, refer to the sum paid by the Catholic peasantry to the Catholic priest. - Give the parson so much out of tithes, because the Catholics give so much to their priests. Out of what fund? Out of their own uncontrolled, spontaneous liberality—out of their own pockets, and out of their own hearts—( Loud cheers) — proving the success, the triumph, of the voluntary principle, the virtue of the priesthood, the gratitude of the people, the noble moral qualities that reside in the Irish people. Yes ; I speak it with pride, we maintain our priests in comfort, our hierarchy in respectability, in the Christian mediocrity that becomes them ; to the worship of our God we raise mag nificent temples, worthy of the lofty recollections associated with our religion, and with spires " whose silent finger point to heaven ;" and when, out of our own resources, we do all this, when, paupers as we are represented to be, we have thus, unaided by the State, not only given sustainment, but a just elevation to our ancient Church; - how paltry it is of Protestantism, with its enormous revenues, boasting as it does, that all the aristocracy belong to it, to come here, making a poor face, and with its coffers replenished with the public -gold, whining and whimpering about the wretched destitution to which it is reduced.—(Loud cheering.) At first view this subject seems to be a wretched dispute be tween Catholic and Protestant— a miserable sectarian contro versy. It is no such thing; it is the very self-same question by which •Cabinet after Cabinet has been annihilated—of which the Catholic Question was but a part ;—it is the struggle for .'complete political equality on the part of the overwhelming majority upon one hand, and for political ascen dancy on the part of the minority upon the other.—(Loud cheers.) There are men now living who recollect the time when the great bulk of the Irish people were reduced to a state to which serfship and helotism might be justly applied. We had no property, and we could not by law acquire it ; we had no intelligence, and all access to the sources of education was denied us ; we were not only excluded from -every poli tical privilege, but shut out from every honourable profession. Ile mass of the Irish people appeared to be a mere dull, inert, inanimate, and almost brute heap of senseless matter; yet within it the principles of vitality were contained. Those principles were by great events brought out. There are two men in this House, who, of the power of the Irish people, have had the most painful, the most dear-bought —I hope, it will prove to be the most instructive expe . - rience ; and those two men are the Members for Tamworth and for Lancashire. Both entered official life as Secre taries . for Ireland—both devoted themselves to ascendancy —and both became its victims..--s(Loud cheers.) ' In' 1813' the Member for Tamworth was appointed Secretary to the: Lord- Lieutenant ; and uniting great capacity with great anxiety to do good,. had circumstances been less untoward, and had he had just laws to administer, how different would have been his government ? But he was attached to a party which neutralized his talents and frustrated his. purpose's. He could not go to the root of the evil ; and although he now expresses a strong disrelish for Ecclesiastical abuses, of that disrelish while he was in office he gave no very unequivocal evidence, and allowed sinecures (those objects of his virtuous abhorrence), to remain undisturbed. He had no recourse, ex cept measures of regression; the Insurrection-Act was renewed, and on the 3d of June, 1814, a Proclamation was issued under his auspices, to pi event the assemblages of the people. The Catholic Board was put down ; not so the spirit of the people; it - "svgs only dormant-it never can be dead.—( Loud cheers.) It was resuscitated in that great confederacy which embraced an active people, and made such a display of union and of strength, that in 1825 it was deemed requisite by the Ministry, of which the Right lion. Baronet was a Member, to suppress it. Vain and idle effort.=-(Loud cheers.) It was laughed by us to scorn. We returned from London, where we had agreed to connect the Church by money with the State, pro vided the State should by liberty consent to connect itself with the people.—(Cheers.) The offer was repudiated. We in voked the Irish peasantry, who were armed with the elective franchise. Those gallant, devoted, dauntless, heroic men rushed to the hustings with the courage and devotion with which Irish soldiers, led by you (pointing to Sir H. Hard inge), rushed to the breach.—( Great cheering.) The holds of ascendancy were carried—the Beresfords were annihilated in Waterford, the Aristocracy was beaten to the earth in Louth. These were, however, but the preludes for the great encounter. In two years after, Mr. Vesfy Fitzgerald, having vacated his scat as Member of the Cabinet, stood for Clare ; he was op posed by the leader of the Irish people; he was discomfited ; the heart of Ireland thrilled with exultation—the national sympathy became contagious ; the soldiers shouted, and threw up their caps for joy. Astonished by what they saw— appalled by what they anticipated, the. Duke and his distin guished colleague gave way at last to the power of the Irish people.—(Loud cheers.) But all had not been accomplished : it remained that, having won Emancipation for ourselves, we should secure Reform for you. There was a majority of English and a majority of Scotch Members against Reform. It was achieved by the men whom the Irish people had poured, in a noble exercise of their privileges, into this House. " We did the State some service, and they know it"—(loud cheers)— and the first to acknowledge it was the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire. Strange, that with that confes sion upon his lips, he should not have felt deeply conscious that the power to which lie had resorted as an auxiliary, might be converted into an irresistible antagonist ; and that when, with that fiery eloquence of which he is the master, ho was amusing the House of Commons, and applying a torch, and setting the passions of England on fire, it should never have occurred to him that we, should avail ourselves of his example, and in as strong and peremptory a tone as that in which he had demanded the Reform oft e he tit P h a e rl c i o a d m e e , n t t i , la t t h o e b j l e i c e t fo o r f meof Church the would be required. But lot us take a.b r i e f rev i ew of recent :—ln cause n a lB32,th of univers a l ca l am i ty was pro d u uni versal derision, eeantss acid that in despite of reiterated a d mon i t i ons , to which ed. its It w projector was as insensible as the animal f rom w hi c h pro duced. v the Scripture illustrations of deafness are derived. The peo plc assembled to petition Parliament : their meetings were dispersed at the point of the baronet; and the petitioners , tried and incarcerated under the verdicts of juries from which Rd , man Catholics were excluded. The popular indignation rose • to the highest point, and at the general election the standard of Repeal was planted upon every hustings. The Coercion Bill is passed—a million is given to the Irish Clergy—the Church Temporalities Bill is introduced, with a (Treat but latent principle—the influence of the Noble Lord'pr:!vails, and the 147th clatise _struck out ; meanwhile the Clergy starve. The sessien'tif 1834 is opened—Lord Anglesey's letter, calling for, a new appropriation, is produced-Me. Ward brings his motion forward—the Church Commission is issued by Lord Grey : the Noble Lord retires from office, lets go a Parthian shaft at his associates, and there he now sits, facing his former friends, and in' juxta position with his former antagonists.. How far he has descended or he has risen in public estimation I leave to his own judgment, and that of the party, of which he was sometime the leader, and which has certainly gone through the " process of exhaus tion."—( Loud cheers.) A Tithe Bill, which would have given the Clergy bread, is brought forward : it receives the approbation of a large body of the Irish representatives : it is thrown out, and the Clergy arc left to perish by those si nister'auxiliaries who support the Church by making martyrs of its Ministers. Parliament is prorogued—Lord Mel bourne is dismissed from the Cabinet with as little ceremony as a menial would be discharged from the Palace. Suddenly, and to himself, I believe, unexpectedly, the Right Hon. Ba ronet is raised to.the Premiership. The fortunes of this great country are placed by his Sovereign in his hands. He arrives, declares himself the champion of the Church, enters into a contest with the Irish people, dissolves the Parliament, strains every Treaury nerve to return a Conservative House of Com mons. The Parliament of his own calling meets ; lie is beaten on the Speakership, and does not resign ; he is defeated on the Amendment, and still retains his race ; he is discomfited udon Irish Church, and he no longer considers it com patible with his dignity, his duty, or his honour to remain in power ; he surrenders the trust reposed in him by his Sove reign, and retires with disaster, but without humiliation, for he fell in a contest with millions ; he had chosen a nation for his antagonist, and it was impossible that he should not be overthrown.—( Continued cheers.) Far be it from me to dis pute.the talents, the consummate skill, the various attributes for government which he displayed ; the greater his merits, greater the evidencepf the power by which he was overthrown. —(Cheers. )" Of that power I have traced the progress ; that power vested in millions, deputed to the great majority of Irish representatives—developed, not created by emancipation— confirmed by Reform ; and which, so far from being attended with any likelihood of decrease, is accompanied by the cer tainty of augmentation. Three millions have swollen, since the Union, to seven ; they command the majority of the re presentatives of the country ; they. are led on by men of cease less vigilance, and unalterable determination ; in their intel ligence and property they are making rapid advances ; with Roman Catholics of high ability the Bar is crowded—by them the highest law offices are filled—they are within a step of the bench of justice; if there were no further change by the Legislature, the advance by the people would be still in evitable : the Corporation Bill (for you cannot legislate for one country on different principles from those which you apply to the other) is at hand ; can you wish, and if you wish can you hope, that this unnatural, galling, exasperating ascendancy should be maintained ? Things cannot remain as they are : retrograde it is impossible they should ever. What expedient are you prepared to adopt ? Would you enact the penal code, let locNe Oran i geism from its den, bid the Orangeman draw forth the sabre clotted and rusty with the blood of civil war fare, that he may sheathe it in the nation's heart ? No ! from so horrible a conception you instinctively recoil. Will you dissolve the Parliament? What! after you have already had recourse to that perilous expedient. You thought that you could manage the -House of your own calling : you declared it at Tamworth. Have you not too deep a stake in fame, in fortune, in property, and in renown, to renew these terrible experiments? You think the English people 'are with you. If a Conservative Parliament should be assembled, it duration must be brief, its existence will be stormy and agitated while it lasts ; but if the excited people should infuse an undue pro portion of the democratic element into the representation, you will .have raised a spirit which you will have no spell to lay, exposed an institution more valuable than the Church, to peril, and put, perhaps, what is more precious than the mitre, to a tremendous hazard—and all for what? For what are these terrible risks to be run—these awful chances to be incurred ? For what are Cabinets to be annihilated, -the country to be brought, perhaps, to the verge of convulsion, the palace to be shaken to its foundation? For the Church I the Church of the Ministry—the Church, from which no imaginable benefit can henceforward flow-; but whence evils after evils in such continuous abundance have been derived—the Church, by which, instead of being advanced, religion has been retarded, and for whose maintenance an enormous army is maintained, which has cost England trillions of her treasure, and Ireland torrents of her blood.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. JACKSON then rose and said, that after the splendid display of oratory which they had just heard, he could not ex pect that the House would listen to any lengthened observa tions from him, but he entreated the attention of the House while he made a few remarks. The Hon. and Learned Mem ber had stated that the principle involved in the Bill now un der consideration was also to be found in the Bill brought in two years ago by the Noble Lord the Mem'ser for South Lan cashire, and commonly called the Church Temporalities Bill. In his (Mr. Jackson's) opinion, it was impossible to imagine any two measures more opposed in principle than these were. He doubted if there was a single principle in which they were similar. It was asked why they upon that (the Opposition) side of the House, wished to have the-Bill divided. The rea son was plain. One part of the Bill appeared to be good in principle, and where it did not meet their views might be amended in Committee ; but the other part, which regarded the - apprqpriation cf the surplus revenue of the Church, was highly phjectionable.—( Hear, hear.) It did not follow, how ever, because it was desired that the Bill should be divided into two parts, that either part should be rejected.—( Hear, hear.) It was quite competent for the House to pass both. Now, with regard to another part of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's eloquent address—the Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the income of the Irish Bishops, and, in his (Mr. Jackson's) opinion, had greatly exaggerated it, and more especially that of a Most Rev. Prelate of the Church. The return made by the Commissioners showed that the gross revenue of the Bishops was 150,000/. a-year ; but that their net income was only 128,0001. ; but there were reductions upon that sum to the amount of 65,9401., so that the balance of 62,863/. was all the income of the twelve Bishops of Ireland. From this he was warranted in supposing that the Hon. Gen tleman equally exaggerated his other statements; and that he ,drew a long bow when he said that the income of the most Reverend Prelate was 17,0001., and would become 23,0001. The income of the Lord Primate, he believed to be only 10,0001. Mr. SHE'', had taken his calculation from the return made by the Archbishop of Armagh himself.—( Hear, bear.) Mr. JACKSON continued.—The Hon. Gentleman had alSo taken occasion to contrast the income of the Irish clergy with that of the clergy in Belgium ; but that was in his (Mr Jackson's) opinion, not a fair cempaiison. The clergy of Ire land had large possessions which were their absolute property -(Oh, oh.) It was admitted to be their property. He said •so from high authority, for the Hon. Member for St. Albans admitted that it was as much the property of the clergy as Other property was the property of any private individual. .Mr. WA R D.—l said just the reverse.—( Hear, hear.) - Mr. JACK SON said that there was another observation made by the lion. Member far Tipperary, which surprised him not a little. He compared the claim put forward by the Ca tholics in 1829 with that now put forward. He said that the same principle was at stake, and the same struggle to be made then as now. Now what was the fact ? There were many • Gentlemen from Ireland, and among others the Hon. Gen tleman himself, examined before the Committee of the House of Lords upon the subject of Catholic Emancipation ; and they all declared that neither the abolition- of tithes, the repeal of the Union, nor any of the other popular cries, would again be mentioned, if that measure were allowed to pass.— ( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask, if that had turned out to be the case ?—( Hear, hear.) Ile would ask if every succeed big concession had not been made a platform from which higher concessions were demanded ; and, although every demand was said to be final, was it not a fact, that no sooner were they con. ceded than there was just a cry for more as there was before it was granted ?—( Hear, hear.) He thought that those who brought this motion forward could not know the history of Ireland.—( Oh, oh.) Another opinion which had created a great prejudice out of doors, as well as within the House, against the Church was tbis—it was said that the Irish Church had failed in its object because it was too wealth:—( Hear, hear) —because, as they said, it was a bloated Church. —( Hear, hear.) Now the fact was, that one of the chief causes why the Church of Ireland had not done so much as it might have done during two centuries and a half, was the total inadequacy of its means.—( A laugh.) lie had no hesitation, however, in saying that the interests of the Church, and the progress of religion had been as much injured by the wealth of some of the unions in the Irish Church, as by their former poverty. lie was not, nor had he ever been an advocate for unions of parishes, pluralities of non-residence ; but it was merely justice to the Church of Ireland, and those who had lately had the administration of it, to state that there never had been a greater change in any institution on the face of the earth, than had been effected in the Irish Church within the last few years. He would not go into the details of the question, as they had been so ably treated by the Right lion. Member for Tam , worth, and he must say no attempt had been made to answer them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had followed the Right Honourable Baronet, and undoubtedly be had exhi bited great skill, and had produced a powerful effect on the House ; but he had avoided dealing with figures • he said they had nothing to da with the question, and there fore he did not affect to answer them.—( Hear, hear.) • He (Mr. Jackson), however, would ask on what principle the Right Hon. Gentleman could reject them as unconnected a ith the question ? Were these figures of no consequence to the application of the appropriation clauses—had they no bearing on this important question. —( Hear, hear.) It appeared satis factory to his mind that the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer the statement of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, because he felt that it was not: tai,able of being satisfactorily answered.—( Hear, hear.) He would state a few facts which would show the great improvement that had taken place in the state of the Irish Church within the last few years. At the period of abolishing agistment .tithes in Ireland, about a century ago, he found, from a return made to the Irish Parliament, that There were 800 resident clergy, 400 churches, and 150 glebe-houses in.that country. At the time of the Union there were 1,000 resident clergy, 689 churches, and 300 glebe-houses. What was the state of things that now prevailed ? There were 2,000 resident clergy—an increase of 1,000 in the short period of thirtysileo years; 1,300 churches, being an increase of qgq iq 'time ; and 900 glebe-houses, bcing'also an inei - ease of 600. Did this exhibit anything like neglect ,on the part of the head's of the Irish Cluirch ? Did it not show that there was a determination on their parts to dissolve unions, to abolish pluralities, and to compel residence. The progress in these matters had been almost incredible. An llos. MEMBER asked what increase had taken place in the congregations.—( Hear, hear.) JACKSON observed that if the Hon. Member would do him the honour of listening, be would afford him a satis factory answer. Ile would here observe that he was not willing- to admit the perfect accuracy of the Report on the table. He had received a number of letters, pointing out great errors, and showing, iG many instances, that the num ber tithe Protestant inhabitants of a parish had been under rated; he also knew that several other lion. Members had received similar communications.—( Hear, hear.) This Re port, however, such as it was, and taken under such unfavour able circumstances for the Protestant Church, proved that a great improvement had taken place with regard to the in crease in the number of the members of that Church. lie would refer particularly to the county of Kerry, as described in the Report, for a proof of this.--(The lion. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read ouer a list of parishes in the county of Kerry, showing the increase that bad taken place . in the number of members of the Church between 1830 and 1834, but in consequence of the rapidity with which he read them, and the peculiarity of their names, they were not dis tinctly heard in the gallery.) The new population Return ought not to be_ taken as a criterion of the state of religion in Ireland, but he contended that the State was bound to provide for the religious instruction of the great body of the people.—( Cheers frem the Ministerial benches.) lie' contended that the clergy of the Church of Ireland were indefatigable in the discharge of their duties, but they bad hitherto many difficulties to conts:nd with. In one of those parishes which he had referred to, namely, that of Dingle—a few years ago, two clergymen of the Church of England took up their residence, and began to preach to the people in their native language. The market house in which they preached constantly overflowed with anxious audiences, notwithstanding the obstacles thrown in their way by the Roman Catholic priests, who exerted themselves greatly to prevent the people attending those religious meetings. Since, that time there had been a constantly increasing congregation at the church, in a place where but a few years ago there were no Protes tants.—( Hear, hear.) In 1830 there were 228 members of the church in this parish, but 41'1834 there were 249. ( Hear.) If reference was made to the Report of the Com. missioners, it would appear manifest that between 1830 and 1834 a great increase had taken place in the number of the members of the Establishment in the most Catholic parts of Ireland,—(The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to refer to a number of cases illustrative of this statement, the greater part of which, from the causes we have previously as signed were not heard by us ; but amongst other saes he re ferred to the parish of Innismagrath in the diocese of Kilmore, where the increase had been from 400 to 483, and in which parish there was a most zealous Catholic priest, well known to many Honourable Members; to the parish of Carlow, where the increase had been from 1409 to 1755; and ,to the pa rish of Clonfert, where the increase had been from 1,010 to 1,120, that was an increase of more than 10 per cent in the course of three years, while in the same parishes there had been a diminution in the number of Roman Catholics. lie then proceeded to refer to the great increase in the number of Protestants in the island of Achlin, notwithstanding every op position had been manifested by the Priests, who had resorted to every species of persecution against the clergyman, who - at last had been hunted out of that island. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman went on to refer to the exclamation. of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that he would take this tnea sure as an instalment ; and also to a statement published by a Roman Catholic Prelate, and contended that it was evident the object was, in certain quarters, to root out the Esta blished Church in Ireland. Nothing she;it of whether the Roman Catholic or the Protestant relic :on should exist in Ire land as the established religion was at issue. He was satisfied, from what,he had seen and beard, notwithstanding all that had been said about this being a final measure, that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, the Clergy and the laymen, would be sa tisfied with nothing short of the demolition of the Established Church. He by no means said that this conduct on their part was unnatural or blameable, but he would ask this House—he would ask this British House of Commons, was it prepared to demolish the Established religion? He could not believe it.. One of the express conditions. of the act of Union was, that that the established religion should . be preserved in Ireland. He would ask them whether, in the teeth of an Article of the Union, they were prepared to demolish the Established. Church ? Let them demolish the Established Church in that country, and they will certainly establish the Roman Catholic religion. He would call the attention of the House to the manner in which the Protestants had ever conducted them selves in Ireland. Had they not been the indissoluble friends of England ? Had they not, in the hour of difficulty and danger, when there were threats of invasion, or in times, of insurrection, stepped forward to maintain the interests of Eng land. If they had, did it become this country now to desert them? Did it become this country to admit a principle which must prove their destruction, and for what purpose ? Why, merely to raise a miserable and insufficient fund for the pur pose of education. Lord MORPETH and some half-dozen other Members rose at the same time. There was a general cry for his Lord ship, who, on being allowed to proceed, was .much cheered. He said, as he had already had the opportunity of explaining the particulars of this Bill, and his own views respecting it— as the immediate motion of the Right lion. Baronet .(Sir R.--Peel) turned on a point which already in the course of this session had been, with the assent of a considerable ma jority, and almost on the very grounds on which he rested it, by this House distinctly and peremptorily decided—and as for the discussion of the chief part of the details brought for ward, apart from the general principle involved, frequent opportunities would occur in the progress of the Bill through the Committee--he had expected to be able to feel himself' discharged from having to trespass long upon the time of the House on the present occasion ; but there had been some things stated in the course of this discussion, and with such apparent grossness of misrepresentation.—( Much cheering.) He did not charge it as being intentional, but that misrepre sentation so affected the really important provisions of this Bill and its entire nature, that he did think himself authorised in beggine. the House to indulge him while he offered one or two remarks in explanation and contradiction. Now, with respect to th e tw o parts of the yet undivided—and, judging by what he gath ere d from the progress of this debate, he be lieved it would continue to be the undivided--Bill.--(Cheers.) First, with respect to that part which referred to the settle ment of the property in tithe. Many objections had been urged by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) against the provi s stows by which he intended to carry that settlement into effect ; and he should alinost say that of the two divisions of the mea sure, the Right Hon. Baronet expressed himself with more caution and forbearance with respect to the great principle of' appropriation involved in one of the provisions, while he directed most of his arguments arid strictures against the prin ciples involved in the other part of the Bill.--(Hear, hear.) He begged to say, with respect to the provisions of the Bill for the settlement of property in tithes, that there was not one of them which he should not be quite ready to have patiently and candidly discussed in the Committee. One of the points to which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Pee!) directed some of his most marked 'censure—he did not think the Right Mon. Baronet meant to impute blame in this respect to him and those with whom he acted —was, that they diminished by three-tenths the existing tithes. Indeed, it would not have been very consistent in the Right lion. Baronet to have charged blame upon them here, considering that it was to a larger amount than he was himself preparecNo make a re. duction. But one of the points on which the Right Hon. Baronet much dwelt was the proposed mode of taking the averages ; and really front the tenour of the observations which the Right lion. Baronet addressed to them on this part of the subject, the House might have been tempted to think that the present rate was permanently fixed upon them. Now what was the fact ? By the first Bill introduced by the lion. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), lie believed the amount of the composition was to continue the same for three years, and after to vary on an average of the three years preceding. By a subsequent Bill the amount was to continue according to the decision of the vestry, either for seven or fouvteen years, or, if they thought fit, for twenty-one years, the variation depending on the average of the seven years preceding. The Bill of the Right Hon. Baronet did not interfere with those compositions established for twenty one years ; but in all other cases it prescribed a change. Now if any other plan. were proposed by which the averages could be taken, on which the composition of tithes were founded, he should be ready to listen to it ; but he must say that it did seem to him that the clergy would be even worse off under the provisions of the former Acts than they would be under this Bill ; for at the end of seven years these compositions were subject to a variation on the average of the seven years preceding, and it might happen that the whole of the past seven years would give an unfavourable average ; whereas, under the present Bill, if in any one year prfees rose, the clergy would be entitled to some benefit from such a rise. This brought him to the Perpetuity Purchase Fund, and he would say that he did not think the Right Hon. Baronet was entitled to complain of the arrangement as unfair, inasmuch as it could be clearly demonstrated that the objections of the Right lion. Baronet would attach to the measure of the Hon. and Gallant Baronet (Sir Henry Hardinge) in a much greater degree. He had the satisfaction of acquainting the House that whereas the Right Hon. Baronet had announced the amount received on this account to be 55,0001„ and 88,0001. was expected ; , but by a statement received this day from Ireland, he ascertained that the amount received was 83,5211., and that they expected in, six months 47,000/. more. The gross amount of the purchases declared by the Commissioners was 196,000/., of which tenants only 'had declared their intention to ,complete their purchases to the amount of 23,0001. He would. pass from that subject and enter upon the question of the appropriati.sni of the Church revenues to other than ecclesiastical purs e eses. This he felt was the main point in issue. Tne Right lion. Baronet observed that the present,. Temporalities Act, 9 :::t virtually repealed the Church "" I '..'ich could not be denied ; and enume rated three Ppr,iculars in which it would do so. First, by g the fund, which arose from the suspension of the ap pointment of clerks to livings (in which there had not been Divine service for the three years preceding February, 1833), to the purposes of the reserve fund, and not to the general fund of the Commissioners. Secondly, the funds arising out of tithes, without cure, appropriated to dignitaries and pre bends were, under the Church Temporalities Act, to be ap plied, in the first instance, to the augmentation of small liv ings, and failing this, to go to the general fund of the Com missioners, to be applied to strictly ecclesiastical purposes, for the building and repair of churches; these funds, also, under the present Bill, were to be converted into one of the feeders of the Reserve Fund. Thirdly, the funds arising from the sale of the perpetuities were under the Church Act to be applied to the augmentation of small livings, "ad .11, iii..ittA4:l,,, 1.1. '.." -' - - ---0?„. did 1, .°lirisCaelpe.,bsnnu)l'oneGttarttl'"° tnritiolliedot:lfc ih3 n ffil. )l.i ole'nei the ilinbite,niea .I:t%rilsivtnifibttulliiii7)'lei'le:ll.lerilieee2(l2l:i 4Cieilea it nt't) It we ld ng r ieL : I , l ,_!: ri gener a ll l P6e l f v ; a 6e hn ibo a i `,' eY of incom e t 1,7 suspended cod.. —the funds ll'riated to digndireo t ts e nla°t.d l ;' i','47r,le arising fron 'olll'snes enumerate , I. Much,- h te i r.t ti 1 1 .,1: a ili , e l e i_ lne a ' r) s , t_ . )rt e ' - P ° a e . eea is sfrl tst ' tr.r . t i .` i'a o ar is e'i p l ? 'e P oit e ts e tt t i Su s ui r.r t ' s ge a , e loc b i . sn . t i oa °tf e ' 1 o i s i no n l' u kl n n . c' d t r (ttolf e s il a ttite r . l '' : .I:."utt sinecures, wi „.'tlize precentor urn . ad others • [3tviliate'l:ttli.sel, partly of t °l f e or ea i i t s • i h e s he ofL Lc , , ;s of other • 1-.... 0t, for example, par; a . mple, c• ?,rniedaleage and , the Act of lasi Preb ends a _, gal led the and whz , digrit le presen y or prebend altogether,,w`l67l.o;llra,ge:sp'ltatetsilsetihrgel gene , tl _, , and to i li i a nd repair 0 ~, 'g to 1 491/. 19s t ii vi l i nti ''' l , 1 l a , Pl . ui a l e s e i rc th a r s ' e s e b regard hri consists pti . carriedoan b r ad i s o i ndf :1 ;1 1 , of , ! i l ? 1 ,t . 1 consists, , ,0 r. d T ak i Jo tf t it e, Ite ie tva l t.i 1 i t l i i i e s s 1. ,. ; u t h r e aln, tin n tl, 3 " efi I 7: 1 : ,... 41 1 I 4: o e e e,: o l ci , aeo . l l l :nble p i t :ce, O r u eia l r id n nr i4 a ..... t a si I t d o g s i o t n ube i beingp e due a s s ; it. i r rei i eo t a s . Ac l u l . : il l ( ZlT,:t:ll`:,!zpiri_sr,eetitsoteanl‘tti.ioinißsii;lli,ot d to the gi 14 'er% for the /tut before '2 th e c •-•-•!° t it ommissic ,pon.uld actually T e r ,zo of build 1.. r Commissioner il lph o .oozee t B P , ieg e ewi l : irio t titie Y un, gaa P ria u l iv. i ny . c ceu l u r an o ‘ axi,„!. aPplicable, peri od induce r ri "d of tw . po sin g the .0 yea trPetuitie Inc°m " t °I the "' l ee' tenant s e capital 111'; would be 1 q tgage their tre t ii th es; " ed in thisrang( t ent i _ way t i s o o o o r r- "ns 1 the d'' 14,0 00 ,. i L it i l Itibtwietile : le ' lv_ern lie e 'iit' ifi 1 Isn ma isPi'la . ann7:l:ll'e : tgreelaa: t dirfiPnalu h na:Pdrilbte a Ptbil:liu t erePytt:nin 'eshs t li t:ii h aebePans e aebalill 1 11 °ners ' ral P ur pc F i s at s i l i d a e d o t f ee tl n ie a rim ::: ( 1 14 e,l_ ' it t i cia l r ii e c ei v e l e aor i le 4 e t e v i e ht lo a nloes t i s . sp ar sngrea e t in s%p l le ad ‘v r a,tot s e e i I th_ a is t r r i n e e,ti iv e . ot ea hci a el ari l ien i ci ; u ll e l st i( :)e ds e i P m b odzHe, r uid ueed e l ' ( li ere w ith, mu. thel,iiiettlitiu,:Bo4, ~ r nt ilbt.oieecla i onr.rinn s ety e alleioinfliodf 9 t11 0 ( 1 tio , 10 n. Gentl( ror the fact t en. I lot , , 1 . ent eme no t t s hey were tb ei " 1 1 3 putti n r feelings • guest, or t' s tf, too, v Were ass( very ei ng the m ; Y different f • ir, the e , I( '( A 1,; °11 , 11 °I oad ea -ugm) ----(c vO nr to pla ditt„ hee rs.) I li on. th 5 3 . would said tl4"d Lear; d e fe 'e State v th nee of the Prin .* e dutyy 1 ciple it lii tor etern a l c 1. 1 % uth,_ (ci li., • and Lear 01T, that this t whi ch the r Lei): were ar wi, ' ll 'o —or o 0.4t1 professed it__,e of Ireland tl„" t °tdd not ‘ . ftit e d i P a st 1 askedt. It and . this 11 1 1 , .I "stlY dew. ii.,,, e razt, e.t,.; rstood of re .'_ t io objecti f u . ,1 . a notoriou Vork, for thi out in Down 01 \\,1,)11. Member baterforcl to tl l'."ght lion. It :t e l : 1 : s t, to h. a the re rn : 11 , they sboub sc t ) ktilust be no( t o , d i stricts. ! e- distribut e e ,!ne the Nob' ' all_,e the t Lou,., Illwa hirecre ~,, , 3's ^inch h e t l iou, t nensi o ti o d ns of thi to , ad voca te., , (I,,:ena forth sr a nt those • a n „„ • walls 10,,,Lenipt wa • 'Jell the y too .- i ni th e courseo ir_enues dispc ti ta in t ' . _that nothi tt . - Fuirit-....i nr , t i2otity, on doe r",tgo through 11 t 4nee on th , Co uld yen' Qabl e for c do: r)---- nnd th er; red from t nti n lPOil Lion , ( ' o t hat redly. ellt to take - e t , i4i _ q . 11 g flom tith sz Nil L--- ( F . tal L a PPly to it w „ e,,en unju 'rear b e r ,- si -I. ' ; he ha; 4 0 ft h of the pr cl ud , r making L l "g ever; "IttnPosition - t the\ t w ° 4l d ' th vo' i t e rns c it ti CO the "anr is ho f ro , i' les."____ • .. th e e , " her e `'PP rras 4.,.. ,,,, --_,_ ~,.....,,,... I