The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-31 00:00:00

and his employer—the settlement, in fact, of any bargain whatever, is frequently impeded by threats, and every ap proaeh to an amicable arrangement frustrated in the attempt. I Sir, we cannot conceal from ourselves that in the history of Ireland there has been no time when there have not been most dreadful conflicts some species of civil war which has induced the people of that country to consider themselves as martyrs to tyranny than as subjects of this realm.— (Loud cheers.) The first time that distinctions were drawn between the people of Ireland was during the reign of the Edwardses when the distinction of place was made, and they asked in vain for redress. During the reign of Elizabeth, when the Reformation gave to "this country a new standing, and the jewels of the Crown shone resplendent against the doctrines of the Pope—at that period there was introduced a new distinction, the distinction of changing the whole body of the clergy without the body of the people going along with it.—( Great cheering.) After that period, new events arose—passing over the period of the Commonwealth—at the great period of the Revolution, the Irish people suffered a new distinction, not only of being abused in religion, but of being even suspected of an attachment to a Church of which they were professed Members—they were at once proscribed as enemies of the Throne and the altar. At the same time we took pains to restrict the commerce of Ireland, and to prevent their trading to the Colonies.—( Loud cries of " Hear.") But, Sir, were these events events of glory? At the close of the last century, and the beginning of this, a better era seemed to arise for Ireland, and she threw off many of those difficulties under which she had suffered.—( Hear.) When the power of legislation was removed from that country, we came to a period when we began to remove the civil disabilities arising from religious opinions—( Hear) — and this impressed the minds of the people of Ireland with a sense that a dawn of better days had arisen, and induced them, therefore, to depend on this country for proper and reasonable relief.—( Hear, hear.) Under the Government of Lord Grenville we were furnished with 18,000 volunteers for the American war. Such was the case in 1792, after refusing the elective franchise, which I am sorry to say has been done since, and other mea sures of liberality were so refused—l allude to the Catholic Emancipation Bill, which was subsequently carried, but it was conceded avowedly by all, that these concessions were not given in a spirit of justice, but were wrested from Govern ment by menaces and force. It cannot be that when all concessions were made in this way, the people of Ireland would be induced to change their minds, and become recon ciled to the system they always detested. They continued in the same hatred, and in their former enmity, to what they considered to be unjustly imposed upon them— and thought, as they often thought before, that force was the only means to be adopted to procure relief. I now come to ask this House to begin to legislate for Ireland in a different and a better spirit —( Hear, hear, hear.) I come to ask you, now—since all these changes I have re ferred to—the revolution, the reform in the representation, and Catholic Emancipation were made under the influence of force—l now come to ask you, representires as you do the opinion of the United people of England and Ireland, to legislate for Ireland in a spirit of justice and liberality, and inspire the people of that country with better hopes, and lay the foundations of a lasting settlement. In considering the state of the Church of Ireland, I am obliged to look back an d con sider the question so often before discussed—namely, as to the utility and objects of a Church Establishment. lam one of those who follow and admire the defence which has been made by the Prelates of the Church of England in favour of a Church Establishment.--( Hear, hear, hear.) I concur in their views of the question, and I do sin cerely believe that the Church Establishment of England tends to the promotion of religion, and to the maintenance of good order and the prosperity of the people. It is as a friend of the Church Establishment of England that I now ask this House in the case of the Church of Ireland to consider whether it can be upheld for the same purposes in that country, or be sustained by the same defence 7—( Hear, hear.) I will now take the liberty of reading one or two statements in which the object of a Church Establishment was stated by persons acquainted with it. The Noble Lord then read the opi nion of Archdeacon Paley upon the utility of a Church Estab lishment, and also the charge of a Right Reverend Pre late last year, i n w hi c h charge the question was stated very shortly and very clearly ; and in which after enumerating the purposes for which the Church was established, proceeded to say,, that unless those purposes were accomplished an esta blishment was neither Scriptural nor useful, and that religious instruction was most effectually carried on by means of a Church Establishment. The question I mean to propose to the House relates to the state of Ireland, and I would ask the House whether those great objects In- which a Church Establishment is founded, are advanced by the way in which Church property is appropriated in Ireland, and whether the religious instruction of the people is most effectually provided for ? For this purpose, it is neces sary- to consider what are the revenues of the Church of Ireland at present, and what they were in former times, and upon this subject I must beg leave to refer to a letter of Arch bishop King to another Prelate of the Established Church, in which the number ofbenefices in Ireland were stated. Archbishop King stated that there were 600 beneficed clergymen in Ireland of whom only 200 received 100/. per annum—thus making the total revenue at that time about 60,0001. At present the number of benefices in Ireland was 1,456, of which 74 were worth from 8001. to 1,000/. per annum ; 75 were worth from 1,000/. to 1,500/.; 17 from 1,5001. to 2,000/. per annum ; 10 from 2,000/. to 2,500/. ; there are 407 varying from 4001. to 800/. per annum, and 380 exceeding 2001. per annum. In witness of what I have stated, the revenue of the Church of Ireland might be calculated in 1831 at 40,0001., and the tithe composition at 500,340/. ; the principal revenue due from tithes is 534,000/. ; the whole sum, therefore, may be calcu lated to amount to little less than 800,000/.—( Hear, hear.) I therefore think it right to ask whether the large sum of 800,000/., is really appropriated to the instruction of the people whose doctrines it ought to support, and whether, during the time those applications have been going on during the last century, a similar conversion has taken place in the Catholic faith ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam afraid to say that in too many instances the case has been the other way, and that persons haVe not become attached in that proportion, to the Protestant faith.—( Loud cheers.)—They have not given up that faith, I am afraid, to which they have adhered. It is mentioned, that more than one instance has occurred where the clergy have been accused of a total neglect of duty, and up to late time many of them seem to have considered , Jiemselves rather as forming a part of a political body, than set apart for the sacred office of instructing the people.—_( Hear.) Sir, it is stated in a pamphlet written by a Gentleman who has done me the honour to address it to me, that he considered when first he went to Ireland, that the clergy of the Church were different from the clergy of the Church of England, and many of them seem so engaged in other pursuits, and to find such a difficulty in collecting their tithes, that their attention was absorbed more in collecting means of provision, and thus did not attend to the duties of the sacred character with which they were invested.—( Hear.) This was written by a respectable gentleman, who held a benefice in Ire land for some years. I have heard, it is true, of but few instances where clergymen have been deprived of their benefices for such a cause, but I must admit that there was a case where one was dismissed for persevering in retaining a com mission in the Yeomanry corps. Several authors have writ ten to the same purpose, all tending to show the truth of the position I lay down. ( Hear, hear.) In Kilkenny it is stated that the number of Protestant families in 1731 was 1055; in 1800, 941, making a decrease in the number of Pro testants whilethe population enormously extended. In 1731 the Roman Catholics were 42,108, and in 1800, 108,000. In a particular parish of Armagh, it is stated that the Pro testants in 1731 were as two to one to the Ro man Catholics, and in 1800 they were only as Ito 3. In the county of Kerry, it is stated in " Mason's Paro chial Survey," the Protestants were, in 1731, 64; the Catholics were, (as we understood the Noble Lord), 1,400. In 1834, the Protestants were reduced to 5, while the Roman Catholics increased to 2,455. On the best computation that I can make I find that the Protestants have not extended themselves in one place or other, and that the total number of Protestants belonging to the Established Church of th lreland may be hardly stated at 750,000. Aud of these 400,000 are in the ecclesiastical district of Armagh. I have not been able to go through the entire of the report; but it appears that in the province of Armagh, the members of the Established Church, are in the proportion of eight to one—( Hear, hear)—while in the other parts of Ireland, the Roman Catholics are by by much the largest portion of the population. The total population of Armagh is 750,000. In the diocese of Ardfert the members of the Established Church are 7,529, while thetotal population is 304,687. In the county of Down the mem bers of the Established Church amounted to 3,583, while the total population was 197,233. In the diocese of Kilmore the number of members of the establishment was 8,002, while the total population was 216,236. In the diocese of Wa terford the members of the establishment were 5,084, while the total popolation was 490,225. In the diocese of Killaloe the members of the establishment were 2,091, and the total population 380,000.—( Hear.) In Kilmore the members of the establishment were 2,067, and the total population 204,209, so that from these statements you may perceive that while in some parts of Ireland the members of the Established Church formed a considerable portion of the population—so considera ble as to require a large number of beneficed clergymen, in other parts they formed so small a portion that it could be nei ther necessary nor right to have so large an establishment for their religious wants.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, when 1 have stated that these are the general results with respect to the proportions of the population, and when in no case, by any mode of computation, can the members of the Established Church be made to form more than one-ninth of the whole of the population, I venture with tholes(' reluctance to bring forward a proposition for ap propriating some portion of the revenues of the Church to the general instruction of the population of that country. Sir, I have before. me several memoranda taken from documents furnished by a Rht Hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Littleton) who is not now in office, illustrative of the disproportion between the amount of revenue paid to the Established Church in various parishes, and the number of Members of that Church resident in each parish. It appears in the parish of Kilrush the value of the tithe composition is 694/., and the number of the members of the Established Church 349, while that of the Roman Catholic population is 2,371. In the parish of Tullamore the amount _ of tithe composition is 436/., the number of Members of the Established Church 103, while ni ft • e total population amounts to 252,000.—( Hear, hear. ) -- (Thts'Npble Lord then showed from a written document he hand, the disproportion between the amount of tithes t4eircifti the various parishes and the number of members of ._r•JA ished Church in Ireland.) Now, Sir, take any c \A • ' 1- -these, and I believe instances without end might „ e rt-\\' ‘ , J , )---e -4 ).1.1- • from the knowledge and personal acquaint ,_ ", ance of individuals residing in Ireland, and they show the tendency of all these is, that there is an enor mous and very large part of this income of eight hundred thousand pounds, which is given for the spiritual instruction of a very small class of people ; well, all the rest of the peo ple derive no benefit whatever from that income.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe it has happened that more care and more attention have been given in late years, I may say for the last twenty years, to the spiritual care of the mem bers of the Established Church than was done heretofore. I feel that there are persons belonging to that Church, who have endeavoured to do their utmost towards the spiri tual care of its members, but there was, perhaps, a time when the English Church might have obtained a 'larger foot ing than it does at present ; and that with men attached as they are to their own faith, attached to the faith of their ancestors, you cannot hope, by merely placing a clergyman in a glebe. house and allowing him to preach every Sunday—you cannot hope that any .real instruction, or any real advance in religion, or in the conversion of souls will take place. Sir, every thing contradicts this, and even if it were not contradicted by the present state of things, I am sorry to say that what has occurred of late years would tend to dimi nish very much the hope which might otherwise be entertained. It was thought fit some years ago to draw together a public meeting, endeavouring to find if controversy would be the means of making converts. I must say that those who made these attempts, did act in defiance of all Christian precepts. I can well conceive that with a rich Church existing in a country enjoying large sinecures without a cure of souls, that if they were to come into a country of men, who if they were in error, we endeavoured to win over to the truth--I entertain no doubt that there might be a hope of gaining many con verts.—( Hear.) But that persons belonging to a Church such as the Church of England, which has a large revenue, with very small flocks—paid by the people of that country— , that they should attempt a crusade against those who ' were the voluntary teachers of men—( Hear, hear, hear) — also voluntarily supported it—that they should hope the rich Church should overcome the habits and prejudices of these people by violence, does, I think, show greater zeal and greater rashness than ought to have been displayed. What was the consequence? It might have happened that things would go on in their usual course, but being provoked in this way, the Catholic clergy did commence a spirit of resistance, and did advise a spirit of resistance against that clergy by whom they were opposed.—( Hear.) lam far from thinking that that resistance, or that encouragement, was justifiable ; but taking the state of the country, I place it before you to show things naturally, and as they resulted from the course then pursued—l place it before you to prove the obstacle against the success of the Church of England in the progress of its spiritual doctrines. What have we since seen? In the in stance of Gurtroc, it is said that a Roman Catholic priest did advise the people not to pay tithe ; the Protestant curate, on the other hand, seized the horse of the Catholic clergyman. I think equal blame ought to be given to both for this course.—( Hear.) I do think it most lamentable that instead of having a Clergy recommending the spirit of the Gos pel by the mildness of their characters, the dispute should have begun by those who ought to have been the ministers of peace. Sir, in consequence of that, there has prevailed through out Ireland a spirit of resistance so inveterate that no exertion on the part of the clergy—that no attempt on the part of the Government has succeeded, in enforcing the collection of tithes, and even when laws were passed by the late Government for the better and more easily collecting of them, the Secretary for Ireland was obliged to come down and deprecate the use of the military in the collection of Tithes—( Hear.) Then Sir, in the first place you are unable to diffuse spiritual instruction among the people, while in the second, by the present system of tithes, you are brought into collision with the people which is equally as unscriptural as it is against the best interests of the State—(cheers) —for let me put it to the House, that those great authorities vvhcm I have already quoted, explicitly state that the Church Esta blishments were considered as a means of spiritual instruction, and as far as they followed the object proposed by the Scriptures, they were useful—but looking at what took place at Gurtroc and Rathcormac—it appears such is not now the case, and that the funds of the Church are to be used for maintaining the Church of Ireland, and for no other purpose. Then, Sir, what . . is it I propose ? I propose that there should be instituted such a reform of the Church of Ireland as would enable us to adapt the establishment to the Scriptural instruction of the people. Then, if the House is willing to adopt that principle the Establishment might be very much reduced.—( Great cheering.) I propose, therefore, that you should introduce that principle, and that all the money which should be saved, should be applied to some objects of religious improvement, whereby the people of Ireland might be advanced in knowledge, and their religious interests be placed on a better foundation, and the funds raised nominally for their benefit, would then be so applied. It is with that view that I mean to propose the resolution of which I gave notice—" That this House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the present state of the Church in Ireland, with a view to applying any surplus not required for the spiritual instruction of the people, to the purposes of national educa tion, without distinction of religious persuasion."—Cheers.) Sir, in proposing this, I follow a course which I think not dissimilar to that course which was adopted in the year 1828 with respect to the Catholic Emancipation Bill, by, I think, the Right Honourable Member for West minster. A Right Honourable Gentleman asked me the other night, what plan I intended to propose. On that occasion the House resoired itself into a Committee to inquire into the state of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland by a majority of six—a Committee to consider the state of the laws in reference to the Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland, with a view to find some measures for their relief, and it was then moved that the House of Lords be acquainted with the nature of the motion. The Lords, after a conference, discussed the question, and I think the course then adopted prescribes my course. I shall propose that the House do go into Committee, and if the House resolves upon that, I shall produce a resolution containing the spirit and ob. ject of my present motion, and I shall then muve an address to the Crown to present that resolution to the King, with a humble entreaty to his Majesty to enable the House to carry the object of my motion into effect.--( Loud cheers.) Sir, I think that this is the course which is necessary for me to take upon this subject. I remember that upon the question of Church Temporalities, after the Bill had been read a first time, the question was started whether the House could dispose of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown without a special message to the King. Sir, your predecessor decided himself, that though that Bill had been proposed by Ministers, and though it had been recommended to the consideration of Parliament in the King's Speech, it would be competent for the House to go into Committee, but that we should send a special message to the King. Sir, I call the attention of the House to that question, and I call the attention of the House, not only because I think it necessary in form, but because it is the only manner in which this question should be disposed of. The only mannerit can be satisfactorily proposed to this House is with the concurrence of the Crown —that is the way in which other measures are introduced and recommended to Parliament. In proposing this, I know not whether the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite will think it right to follow up what they did in the year 1829. After the resolution had been carried by a majority of six, —( Hear)—the Right Honourable Baronet came down and stated to the House of Commons that as the House had divided and given a majority in favour of the Roman Catholic , flaims, the state of Ireland was such as to induce a well-founded alarm, and make it his duty to change his course uporithe proposed measure. Whether the Right lion. Gentleman will now borrow that precedent or not, I do not know, but I think it is as competent for him to adopt it as the course he then pursued. The Right Honourable Gentleman, I know, has stated an opinion which I shall read to the House, and which is against the principle I propose, but which is not more against it, than were his opinions against Catholic Emancipation previous to his proposing that measure.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. gentleman, in his address to his constituents, and which he intended as an explanation of his political opinions for the empire at large, stated, on the question of Church Reform he had no new professions to make ; that he would not consent to the alienation of Church properly to any but strictly ecclesias tical purposes.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial side, re echoed from the Opposition.) He professed himself friendly to an improved distribution of the Church revenues, but solely for the benefit of the Church of England. The Right Hon. Gentleman stated this his opinion in a very emphatic manner. Soon after his accession to office, on being asked the question as to what he proposed to do in reference to the report of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland, he answered that he would not advise a new distribution of the revenues of the Church for any purpose than the promotion of the interests, and the extension and maintenance of the religion of the Established Church.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Since that time the Right Hon. Baronet has introduced a measure in relation to tithes in Ireland, in which he proposes that the property of the Established Church shall be confined to purposes strictly ecclesiastical, and by which measure, if it be passed, church property is to remain devoted to ecclesiastical purposes alone. I do say that the Right Hon. Gentleman having stated his opinion thus broadly on the question, it becomes quite necessary (whatever may be the result of the ecclesiastical Commissioners' inquiry) that the House of Commons should decide upon this point—( Hear, hear)—either to adopt or reject the principle of the Right Hon. Baronet. If the House is deter mined that the Church revenues shall be confined to eccle siastical purposes alone, it is better that that doctrine should be at once declared ; but if such is not the opinion of the House, there was not the slightest use in passing this Tithe Bill through its different stages. Let the question be first decided, and let it be known whether Ministers and the House of Commons coincide in their opinions before proceeding a step further with the new Tithe Bill. I think that this is a full justification of the course I am now taking in proposing this resolution. Had the late Ministry, or a similar Ministry, adopting their views, remained in power when the report of the Commissioners was known, that Ministry, or a similar Ministry, would have been disposed to act in the spirit of that report--( Cheering)—and, if necessary, would have reduced the Church Establishment— ( Loud cries from the Opposition.) But the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) said on assuming office, and in pro posing his Tithe Bill, that collision might go on, but that he would not otherwise look to that result, except so far as it enabled him to make a better distribution of Church revenues among the members of the Establishment ; but that whatever might be the report—whatever the surplus revenue—whatever the extent of reduction which the Protes tant Church might bear with stability, and the extension of its real influence, he had made up his mind not to con sent to forego the principle of maintaining the property of the Church Establishment for its present purposes.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Such being the case, it is quite necessary to come to some distinct resolution upon this question.—( Great cheering from the Opposition.) It is for the advantage of every one—it is for the advantage of this aX "~ THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1535. . country--itis for the advantage of Ireland—it is for the general advantage of the empire that we should upon this great and vital question, have a Ministry in harmony with the House of Commons—( Cheers--acting in unison with the sentiments of the House.—( Renewed cheering.) If the Right Hon. Baronet has the confidence of the House—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches) —if he has the opinion of this House with him upon this question, or if that opinion is against him, and he is prepared to take the course which he took on a former question ; in either case it is far better that we should come to a decision, and not go on night after night, and week after week, without knowing whether the Ministers of the Crown enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons upon this great and vital question. I think I have said sufficient to set aside any argument that may be drawn from the fact of the report of the Commissioners not being upon the table of the House. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are welcome to say that it is in consistent to bring forward a motion on this subject with out waiting for the report--( Hear, hear, hear.) Those gentlemen are welcome to throw such taunts upon us; but I think it sufficien state that the question has essentially changed—that iftis no . ein abeyance, and that a decided opinion has been pronattnek on the other side of the House, and that decided-optgois,haiilebeen pronounced it is neces ary—it is esientudiwy—whether or no the prin ciple I am about to *OW of appropriating the revenues of the Church of Ireland to such Use, as may tend to the gene ral benefit of Ireland, will be adopted— by this House. Sir, I come now to the question with respect to the purposes to which I propose that the surplus revenues should be applied ; and in stating that, I will take the opportunity of answerini , the question put to me the other night by an Hon. Member opposite, whether I meant to apply any part of these sums to the education of the children of those who professed the Roman Catholic religion. In answer to that question, I will say that I mean that it should be applied to the general education of all classes, according to the prin ciple adopted by the General Board f Education in Ireland, established by my Noble Friend the Member for Lancaster.— ( Great cheering.) According to which, all creeds, and chil dren of all persuasions, were to receive religious and moral in struction.—(Great cheering.) Sir, I consider, in the present state of Ireland, there is so measure which would tend so much to its future prosperity as the expenditure of those large funds for the purpose of promoting education ; I think the House will find, even from the earliest times, that Parliament wished to promote the Protestant religion in Ireland by means of educa tion.—( Cheering.) That that was the wish of the Legislature in former times is apparent from the Acts of Parliament. In future times—in much later times, there were those who con sidered it was of the utmost importance that instruction should be given to the people of Ireland, without interfering with their religious creed. I refer to the letter of the Bishop of Clonfert, where he says, " What I have done since I came into the diocese is this—l have found there are 20 Catholics to one Protestant. To attempt, therefore to make them converts to the Es tablished Church by making them read Protestant books would be a useless task, and when I see that we are unable to make them Protestants, I wish to make them good sub jects, good citizens, and good men. I have established a Sunday school open alike to Protestants and Roman Catholics, and have recommended my clergy to follow the example." Now, Sir, I think this is an example we should follow ; it is well we should adopt the recommendation and example of this excellent Bishop, and we should establish schools to be pro vided for out of the funds of the Church, in which instruction would be given that would make the people good Catholics, good citizens, and good men. —( Cheers.) Sir, I cannot conceive that the funds which were intended for the religious instruction of the people, can be misapplied when voted for the purpose of making men good subjects of the State, and religious and moral citizens. Sir, the object of the resolution, is one which we know has been frequently recognized. Different Com missions of Education have issued. In 1806 an Act passed appointing a Commission of education of which the Arch bishop of Armagh, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Edgeworth were Members, and, after several years, they agreed to a report in which it was laid down that a new system of education ought to be adopted—such as would not interfere with the religious tendencies of the people, and that it would add much to the advantage of the country that schools on this principle should be established.—( Hear, hear. ) They stated that it was not a question whether the people of Ireland should be educated or not, but whether they should receive a sound system of education ? In the appendix to that report there was a letter from Mr. Grattan, in which he re commends the establishment of parochial schools, and in which the principles of the Christian religion should be taught, but without inculcating the doctrines of any particular sect. The Education Commissioners in 1825, recommended that a large number of schools should be established, where all inter ference with religious opinions should be prohibited. I should have mentioned that in 1812 it had been recommended by Mr. Edgeworth that 1,300 schools should be established, with 16 large ones, and that a sum of 80,000/. should be devoted by the e State to that purpose. The late Education Commis missioners, consisting of the Archbishop of Dublin, Doctor Murray, the Duke of Leinster, and Mr. Carlisle, all, although comprizing men of different religious opinions, recognised th s principle, and acted in the most perfect harmony ; and from all I have beard wherever schools of this kind have been esta blished they have been attended with the best results—a bet ter kind of education has been introduced, and moral, religious instruction has been conveyed generally to the people, with- out interfering with the opinions of any particular sects. Rav in.- stated these facts, I come now to meet one or two objections of great importance, but which I think are not well-founded. The first is the assertion of the principle that the propertyof the Church ought not to be diverted to other than ecclesiastical purposes. Sir, with respect to that question I will not now go at large into its details, or argue as to whether that property should be held sacred as private property, or whether it is entirely at the disposal of the State ; and were I disposed to con sider that question, as Mr. Burke considered the question of the right of taxing our colonies when he brought forward his motion for that purpose, I fear that I should lose myself " in the vast and miry bog," and that I should sink in the details of a question of such maenitude.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) But then, Sir, I will say that if there is a proposition tenable on that subject, it is not the proposition which is maintained by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. One doctrine upon this subject is that it is private property. Mr. Burke, in his " Reflections on the French Revolution," says that it enters into the mass of private property.---( Hear, from the Ministe rial Benches.) Now, is that the doctrine to lie maintained? I say with great respect that it is a doctrine which I cannot accede to. But, Sir, that is not the doctrine which is held by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.—( Hear from the Op position.) They hold you may distribute Church property otherwise.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, has this any re semblance to any private property ? Did Parliament ever say, or could it ever be expected to say, there are a hundred or two hundred large proprietors in this country whose incomes must be distributed among the smaller pro prietors of property ?—( Hear, and laughter.) Sir, on what prin ciple can you distribute it. I ask, where do you come ? You say you will diminish the number of Bishops; but I say the number of Bishops is too great. Where will you then dis tribute them ? You say amongst the Deans and Chapters ; but the numbers of these is too great also; then you say among the Rectors and Churches. But if the Deans and Chapters, and the Bishops, are too numerous, may this not also apply to the Rectors and Churches.—( Cheers.) How is it possible to say that you will here distribute them, and . that you will do it in a manner which shall be advantageous to the country? You may have too many Bishops. On what principle do you do it then? You say because it is useful—bemuse it isifor the pur pose of religious instruction. But then comes the thing that you regulate—the distribution in direct variance with every rule which applies to . private property, 7 4 Cheers.) I sly again, that you can do it on the ground of public expedie and public right—but, I ask, where is the distinction that you can draw between the cases, or how can you pretend to call that property sacred? It does seem to me to be quite incom patible. You may say that Parliament has a right to interfere between these positions, part of which you describe as public, and part as private property—but how can you under this form deal with it, does appear i to me to be most absurd and most ineffi cient.—( Cheers.) Can any man tell me that it is useful to apply them as now, because one-fifteenth of the landed proprietors are Protestants ?—( Loud and continued cheers.) I would give in to that proposition if I heard it gravely stated, and could be lieve that no one who was not possessed of a freehold had any right to Scriptural consolation.---( Loud cheers. ) but when I have shown—clearly shown by the authorities I have already quoted that Church Establishments are instituted for the benefit of all ; and when you are, day by day, collecting sums of 6d., 4d., and even a penny from Ca tholics, who are deriving no benefit, then, I do say, that my proposition is necessary. I say, then, that the argument, that merely because the original proprietors of the land are members of the Church of England, cannot be an objection to my pro position. Upon these grounds, I shall make the motion which I shall presently put into your hands. I think, without doubt, you must adopt something of this kind. If you pass the Tithe Bill as it now stands, appropriating the Church revenues of Ireland to its present purposes, you will not maintain peace, and by no possibility can you produce harmony in that country. I Lifjieve that the people of Ireland are as warm hearted as the people of England, and are as deeply attached to their bene factors as the people of any country.—(lmmense cheering.) It is most singular, that whilst those acts of violence of which we have heard so much, no traveller who goes to Ireland but says he is received by the peasantry, as well as by the middle classes, not only with hospitality, but with the most open kindness. Those who were not natives of Ireland, but had lived in that country have told me how much gratitude the people evinced towards those who interested themselves in their behalf.—( Hear, hear.) When such is the conduct of that nation to individuals, I say you have now an opportunity of earning that gratitude which, as an Imperial Parliament, you ought to do. You have now the power of acting free from any danger or compulsion —you have not the fear of a foreign war, nor the dread of civil dis cords. It is in your power to gain advantages that have been too long delayed ; when the Repeal of the Union shall cease to agitate that people ; when that nation, so proverbial for being fine-hearted, so panting to be loyal, will give to you the full tribute of their homage and allegiance ; when they will acknow ledge that you have done justice to Ireland; while you will also have the satisfaction of confessing the same, and to con gratulate yourselves upon this more than upon any other mea sure ; and you will find that you have added to the strength and promoted the prosperity of this empire, by making your selves unconquerable by your enemies, and an example t o the world of religious toleration and freedom. The Noble Lord concluded by submitting the following motion : " That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, in order to consider the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, with a view of app!ying any surplus of its revenues, not required for the spiritual care of its members, to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud cheers. Mr. WARD seconded the resolution. Sir E. K NAVC HBIT LL said that in a debate of such great importance! involving so great a principle, he would not presume to detain, the House by occupying its time one moment in prefacing what he had to say by an apology, but rather would anticipatethat he should receive that kind and conside rate attention which the subject demanded. If the Noble Lord opposite had expressed diffidence in encountering a ques tion of such magnitude the more so should he. At once then he would come to the question, and state to that Noble Lord and to the House the reasons why he could not accede, and the grounds that compelled him to oppose, the resolution. This he could not do to the extent he should have desired, for he had to compain that the Noble Lord until after his en trance into the House had not thought proper to make the Government acquainted with, or to give the House any account of, the details of his proposed resolution and consequently, he, in common with others, laboured under a great disadvan tage from having remained in such a state of ignorance with regard to the intentions of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord, in answer to a question put to him by his friend the Right Honourable Baronet on Friday last had given a general no tion of his intention, but had added that he would not (so we understood the Right Hon. Gentleman) be bound by his word. Now he thought it exceedingly convenient, and most men found it so, that people in general should be bound by their word.----( Cheers.) He thought that such course was more manly and bespoke more of statesmanship, although it had not been difficult to discover from first to last that the precise object of the motion was not such as was expressed.— ( Hear.) In opposing the motion of the Noble Lord it was open to him to adopt one of two courses. He might move the previous question, and thus get rid of the resolution ; or he might do as it was his intention to do, meet it with a direct negative, so that it might be understood not only in the walls of that House. but from one end of the country to the other, that the Government would be no party to such a principle as the one propounded. He would not, therefore, move the previous question, but would come to the resolution, which, if agreed to, would place the House in the same predicament in which the Noble Lord stood, of making a premature affirma tion. That Noble Lord, be it remembered, had been placed in the same dilemma last year as that in which he now at tempted to place the Government. The same arguments which advanced his views previously, of not dealing with a subject before they had matter to deal with, was, in his opi nion, such as he could concur in. And here he would ask the Noble Lord and the House what was the precise object of the motion? Was it, as the motion would lead them to infer, solely, distinctly, and openly a means of arriving at a settle ment of the question it involved, or was it brought forward for the purpose of trying the great and important question of the relative strength and situation of parties?—( Cheers.) In listening to the early part of the speech of the Noble Lord, and marking the attention that he met with from Honourable Gentlemen opposite, he might have been inclined to entertain a doubt ; but the expression contained in the latter .part too unequivocally displayed the real object.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had referred to the declarations in the address put forward by his Right Honourable Friend to the electors of Tamworth, which he had said, and no doubt it was so, had been done for the purposes of making known to the whole nation the principles of his Right Hon. Friend. But to return to the motion of the Noble Lord. Supposing the present resolution was agreed to, what practical course was it proposed to pursue? Why, that they should present an ad dress to the Crown expressive of the opinion of the House of Commons? And for what purpose? Why, for no other pur pose than the hope of involving the Crown in a direct opposi tion to the wishes of that House. This would indeed be an illegitimate method of proceeding, and he should have thought it more considerate and manly, more worthy of the sta tion of the Noble Lord, and of that place to which he aspired, if he had boldly come forward with a motion expressing that the House had no confidence in the present Ministers. But no; a resolution had been artfully and wilfully drawn up, which was to produce the effect its framers desired, but which they had not sufficient confidence and boldness to avow.— ( Cheers.) To the principle of the Noble Lord he withheld his consent, on this distinct ground, that he was not at all pre pared to allow of the alienation of Church property from Church purposes. It was his decided conviction and firm opinion— and he would join issue with the Noble Lord on that point— and the Noble Lord might talk as long as he would, and tell them of proceedings had and proceedings anticipated—but he was not prepared to alter his opinion that to alienate the pro perty of the Protestant Church was to deprive the Pro testant to give to the Catholic.—( Loud cheers.) The property of the Established Church being differently dis tributed among its own members was not a case in any way analogous to the one now before them. The argument of the Noble Lord was not a valid argument; and he would ask the House if there were no difference between altering the amount of the revenues and differently applying their dis tribution from our Protestant Church to another, and taking from that Church, and applying its property to Catholic purposes ?—( Hear, hear.) He very much regretted, what ever might be the issue of the present motion, that the Noble Lord had thought proper to introduce any religious question for their discussion, to try thereby the merits of a party ques tion. He never liked the discussion of such questions in that House. He would concede to others what he claimed for himself, and allow, for he knew the principle of religious tole ration was nothing unless exercisedin that manner, the fullest indulgence to opinions that were contrary to his own. There fore, he was sorry that a point of so much delicacy had been introduced for the purpose of a trial of strength, feeling that it would leave so much bitterness of feeling behind it. He knew it had been cautiously avoided to arouse such feelings ; but he knew what must follow, and he should repeat it again and again, when an attempt was made to take from one Church to give to another. It would be in the recollection of the Noble Lord and of the House that the Member for St. Alban's (Mr. Ward) had last session introduced a motion on the present subject ; and the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had done the same, and with the same effect. The Noble Lord on those occasions had thought proper to pursue a course very different from what he now considered proper. He not only dissented, but he then declared that to allow the re solutions he alluded to to pass would not only be highly in convenient in practice, but decidedly wrong in principle. But although the Noble Lord objected to the introduction of the motion by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, yet in spite of those objections he now i n t ro d uce d a similar motion him self. The Noble Lord had said on that occasion, that in con junction with his colleagues it had been determined to issue a Commission. And here he would ask the Noble Lord, where he had obtained the information with which he had that night favoured the House ? He did not wish to impugn his veracity or deny his correctness; but if he obtained that information from the labours of the Commissioners, he was in possession of facts with which the Government were not acquainted ; and as that Commission had been issued by the Crown, he could not conceive how the Noble Lord was possessed of its results before any of the members of the Government. Be that as it might, and he know not how the case stood, he thought that the course now proposed to be adopted was a very bad one, and exceedingly imprudent in the present state of the information, namely, founding a general resolution on an abstract principle. The Right Hon. Gentleman then alluded to a speech delivered on the same subject by the Hon. Mem ber for Cambridge, who had designated such a course as "one of the greatest absurdities that could be perpetrated." He then said that the Noble Lord, when in of f ice, had enter tained and acted upon similar principles as be ( Sir E. Knatch - bull) then advocated, and he trusted 'hat he would yet consent to the rejection of the resolution. If it were the desire of the Noble Lord, in the event of his success, to see the formation of a new Government, of whom, he would ask, could it be composed ?—( Laughter from the Opposition.) Was it to be composed of " all the talents" on the Opposition side of the House, and headed by the Noble Lord? Did the Noble Lord propose to form his Government from these materials, and look for support for it from those Hon. Gentlemen of the Sister Island who, when he was in office, were so unsparing in their attacks on hint and his party ?—( Hear.) If that was what the Noble Lord proposed to himself, he would be bit terly disappointed. Supposing, and it looked likely, that the most prominent of the Noble Lord's present supporters were included in the Administration he should fok m—the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin for instance— how did the Noble Lord mean to deal with him ? The Honourable and Learned Member had temporarily foregone the repeal of the Union until he should see whether justice would be done to Ireland.—( Hear.) What did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman mean by " justice ?" Was the Noble Lord prepared to gise the term in reference to the condition of Ireland the same acceptation as the Hon. and Learned Member ? Would the Noble Lord concede_ to the Hon. and Learned Member the full extent of what he should choose to term " justice ?" If he did, what would England say ? If he did not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would agitate again the question of Repeal.—( Hear.) He (Sir E. Knatchbull) confessed that he saw with dismay and regret the close union of the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. And he could not help saying, that to see the leader 'of the Whig party—a party which always prided itself upon its observanee of the Constitution—coalescing with the Hon. and Learned Member, the avowed champion of opinions dan gerous to the integrity of the State, was in his mind a state of things most astounding to contemplate. —( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin discharged, no doubt, what he conscientiously believed to be his duty to his constituents ; but that course appeared to lie so directly opposite to the course which the people of England looked on as the right one, and the way in which he discharged it was so diametrically opposed to the interests of this country, that he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) could not again avoid expressing his fear of the extraordinary coalition which had taken place between that Honourable and Learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord the leader of the Whigs._( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) well remembered had said, on the occasion of a debate in which the national faith was in directly the question—" Strike off one half the interest of the National Debt, and if that be not found sufficient strike off the other." That was the Hon. Colleague with whom the Noble Lord had allied himself, and with whom he had identified his party.—( Hear.) That was the Hon. Gentleman with whom he had coalesced. " Strike off half the interest of the Na_ tional Debt, and it that does not do strike off the other half." He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) wished to know whether the Governor of the Bank of England was one of the party which included the Hon. Member who made that memorable declaration ? ( Hear, hear.) If that Hon. Member (Mr. Pattison) had been in his place, he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) would have asked him how he could justify or join such a coalition ? As be tween the present Government and the past Government, how did the great national question, the settlement of which w as admitted on all hands to be necessary, stand ? When any specific measure was proposed by the former was it not always better, and of a more practical and generally popu lar nature, than any similar one of the latter? Was not their Irish Tithe Bill incomparably a better Bill than the Bill of the preceding Government ?-,--( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Did it not embrace a wider scope, and give more decided satisfaction to a larger portion of the community ? Was not the Dissenters' Marriage Bill of a more comprehensive na ture than the similar measure of the last Administration ? And did it not, moreover, go farther? Were any objections urged against either of these measures? Not one. The only op position to them was on the ground that they had been in the contemplation of the late Administration, and his Right Hon. Friend Sir Robert Peel was attacked solely, not because his measures were inferior, not because they were superior, but because they were analagous to those which had been intro duced on former occasions by Hon. Gentlemen on the oppo site side of the House ; the only difference between them being in point of fact, that the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet were of a practical and satisfactory nature, while those of his opponents were vague, general, and incapable of being use fully applied to the purposes for which they were intended. He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) might allude again to the English Tithe Bill, but he should refrain from doing so, and keep solely to the question of Irish Church Reform. The Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire, had spoken generally of the deplo rable condition of Ireland. He had lamented the scenes of daily occurrence in that unhappy country, the murder, the rapine, the violence, the resistance to the law, and the constant and unceasing state of fearful agitation in which it was kept. Did the Noble Lord suppose that he alone lamented these occurrences? Did he suppose that these accounts of the violation of property, the loss of life, and the infraction of law; were received by the members of his Majesty's Go vernment with less of sorrow and regret than by him and his party, or that the) were less willing and ready to put an end to them by all the means in their power ? Of one thing he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) was quite certain. If some of the Hon. supporters of the Noble Lord, on the present occasion, were only half as anxious to suppress these lamentable occurrences, as they were to abet and encourage agitation, the scenes of blood and violence so common in that country would have no existence.--( Hear, hear.) On that subject he would trouble the House no further. He would oppose the measure of the Noble Lord, because he believed it to be revolutionary in its effect. He should also oppose it, because he most sincerely believed that the adoption of the principle of appropriation of Church property, to other than purely religious purposes con nected with the tenets of that Church, would lead eventually and immediately to an end which would be most injurious, and perhaps destructive, to the country—the separation of Church from State—( Hear, hear)—a state of things which he was willing to suppose the Noble Lord would deprecate as much as he or any other Hon. Member in the House. The Pro testants of Ireland should have justice done them, as well as the Catholics ; but the measure of the Noble Lord was not one of a character which would have that effect. If adopted, it would place that country in a position infinitely worse than that in which it now existed, and England would be no gainer by the result. The Hon. Baronet spoke so low towards the conclusion of his speech, that we could with difficulty hear him in the Gallery. Mr. WA IfD said that he should not follow the example of the Right Hon. Baronet, who had just addressed the House, by converting one of the greatest—if not the greatest consi dering all the varied and complicated interests which it in volved—of all the questions which could possibly come under the consideration of the Legislature into a tissue of mere petty personalities—( Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerial Benches, and loud cheers from the Opposition, in the midst of which Sir E. Knatchbull rose, but sat down again imme diately.) It was with feelings of deep concern, that he had used an expression which might be offensive to the Right Hon. Baronet; but really, when he saw a Minister of the Crown rising in that House at the commencement of such a discussion as the present—a discussion which he himself stated to in volve a vital question, and yet not touching upon that ques tion—negativing at once a proposition, but negativing it without discussing it—giving them a sort of manifesto in favour of his Majesty's present Government—talking to them of the Dissenters' Marriage Bill—of the Irish Tithe Bill—of the Church Reform Bill—of which he ( Mr. Ward) believed that they literally knew nothing, except that a paper,' considered to be the organ of the Church, had pronounced it to be one of the worst possible Bills—a cir cumstance, he must confess, rather in favour of the Right Honourable Gentle man opposite. When he heard the Right Hon. Baronet talking on all these subjects, and not touching once on the real question, he felt, certainly, that it was neces sary to express strongly his sense of such a course of proceed ing. He should address himself at once to that question. He admitted that the Right Honourable Baronet had fairly stated the case.—( Hear, hear, and laughter trom the Ministerial side.) He had stated it fairly on this one point—that this was a trial of confidence or no confidence in his Majesty's Govern ment. It was a trial of confidence or no confidence, resting on the greatest principle that could possibly come under discus sion in that assembly. On that point the Right Hon. Baronet had indeed stated the case fairly—on every other point he had made no statement at all. If he (Mr. Ward) could have felt anything like regret in yielding to the wishes of his friends, and to his own desire of promoting the settlement of this great question, by placing it in the hands of the Noble Lord who acted as leader of the party with which he was connected, he could assure the Noble Lord that that feeling would have been changed into one of sincere gratification by the Speech which he had delivered that night—a speech which identified the principle which it had been his (Mr. Ward's) lot to advo cate under less auspicious circumstances—(cries of " Hear, hear, hear," from the Ministerial side)—with the interest with the existence, he might say, of a great and enlightened party in this country. Honourable Gentlemen opposite might smile, when he said that he had advocated that principle under less auspicious circumstances. The fault was partly his own, and he owed an apology to those Hon. Gentlemen who differ ed from him, not in point of principle, but in point of time, for having forestalled a discussion which they had weighty reasons for considering premature.—( Hear, hear.) He had always held that though minor differences might he compro mise-d, the same course could not be pursued when the ques tion regarded a fundamental principle—one of those princi ples which ought to characterize the policy of a Government, and give the tone to its whole system ; he felt, also, that nothing could be more fallacious than to suppose that great differences of opinion could exist between the Mem bers of a Cabinet without striking at the root of all confi dence in the Government. It was to that state of uncer tainty that he wished to put an end by his resolutions of last year; the speech of the Noble Lord that night proved that he had effected his object. The House and the country should mark well the difference between the prin- ciple laid down by his Noble Friend, and that advocated by the Right Honourable Baronet opposite. The prin ciple of the Right Honourable Baronet was, the total in alienability of Church property to other than ecclesiastical purposes ; the principle laid down by the Noble Lord was, that Church property was applicable to all such purposes of genapl utility as Parliament in its wisdom m i g h t deter mine. That principle the Noble Lord did not state as an ab stract proposition ; he not state, in th e t erms o f hi s ( M r. Ward's) resolution of last year, " that it was right the State should regulate the distribution of Church property in such a manner as Parliament might determine ;" but he assumed that right, and called upon the House, in the exercise of it, at once to proceed to a diffeient appropriation of Church pro perty, and divert a portion of that property from the purposes to which it was at present devoted —supposing that by the re port of the Commission a surplus should appear to exist—to purposes of general utility, and from which every class of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland might derive advantage without distinction of sect or creed. He was no stickler for abstract propositions ; he cared not in what shape the resolution might be put, provided that principle were clearly and distinctly avowed. They might take as the object of the new ap propriation what they pleased—education or charity—or whatever a British Legislature, acting, as he hoped they al - vays would act, on the principles of strict morality and justice, could determine to be a desirable object. He looked simply to the right of interference on the part of the Legislature—( Hear, hear)—and he thought that in whatever shape the Noble Lord's proposition might be put, there was no one who could vote for it who did not distinctly recognize a right inherent in the State to deal with all corporate property, whether ecclesiastical or civil, in such manner as the welfare of the community might require —( Hear, hear)—and thus to accommodate our institutions in Church and State to those changes which time and the pro gress of society must inevitably render necessary. For that principle he held that every man must vote who voted for the Irish Church Commission last year, for it was on that princi ple that the Commission rested ' • no man could vote for that Commission who had not agreed in the right to purge and re store the State by rood and wholesome laws, and in the right eqully to amend the ecclesiastical establishments. He should be told, perhaps, that those who asserted that doctrine ought not to proceed to exercise the principle involved in it without any report of the Commission before them. He admitted that there would be some force in that objection if the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire had asked the House to proceed to any specific appropriation of any specific portion of the Church revenues ; there would be an inconsistency in those who thought a preliminary inquiry indispensable last year, con curring in any such vote now. It was on the ground of the necessity of inquiry alone that difference had arisen between himself and a number of gentlemen who con curred in that general principle which he entertained re specting the Irish Church—who concurred in thinking that the revenues of that establishment were exorbitant ; and in thinking that if they continued undiminished the Establishment would remain a constant source of irritation and agitation—just agitation he would say—and disturb ance—yet who refused to concur with him in affirming that proposition without a previous Commission of inquiry. For this they must wait before they could determine the details of the measure which they would ultimately adopt ; but they were not bound to wait for it in order to determine the principle of the measure.—( Hear, hear.) That was all the Noble Lord asked. He asked the House only to assert that they would not perpe tuate these evils which the Commission of last year was in• tended to remove, but would, by announcing the principle on which they intended to proceed henceforward in legislating for Ireland, hold out to the people of that country that promise of approaching relief, which he believed in his conscience to be the only means of putting a stop to a state of things in Ireland, not more injurious to the welfare of that country than to the character and stability of the empire at large. If this principle were not laid down distinctly, it would be cast at their feet as a bar to all subsequent proceedings—as a bar to all those practical reforms which they desired in the Universities, in the Municipalities, and in other Institutions. They all rested on the same ground—namely, that property in mortmain is the property of the State, and that the State may ex ercise a Legislative jurisdiction over it whenever a case of ne cessary interference occurred.—( Hear.) He admitted that the propriety or the impropriety, the justice or the in justice, of the interference, depended on the circumstances of the case ; he admitted that when our religious establish ments were concerned, they should be particularly cautious in the mode of interference. He admitted that hundreds of considerations of mere political expediency might justify deal ing with Corporations which would not justify tampering with Grants (Liberality) to Charter Schools ........... .... £ 1 ' 3 9,34 ,41‘ For Glebes, &c. .......... ..• - darins The number o f res id ent an d non-res ident nie r g o t, an certain years was as f o ll ows : —l n 1814, 644 r 5 e 4 5 4 3 - !. on; 543 non-resident ; in 1817, 765 res ident, and sident ; and in 1819, 758 res id en t , an d 531 non-reside; Lord had referred, during th e last year, to t h e name S ir jaine li Charlemont, Grattan, Pitt, B ur k e , Fox, and I th e V C % Macintosh, as autho r iti es i n f avour o f his view 0 ' h i c h tion. A constellation of the brightest names a Vi ' , the Church ; but he asserted just as distinctly that the 11111; was the same in the one case as in the other. Te thi r double question, of the existence of the right in the fillies possible extent, and the circumstances which called on theT to exercise it in Ireland, he should address himself : ar:d . first, as to the existence of the right. If there was no rigor interference was nothing but spoliation—( Hear, hear, fro! the Ministerial side)—and of that he never had been, an°ll never would be, the advocate. The Noble Lord had quoted a passage from Burke, which recorded, he (Mr. Ward) be lieved, the doctrine contained in his opinions on this qu.e tion in the strongest possible terms ; it was that in which be stated that we had by our law so incorporated and identifien the Church with the mass of private property in this k in g do l that one was at least as inviolable as the other—if Ch ur i e property did not possess a character of superiority and invio biiity. These opinions, backed by the authority of Burke, he by the follies which were perpetrated in every country in t' name of liberty and reform, long passed current among al.; the man who ventured to doubt them at the close of t "' last century was denounced as a Jacobin and little better thae an Atheist. He was denounced by Burke, in his own eg" phatic language, as " A man of a cold heart, and a mu dd y understanding ! One of the New-light and Reason Phi,, phers ! A wretch whose sophistry not the syllogism a t He logician but the lash of the executioner should refute. (Mr. Ward) thanked Heaven that the time was gone by wben any man could venture to denounce another in terms like tho!., for differing on one of the most difficult questions which •o 01u . come under the attention of the Legislature, namely, the cl th cumstances which justify the interference of the State w t property of any kind ; and the point at which the line n i F e s h be drawn, which represents that species of property with whi r. the State may interfere, from that with which it cannot int er " fere, unless in one of those peculiar emergencies in which 9' ll very existence of the commonwealth is at stake, and in win e , every other consideration gives way to the instinct of selfsr, e servation. He bel eyed that this constituted, exclusivf,'..r. the difference stoners betee corporate and private property. con'exclusive`, vate property wa of those fundamental acts which stituted society—it ,was the hand of society itself.—( 11e111 ::. " But the acts which form and endow Corporation s, • subsequent and subordinate. The property of indly n i , duals is established as a general principle, which Seci ' coeval with society itself ; but bodies, whether ecclesiastic a or civil—are instruments fabricated by the Legislature for specific purpose, which ought to be preserved while they t; beneficial, amended when they are impaired, and rejected Wile, they become useless or injurious." These are the word s 4.1 ) , great authority—they are the words of Mackintosh, who " he heat Burke in the field of argument on this point, and w as , 9 first to recal the attention of his countrymen to the princilley of common sense. His opinions about the clergy were eclu a lle well known ; they were sound and explicitly expressed. said, " No other class of public servants are propriet e . 0 They are salaried by the State for the performance a ce . rta l .d duties. Judges, kings, soldiers, are all paid by the State , so are the clergy, where there is an Established Chnreir They are paid for public instruction. The mode of tk e n payment is indifferent to the question. A territorial Pe n t he is no more property than a pecuniary pension. Because ' o f State has entrusted its ecclesiastical servants with a 1) 0 ' 1° a - a land, as the source and security of their pensions, they not more the proprietors of it than the other servants of.rh State are of that portion of the revenue out of WIL I they are paid." He proceeded to draw a difference r g e la tween the rights of private and Church property, ~,h1 lands of the Church are not even pretended to be. Ho for the benefit of those who enjoy them. This is no , criterion between private property and a public P o lio The happiness of the individual proprietor is the object P first, and he possesses, consequently, as the best judge otiie, own happiness, the most unlimited powers of enjoyments °a e e nation, and even abuse. The lands of the Church have o , e or of these attributes. They cannot be alienated, or abused, d, bequeathed. The Clergy are merely entrusted with the .3,1.0 ministration of those lands from which their salaries are pa' 0a In their opinions both Warburton and Paley concurred % lb° Bishop Watson expressed himself similarly, savingalwaYo. rights of existing incumbents. He said—" There is no AIA of tice in altering either the value of the benefice, or them a s raising that value, when the property of that benefice revert:ere it were to the State upon the death of an incumbent ; but 04 would be injustice in compelling the present incumbent of Church to accede to a change of property which he dislik Mr. Hallam stated the same principle. Lord Brouglgi in 1825, argued that " There was no sort of 811 Z i c1 1 between church property and private property, t o sse d should lead to the conclusion that the former P°, ss h e u - r eb the same sort of inviolability as the latter. The " 1- e es/ received its property for the performance of certain sero ,ed but private property was held unconditionally." He illustra, this by saying, with reference to the Irish Church. BY of of ing away the property of an individual, he was deP ll ,it , 2 1 1 f the means of providing for his family and children. .'" - cO O. the Legislature were to say to the priest of some parish , je ,a taining 500 Catholics and one Protestant, ' after you ar e o uld there shall be no longer any parson in this parish,' who lO, be injured by this ? A person who never enjoyed it 1" con held the same doctrine, 200 years before, when he ° l a p " As the realm once gave tithes to the Church, so the re t i l e since again, hath given tithes away from the Church, ner ate ll King. " The same line of ar g ument had been taken to in two works, both entitled to some consideration. ° De , ea which he alluded was a pamphlet entitl e d, "An Es ss iee le National Property by Senior." The other was an % j rk upon Church Property in The Edinburgh Review—the ' of a most comprehensive intellect. The other names he %le a d bring forward—inferior certainly to none in political lustre jo moral worth. The first was the name of Lord Grey, W" ( d' e ar a discussion which arose on this very Irish Church p i, mission in the House of Lords last year, stated hi s ° t he nion in regard to the rights of the State as affecting property of the Church in the strongest possible te'. He said—" The Commission is issued with a view to th e Z e no go of lation,—with a view, if you will, to a different appropri a "goe the revenues of the Church."—" The rights of the P 1. ' ." 0 possessors I will hold sacred ; but I maintain that the Pr ° , l l, 0 of the Church is a subject for the exercise of the discretl e n iple Parliament."—" If there is a surplus, I avow the Z rie f ieW that the State has a right to deal with that surplus, with a Obi! to the exigencies of the State, and the general interest s , b ° o of country."—The other name to which he alluded vras i ,„,aeri the Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exe`7lo° who certainly was high authority to the principle, tl.ei the somewhat modified snape, by becoming the advocate of en doctrine of distribution. He said—" The time was cod e " we must consider whether we could not facilitate the P r° ,. g Prifs, tion of divine truth, and extend the means of divine w is e l 'i s bea by a different distribution of the funds of the Est ali chont Church." It was utterly impossible to re-distribute wtega, o o a great change in the approp r i a ti on • and the w ment on which that re-distribution depended, til ers perfectly sound and convincing if th e Ch u rch fo as, one great Corporation, holding prop e rty a s common pot was not so when it was considered that the Church 'A' ith one corporation, but a s e ri es — a b un dl e o f cor poration s, w its, distinct funds. He knew not what was th e n a ture of the es' tended plan of Church Reform ; if it were to go to the_ s i v petted length—to the e.,u a liz a ti o n o f bi s h o p r i cs , and th e fo w ds, ing provision for the working clergy out of the surplu s o f sfr there was such a great, such an extraordinary, chang e - ht the propriation effected by that distribution, that he tholi e for Right Hon. Baronet himself must recognise the princir w ere which he (Mr. Ward) contended—namely, that the re are no bounds to the right o f i n t er f er i ng , exce pt those n ul l{ the imposed by a consideration for the public welfare. la c! is Right Hon. Baronet ad m itt e d thi s , h e wou ld be invo"l,,ark the dilemma which had been so forcibly pictured in the it her which lie had referred to, the Edinburgh Review „ r ive! there is an essential difference between corporate and tare property, or there is not. If there be this difference , ° at Ow the injustice or the danger of interference ? If there be„ 11- tr ibtr difference, how can interference, in the shape of re-w s no alli tion, be justified, since, as a precedent, it would be e l pro' dangerous ? If this precedent were applied to priva t a e eon' perty, where could the line between re-distribution an e ither fiscation be di awn ? Re-distribution would, in fact, be, l : WO' more nor less than an Agrarian law." If the Rig.; /in i , Baronet were prepared to carry out these extensl et' ciples of Church reform, he could only do so by a nl . pd - no t tensive system of re-distributi on . H e (M r . Ward) did that object to that ; but if the Right Hon. B a ronet adoP te ns principle, the opinion expressed by Burke must weigh ke be' thing in the scale with the Right Hon. Baronet. O ur be 01. said, " When once th e C ommonwea l t h h as esta blished t ar so tates of the Church as p ro p er t y , i t can , cons i ste ntly, be l e , sr e thing of the more or the less. Too much and too lit t n i g hs , treason against property." He had said, on a form er that although re-distribution might, and he had no doubt w e be .. be effectual in England—although it might satisfy ell e dir t nest Church reformer in this country, still he though t ths" tinction between Ireland and England to consist in thie -- ; in Ireland re-distribution would not be of the slightest usreessed would not remove one fraction of the burden whie b ,„,Pisrit Y ,„ now on the people ; it wou ld no t a ll ay i n an y degree t"" gram tion then subsisting. He did, therefore, hope that the ,:east, would look to the sit ua ti on o f I re l an d i n a c alm and niv sionate manner, and consider whether it was not in their P r hoee by asserting the right of interference, to put an end tee evils which their own obstinate adherence to ancient Pt one 1 in regard to Ch urc h property, h a d enta il e d on it. " e . O the now to the que st i on o f w h at were t h e c i rcum stance s 0 11. case of Ireland which called for that interference ° P o lio' part, and in w h a t manner h er s i tuat i on cou ld be, rh e o sind rated by a r e d uct i on o f t h e E sta bli s h e d Ch ur ch. e h s ti a wide question, and one on which he had ...entered.... to sn i.ini to extent last year, that he hoped the House would allow, shim allude to some statements which he had then mad e T e at a t ' gument from a more advanced stage. Many of to give himself the advantage of commencing the pr e ' s tat e ' ments had been alluded to by the Noble Lord, antle!h°e bey he should not refer. He stated then, as the result 0. information which he could acquire,the following faets 6o° w , 401 Population of Ireland Episcopalian Protestants, lin 14, or about . .... 7, 76 %0 0 Population Abstract, 1831 Revenues of Protestant Establishment—Tithe s .£ 957 ' 466 ...... 600, Army (Force) from 1825 to 1832 from 19,000 2t Tithe 000 men Processes, Glebes--Bishops' Land & s, c .............. ... Arm • to from 1817 to 1821. x3OO, 00° Police Force .. ........... ................................ ,1,4 19 In Ecclesiastical Courts By Civil Bill Process .. ......... 90,50 Annual Average those those ...... 71,3743'.0 Pr ess 1(1(1