The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-23 00:00:00

bich heinsisted was any thing but that of a man of honour. InsiCad of his fortune being it by the proceedings of that House, he thought he would be found the Parliamentary agent of every borough in the county on future occasions.— (C,ies of " Oh, oh.") The petitioner stated that the wit messes had abfronded of their own accord, and not by any contrivance of the petitioner; and yet the evidence of Mr. Clipperton and other witnesses before the Committee, was di rectly contrary to this statement. The Hon. Member read several extracts from the petition, and from the minutes of evidence, to show the variation between the two. 3ir JOHN W R OTT E SLE Y would move that the debate be adj(eirued till Friday next. Mr. D. W. HARVEY was ready to vote for the discharge of Mr. Ciipperton, Mr. Sparrowe, or Mr. Any-body-else, who might have been committed in this instance; because, after allowing the great criminals to escape, he looked upon it as a mere mockery and parade of justice to be visiting punishment upon the beads of the small fry. Mr. RICHARDS said, although the Hon. Member for Southwark assumed to be the friend of the working classes and the pc:or, yet with all due respect he would ask that lion. Member what good he had ever done for the poor in his life? —(Laughter.) I (said Mr. Richards) employ scores of work ing people, and have done so for yearS, for the benefit of them selves, and certainly to the advantage of—( Loud laughter).— my own character.—( Renewed laughter.) I beg the Hon. Member will therefore in future deal with more respect to wards Gentlemen on this aide'of the House.—(Laughter.) Lord JOHN RUSSEL concurred in the suggestion that this debate should be adjourned till Friday. Mr. FRESHFIELD, in explanation, said if he bad ad dressed the House with undue warmth, he begged pardon, but he confessed it.at he felt warmly on the subject. The Hon. Member for Ipswich had used the term " quibbling ;" if that Hon. Member meant to apply that term to him (Mr. Fresh field), he begged, with ail the indignation he could express, to tell the Hon. Member that he was as incapable of quibbling as the Hon. Member himself. Mr. RIGBY WA SON addressed the House amidst loud cries of " Spoke, spoke." He did not think the language he bad used, except by a very forced construction, could be made applicable to the Hon. Member ; and no Hon. Member had a right to put that construction upon any Hon. Member's lan guage for the purpose of expressing his indignation at it. Lord DARLINGTON was astonished at the course taken by the Hon. Member for Ipswich in this matter. It was with extreme regret that he saw any Hon. Member in this House acting with that vindictive spirit which that Hon. Member bad exhibited. He (Lord Darlington) was sorry that the Hon. Member was tempted to take the course he was now pur suing.—( Great cheering from the Opposition.) Mr. RIGBY WASON—The Noble Lord, although prompted by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—( Cries of " Order, order.") Lord DARLINGTON and Mr. RICHARDS both rose to address the House. The latter giving way, Lord DARLINGTON said—l call the Hon. Member for Ipswich to Birder. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough has never said a single word to me.—(Loud Opposition cheers, and cries of " Order.") Mr. WAS ON then rose and said—Sir, the Noble Lord—. Lord DARLINGTON (interrupting)—Don't speak what is false.—(Cries of " Order, order I" " Chair, chair I" in the midst of which Mr. Wason resumed his seat.) The SPEAKER—I hope the Noble Lord will explain. Lord DARLINGTON—I am very sorry that I should make use of an expression that is improper. At the same time, when the Hon. Member for Ipswich attributes words to me— when he says I have been prompted by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—knowing at the same time perfectly well that that Hon. Member never addressed me--(" Order, order I" " Chair, chair I") The SPEAKER—The Noble Lord, after a moment's re flection, must feel, that if anything is stated in the course of debate—of which he thinks he has a right to complain—that the proper course is to afford an opportunity to the Hon. Member making that statement, to give an explanation of that which the Noble Lord considers exceptionable. But, certainly, the Noble Lord has expressed his feelings in terms which are not proper, nor in accordance with the rules of the House. Lord DARLINGTON again expressed his sorrow that he should have been guilty of using an expression, which was felt by the House to be offensive ; but he hoped he might bo allowed to say, that what the Hon. Gentleman had said to him was extremely offensive to his feelings. Mr. RIGBY WASON assured the Noble Lord that he (Mr. Wason) did not use the term " prompted" with any in tention to give offence. I saw (said the Hon. Gentleman) the Hon. Member for Knaresborough turn to the Noble Lord; but if the Noble Lord says he was net prompted by that Hon. Member, that is quite sufficient. In what I said to the Noble Lord I did not mean it as a charge ; but I do mean to state to the Noble Lord that when he says I am actuated by vindic tive feelings, that if I were to say that the Noble Lord stated that which be knew to be untrue, I should use what would be unparliamentary language. But Ido say that the Noble Lord has stated what is antrue.—(Hear, hear, Order, Chair, and much confusion.) The SPEAKER again interposed, and called the Hon. Member to order. Mr. RIGBY WA SON—The Noble Lord said that I was actuated by vindictive feelings. I say that is untrue. If that be unparliamentary language, of course as unparlia mentary language I retract it. How can the Noble Lord know the feelings that actuate my breast? Knowing what what were my own feelings, I did state what I must repeat, that what the Noble Lord stated is untrue.—( Loud calls for Lord Darlington.) Mr. W YNN said, it certainly appeared to him that his Noble Friend had first used an expression which was contrary to the rules of this House, by saying that the Hon. Member for Ipswich was actuated by vindictive feelings. It was a rule of this House, and one he thought of great importance, that motives should not be imputed to any Hon. Member.— (Hear, hear, hear.) He was sure that under these circum stances his Noble Friend must desire to observe the usual rules of the House by retracting the offensive expression. And as that was the case, he was convinced that the Hon. Gentle man opposite would also comply with what he must see was the general feeling of the House, by withdrawing the offen sive term which he had likewise used.--. 4 Hear.) Lord DARLINGTON (being again loudly called for) rose and said—l have expressed before, and I state again, that if I have used any expression that is unparliamentary, I am very ready to retract that expression. At the same time, after having said that, I think the Hon. Gentleman opposite should pursue precisely the same course., If he retracts the expres sions used on his part, I shall not hesitate to do the same.— e l Oh, oh I " " Chair, chair 1") The SPEAKER understood the Noble Lord to say that he was ready to withdraw his offensive expression, and that he trusted the Hon. Member for Ipswich would also withdraw the expression which he had applied to the Noble Lord, the Noble Lord having first attributed motives to that Hon. Member by saying that he was actuated by vindictive feelings, which un doubtedly was most unparliamentary. Lord DARLINGTON—I am perfectly willing to withdraw the expression on my part, if the Hon. Member will follow the example.—( Opposition calls for Mr. Wason, and cries on the Ministerial side of " No, no !") Mr. WASON said—the Noble Lord has said if I will do so and so, he will do so and so. That is an apology I will not accept, either in this House or out of it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I rise only to make a remark in confirmation of what has fallen both from the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) and from the Cliair-4-that the first disorderly expression was used by the Noble Lord, when the Noble Lord thought it proper to rise and say that the Hon. Gentleman behind me was actuated by vindictive feelings in the course he has pursued in this House. That was the first disorderly expression used—therefore I should conceive that the Noble Lord would, without any condition whatsoever, pay that respect to the House which is due to it. I may say fur ther, that although what the Hon. Gentleman behind me said— that the Noble Lord had been prompted by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough—may be an expression giving offence to the Noble Lord, yet I do not see that it is an offence against the orders of this House--( Hear, hear)—nor do I see what cause the Noble Lord bad for finding fault with it. Mr. RIC HA RD S—lt appears to me, Sir—( Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh")—I admit that I did speak to the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) The expression I made use of was— he has a wife and a large family—(Laughter)—meaning Clip perton. So far that was prompting ; but the Noble Lord did not hear mc, and therefore it fell to the _round. Bat the Noble Lord, as it seemed to me, only said that it appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Ipswich was actuated by vin dictive feelings ; which was very different from saying that he was so actuated.—(No, no.) Mr. G 0 ULBURN understood his Noble Friend to have distinctly stated, that if he had made use of any offensive ex pression, he begged to retract it.—(No, no.) His Learned Friend had distinctly made that admission.—( Hear, hear.) What further apology the Hon. Member, therefore could re. quire, be could not conceive. The SPEAK ER did also distinctly understand the Noble Lord to have made that general withdrawal of his expresssion as being against the rules of the House. But undoubtedly, if the Noble Lord had so expressed himself as to couple his retractation with any condition, he was sure the House would admit that the Noble Lord was not in a situation to do any such thing ; because to attribute motives to a Member of the House was an offence against the House itself.—(Mr. Wason was again called for by the Opposition Members.) Sir ROBERT PRICE said it appeared to him that there was some misunderstanding as to the retractation of the Noble Lord. If, therefore, the Noble Lord would have the good ness to comply with the general wish of the House, and say again what were the terms he used, it would be the means of setting the House right. Lor DARLINGTON—I was in hopes that I had already made myself sufficiently understood.—( Hear, hear.) It cer tainly did appear, as far as I could collect, that what I before stated was satisfactory to the House. lamat a loss to know what I can state in addition to what I have already said. It was not my intention to give offence to the House : and if I used an offensive expression, lam ready to retract it. At the same time, as the Hon. Member also used expressions equally offensive to me, I thought it was not too much to call upon Lim also to retract. I am perfectly ready to make any apology to the House for any expression I may have made use of, pro vided the Hon. Member for Ipswich does the same. Lord SANDON observed, that the offence of his Noble Friend was to the House, and not to the Hon. Member for Ipswich, and therefore an apology was due from the Noble Lord to the House without any condition whatever.—( Loud cheers.) If the Hon: Gentleman should then afterwards make an apology which was due from him to the House, this unfor tunaa- business would be at nn end. one BROWNE recollected perfectly that the Noble 4‘ 1 7„. . 4 "! 7 e. that what was stated by the Hon. Gent. was false. ~-‘4 / . i 5....( rids of , V4o, no," from the Opposition benches.) When ~ l i.`6 - the Hon. Ge attributed to the Hon. Member for Knares- Y•- baron& that he bad prompted the Noble Lord, the Noble .:., ~,-;- ''' _-. 7 .- / ,-' 01., -` .t.,_ *----' \ I ' 0 • !r ' , • y 101;=V- Lord immediately said, " It -is false !"—(No, no, from the same quarter.) Lord DARLINGTON—If I did make U3O of that expres sion, I retract Cheers from all parts of the House.) Mr. FO WELL BUXTON said the first thing to be done was for the Noble Lord to retract the expression used by bim offensive to the House ; that being done, the next thing to be done was, for the offensive expressions which had subse quently been used to be withdrawn. He then thought that both the private order and the dignity of the House would be maintained. Mr. W ARBURTON—I believe the Noble Lord has en tirely retracted one expression—the word " False ;" but I do not understand him to have retracted the personally offensive expression—that the Hon. Member for Ipswich was actuated by vindictive feelings. An HoN. I%IEMBEa understood the Noble Lord to have retracted every expression that could be offensive to the House. The SPEAKER understood that the Noble Lord, in the first instance, made a general retractation. Subsequently the Noble Lord made a conditional retractation. That being con trary to the orders of the House, he (the Speaker) called the Noble Lord's attention to the fact, and observed that upon the Noble Lord making a retractation, unconditionally and without qualification, the House would require the Hon. Mem ber for Ipswich to do the same. The Noble Lord having done this, he (the Speaker) did not think the Hon. Member for Ipswich was in a situation to refuse making the retracta tion required. Mr. RIGBY W A SON—I can only state what appear to me to be the circumstances of the case, leaving the House to say whether lam right or wrong. When I got up to reply to the Noble Lord's first observation, that I was actuated " by vindictive motives," I said that the Noble Lord was prompted by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. The Noble Lord then said, " That is false."--( Cries of " No, no.") Why the Hon. Member for Knaresborough has told the House that it was true, and that he did prompt the Noble Lord. —(Loud cries of " No, no.") I then understood you, Mr. Speaker, to call upon the Noble Lord, and that the Noble Lord did then retract the word " false." I was then going on to answer the Noble Lord as to the terms " vindictive feel ings." In doing so, I made use of an expression which you, Sir, considered to be unparliamentary. I stated, in reply, when I was called upon for an apology, that I used the ex pression in answer to the Noble Lord's observation, which I considered to be equally unparliamentary. I then understood the Noble Lord to use these terms distinctly—that if he had used any unparliamentary language he was very willing to apologize to the House if I did the same. My answer then, as it must be now, was, that I never would accept an apology on a condition. If the Noble Lord will state that which he conceives he ought to state, I shall do that which I conceive is proper for me to do.—( Hear, hear.) Lord DARLINGTON—The Hon. Gentleman seems to state that what I stated was false.—( No, no.) Ile charges me with having stated what actually was false, because he says that I was prompted by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. Whether that Hon. Member turned round to, or whether he !moke to me, or what he said, I declare upon my honour I c ' a „,,-,:4 tell. Therefore, I was a little surprised to be charged as beinc, crompted. With respect to any offensive expressions perfectly ready to have retracted ; I may rave ust7 l - I was and if the Hon. IVe:ber had not subsequently made use of a similarly offensive exprtZ7lon, I should have done so with out making any condition. Although 1 am ready to admit that my expressions were oti::"sive, yet, according to my construction, the expression which the Lion. Member used had a precisely similar effect. Mr. R. WASON—I never meant to impute to the Noble Lord an intention to deceive the House. I only alluded to the admission of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, in order to show that I did not speak without some foundation, when I said that that Hon. Member had prompted the Noble Lord. Mr. R. C. FERGUS SON observed that the Noble Lord had, in his opinion, unequivocally retracted everything. The words " vindictive feelings" were certainly of significant import in comparison with other words ; but the Noble Lord had since made a most unqualified retraction. These words were fol lowed by words of similar import from the Hon. Member for Ipswich, and he (Mr. C. Ferguson) thought that Hon. Mem ber was bound to make an equally unqualified retraction.— ( Hear, and loud calls for Mr. Wason.) Mr. R. WA SON—I understand that the Noble Lord has retracted the expression imputing to me falsehood without any condition. Of course, therefore, without any mixture of re serve or equivocation on my part, I also retract the expressio'n used by me towards the Noble Lord. Mr. AGLIONBY then expressed a hope that the Hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Freshfield) would consent to post pone the further debate on the petition before the House until Friday next. The Hon. Gentleman briefly referred to the evidence to show that Mr. Clipperton was wholly unworthy of any favour at the hands of the House. Mr. WYNN said, that if the question went to a division, he should certainly vote in favour of the postponement of the discussion. Sir HENRY HARDINGE hoped, when the Right Hon. Chairman of the Committee advocated the postponement of the discussion, his Hon. Friend would see the propriety of adjourning the debate. • Mr. FRE SHFIELD, thus appealed to, moved the adjourn ment of further debate on the question, until (as we under stood) Friday next. The question was put and carried, and the debate adjourned accordingly. _............___ _ _ _ ..._ CHURCH OF IRELAND. The Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate on this question having been moved and read, Mr. HUME presented himself to the House. The sub ject had been already SQ often before it, that it was really his original intention to have abstained from troubling the House with any observations in reference to it; but the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in the speech he had addressed to the House last night, on his mo tion for dividing the Bill into two parts, had addressed him self so pointedly to him (Mr. Hume), as one of the difficulties he had to contend with in dealing with the question—( Hear and a laugh)—that be was anxious to remove from the mind of the House the undue impression which the Right Hon. Ba ronet's allusion to his exaggerated statements of the revenues of the Irish Church was calculated to convey.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet did him the honour to refer to his speech of 1822, upon the subject of the Irish Church, he would find that he was not quite correct in supposing his (Mr. Hume's) estimate of its available revenues to exceed 3,000,0001. sterling. On the 19th June, 1822, he brought the question of the state of the Irish Church before the House, believing, as he then sincerely believed, and as, after fifteen years' experience, he still believed, that to the cor.dition of that Establishment might be traced nearly all the evils and misfortunes of that unhappy ccuntry. At that period be was most anxious to impress upon the House two points of con sideration—the one, the great magnitude of the Establish ment • the other, the immense amount of its revenues. He was bound to state the authority from which he derived the information he then stated to the House. It was the autho rity of Mr. Wakefield, in his estimate of the revenues of the - Irish Church a work compiled during his resi dence with the late Lord Oriel, and at a period when he had as he (Mr. Hume) believed, the best information that could possibly be derived. Mr. Wakefield computed the rental of Ireland at 14,000,0001. sterling ; the property of the Church in Irish acres, at two-elevenths of the whole product of the land. Taking this at 2,556,0001., and adding the value of the parochial tithes, he found the total, on Mr. Wakefield's own showing, to be 3,200,0001. He had further stated, that if the estimates were correct, the actual gross amount of tithe then receivable was little short of 1,000,000/. sterling; and that there were twenty-four archbishops and bishops, and 1,270 beneficed clergymen, enjoying a revenue of nearly 1,000,0001. sterling. Now, how stood the fact ? Why, a Noble Lord, who had brought forward a motion on the sub ject, in common with other high authorities, had calculated the amount, after all deductions and charges, at consider ably above 600,000/. The Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had stated, in 1824, that the revenues of the Church of Ireland amounted to only 3,270,00 Q/. If his (Mr. Hume's) statement were exag gerated on the one hand, the Noble Lord's was surely ex aggerated on the other. He (Mr. Hume) had contended that the average revenue of each benefice was 520/. ; the Noble Lord had stated that 2651. would be the outside ; but taking the average amount of the 417 livings commuted under the Tithe Composition Bill, the annual value of each amounted to 499/.—( Hear, hear.) His statement, there fore, was not so much exaggerated, after all; and, even if there were an unintentional exaggeration, it was attributable to the secrecy preserved, and the perseverance, with which the production of all accounts and statements had been refused. Considering the limited means of information, be or any individual possessed on the subject, he submitted that the error was a very trivial one. He had only to look back for a period of eleven years, to the time when the Noble Lord had made his statement, and to consider the facts which had since that occasion transpired, and to ask the Noble Lord, and to ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether they or be were moat correct ? The very first vote he had given in that House on the question of the Irish Church was in 1812, on Mr. Can ning's Resolution of the 22d of June in that year, which was to this effect :—" That this House will, early in the next session of Parliament, take into its most serious consideration the state of the law affecting his .Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and tranquillity of the United King dom—to the stability of the Protestant Establishment, and the general satisfaction of all classes, of his Majesty's sub jects." From that moment until the passing of the Catho lic Emancipation Bill, he had been deeply impressed with the importance of that first step of conciliation, and he still thought there would be no peace or tranquillity in Ireland, until the Church Establishment in that country was placed on a better footing.—( Hear, hear.) If be had made such a speech as that made by the Right Hon. Baronet last night, he would have been immediately charged with pay ing attention to nothing but pounds, shillings, and pence.— ( Cheers, and a laugh.) The whole of the Right Hon. Baronet's speech was a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. He talked of the necessity of protecting the Establishment, to be sure, but did he put this question to himself or to the House ? Had the Church Establishment in. Ireland, from the period of the first substantive motion, recognising the necessity of re-. ducing it in proportion to its general utility, given satisfaction to the people, or answered the object for which it was founded? —(Cheers.) Measure after measure had been brought in, Bill after Bill had been introduced, Secretary for Ireland after Secretary for Ireland had endeavoured to perpetuate that Church in its old state, and what was the result of all their attempts ? Signal and complete failure.—(Cheers.) So utter was the failure, that after all their endeavours they were compelled at last to give up the tithe, and to grant 1,000,000/. to the Clergy of Ireland.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Ba ronet had failed throughout the whole of his argument to ad. i t" THE SUN, LONDON; THURSDAY, jULY 23, 1836. vance a single reason in favour of the division he proposed The Right Hon. Baronet's great argument was that the fund from which the surplus was to be derived was already bank rupt, and that until the year 1853 there would not be one farthing of surpluj available. Why, if there were to be no surplus at all, on what ground did the Right lion. Baronet oppose the progress of the Bill at all ? Any objections to the details, any amendments to the clauses, might be urged in Com mittee. The whold proceeding was a contradiction ; the very ground the Right Hon. Baronet took, destroyed his own case, and he ought not for one moment to have impeded the Bill in its progress-to a committee.—( Cheers). The Right Hon. Bart. had objected to the Noble Lord's Bill. He ( Mr. Hume) would admit that it was not the best that might have been intro duced. lie for one saw no reason why they need hamper themselves with benefices at all. Why could they not divide Ireland. into districts, allot a clergyman to every place where there was a sufficient number of Protestants, commute the tithes, sell all the landed property of the Church, bring the whole of the proceeds into one general fund, and pay the sti pends which were proved to be necessary out of it.—( Cheers. ) The Right Hon. Baronet had alluded to the emoluments of the Scotch Church. He held in his hand a list of the livings of the Scotch Clergy, with the emoluments attached to each, and he would give the Right lion. Baronet the information he seemed to require. There were twenty livings, the emolu• ments of which were 8001. a year each ; ten with 2,6001. a year each • ten with 500/. (all of these being benefices con nected with the larger and more populous towns), and the re mainder varied from 150/. to 3001. The Scotch Clergy, lie admitted, were better paid than the Clergy of Ireland, for one reason—they were more equally divided over the country ; but he had always contended that 3001. a-year was net too high a salary for a resident Clergyman with efficient duties to per form.—( Hear, hear.) His opinion decidedly was, that the Bill did not go far enough ; for, after all, it would keep up establishments which were not wanted, and perpetuate that ap pearance of domination and tyranny so repulsive to the people of Ireland. He could not believe that any such alteration as was now proposed would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. Entertaining this opinion, he thought the Government, at no distant period, would be obliged to reconsider the whole Church question, and adopt an entirely different course. The Bill would not do.--( Cheers.) Far from it. It was a step, and as a step he was content to take it. If his charge were 6s. Bd., he would take 3s. 4d. rather than lose the whole, but he would wait for the remainder, and embrace the first opportunity of getting it.—(Cheers.) The Right, Hon. Baronet had said last night, that if the measure were carried, the Church would become stipendiary. Why should not the Church become stipendiary ?--( Cheers.) Was it to be pa ramount to the Government ?—( Renewed cheering.) Here was the error, and here it had been before. The Right Hon. Baronet had talked of the Establishment of parsons starving on 225/. a-year, and pointed out the apparent absur dity of some of the clauses, but did he ever put this question to the House—for what purpose was the Christian religion founded ?—( Loud cheers.) Was it to promote peace and good-will among men ?—(Cheers.) Had the Right Hon. Baronet asked himself, or had any of those Gentlemen who now opposed the Bill, asked themselves whether the Church Establishment in Ireland had produced the result ?—( Loud cheers.) Excitement, irritation, murder, and bloodshed, were these the effects of the truth of religion ? Oppression, tyranny, and resistance, were these signs of peace and good will ?—( Cheers.) The Establishment was a failure. It was the plain truth, and there was no denying the fact—a lamentable failure. All history and experience showed that wherever religious domination had existed, the more had per secution and intolerance flourished.—( Cheers.) These were the effects of the Church of Ireland, and those effects it was proposed to remedy in part. Was the Bill again to be thrown out, and the people of England to pay another million as the price of the folly which allowed it to be thrown out.— (Cheers.) He hoped not one farthing of the public money would ever leave the Exchequer for such a purpose. Let the heads of the Irish Church—let the heads of the English Church—let the Duke-of Wellington or any other than—if they were disposed, render futile the liberal arrangements rnade last year, and the still more liberal arrangements (even on the Right - Hon. Baronet's "showing) contemplated in the present; but let not the people of England, under any pre .tence, or on any consideration, lend their countenance or sanc tion to such a proceeding.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had, in 1824, ac cused him (Mr. Hume) when he brought forward the subject, of an intention to subvert not only the Established Church, but the Constitution. With what compunction must the Right Hon. Gentleman now think of that speech, when he considers how general in all parts of the country the doc trines which ho then advocated, now are.—( Hear, hear, hear.) So prevalent, indeed, were they, that even in Cam bridge he would venture to say that the Right Honourable Gentleman would find his opinions in a minority. What was the effect of the continual opposition of the Gentlemen oppo site to all reform ? The consequence of it was, that it was now driving every part of the country into resistance. Was it not owing to the people despairing of being otherwise suc cessful, that there was so strenuous a resistance at this moment to the church-rates? He had a letter from Wolverhampton, which showed the feeling in respect to church-rates. A mo tion was made last week for a new rate, when an amendment was moved that the question be adjourned, and the amendment was carried by a majority of 948 to 303. This showed that three-fourths of the people of Wolverhampton were opposed to church-rates. The church-rates would now infallibly be lost—all the power in the country could not save them. The same would be the case with the tithes, if the opposition to the settlement of the question continued. Why should they, therefore, not make a timely secession from their present po sition. By further opposition they would sacrifice the Esta blished Church in Ireland altogether.—( Hear, hear.) It was not to be expected that more money should be paid by the people of this country towards the support of the Irish clergy —( Hear, hear)— and the recovery of tithes' was absolutely hopeless.—( Hear, hear.) Let them refuse this measure, and what will be the consequence? He would tell them, that their opposition would be more fatal to the Established Church of Ireland than anything which could possibly be proposed from his (the Ministerial) side of the House. —( Cheers.) The Right lion. Baronet had showed that there would be no sur plus fund, and he therefore claimed his vote in support of the measure, for the surplus was the great source of dispute.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) thought that, in all the in ventions of human mischief, mankind had never invented an engine so destructive of the public peace as the Established Church of Ireland.—(oh, oh !) How lone . had the people of Ireland lived in hope of some improvement being made in their condition? and how had those hopes been realized ?—( Hear, hear.) He blamed the Government of Lord Grey for having followed out the policy of their predecessors in regard to Ire land ; but that was the rock upon which that Administration split, and he should think that those who formed it were now convinced that they had acted wrongly.—( Hear, hear.) It was thrown out as a matter of reproach, that the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin supported this measure. But he could say, that the Hon. Member for Dublin had always been an advocate for the oppressed against their oppressors—(bear, hear)—and was as anxious as any man to see the people of Ireland in a quiet and happy state—( Hear, hear)—and he hoped that the people of Ireland would receive this Bill as an earnest of what it was the wish of the Government to do for them. Mr. GOULDURN and Sir JAMES GRAHAM then rose together, but the latter gave way. Mr. G 0 U LBURN then said that the Hon. Member for Middlesex had said that though he had long fought on diffe rent sides from him, yet he gave him (Mr. Goulburn) credit for having sincerely entertained the opinions which he had advocated, and conscientiously pursued the course which he thought best. He (Mr. Goulburn) was ready to give the Hon. Member for Middlesex equal credit for sincerity, in pursuing that course which, however dangerous it might have appeared to him, was conducive to the forwarding of those views which no doubt the Hon. Member conscientiously thought the best. But so far from acting with any hostility on this occasion, he on the contrary, thanked him for having stated what appeared to him to be in many respects very correct views of the ques tion under discussion.—(hear, hear.) The Hon. Member stated that he accepted this measure not as a final settlement of the question, but as a beginning—as an earnest of what may be done for the people of Ireland, and he even stated that the ultimate object which he had in view, was that there should be no Establishment of the Protestant religion at all. —(" No, no !") The Hon. Member bad certainly said so.— (" No, no 1 ") Mr. HUME . begged to explain. If he had said that there n should be o Establishment of the Protestant religion in Ire land, be certainly had not meant to say so.—( Hear, hear.) What he meant to have said was, that he wished the present parishes and benefices to be abolished, and new parishes con structed according to the wants of the country.—( Hear.) Mr. GOULBURN—Then it appeared that the Hon. Member would have an Establishment of the Protestant reli gion, but only wished to do away with the old bulwarks of the Church, in order to reconstruct them ; but what did the Hon. Member then mean by this being only an earnest of what the people of Ireland had to expect ? What did he mean by say ing that this was not to be the final deduction to be made from the incomes of the clergy of the Established Church, but that it was only the commencement of a series of. deductions which were to end in what he said would meet the approbation of the people of Ireland ? He ( Mr. Goulburn) thought that there was nothing to which the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) more strenuously ob jected than the junction of measures different in their natures in one Bill. He had frequently been taunted by the Hon. Member for doing so, and yet on the present occasion, when his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth proposed to divide into two separate Bills the two measures of which this Bill was composed, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposed it. The object of the two parts of the Bill were quite different, and acting upon their own principles, he called upon them to separate them. In doing this he only asked them to do what was in strict conformity with their own principles.—( Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his Right Hon. Friend ought to have opposed the second reading. The Right Hon. Gent. was a good tactician, and would be glad to find his Right Hon. Friend oppose the principle of a Bill which had for its object not only the settlement of tithes, but the question of the re-payment of the million given to the clergy. N 9; hi s Right Hon. Friend felt that there were parts of the Bill to which he could give his support, while there. were others which he should feel it his duty to oppose, and he therefore had no alternative but to allow it to go to that stage in which be might move that it should be divided into two Bills. He presumed that the reason why the Goverment had brought forward the measures conjointly was that they felt they could not carry the one part of the measure without joining it with another of a popular character. They were afraid that their measure would not bear examindtion, and they therefore de termined upon produci ng ' a species of Siamese T w i ns.— ( Hear, hear.) The Member for Middlesex, for the want, he supposed, of a hatter ergement, had thought fit to attack him (Mr. Goulburn) for having done nothing for the Irish peoplg, It was painful to have to enumerate what had been done by one's self, but having been attacked by the lion. Member, he had no other coarse to follow but to enter upon his de fence. He had been appointed Secretary for Ireland in 1820, and submitted to the House a measure for the accom plishment of tithe composition, and notwithstanding the oppo sition of many Irish Members, the Bill passed, and for time put an end to the disturbances on the subject of tithes, which distracted Ireland at that period. It made the collection of tithes safe and easy, and but for circumstances which after wards happened, it might have continued to answer the ob ject for which it wes intended. He • was blamed by the Hon. Member for not having made the composition compulsory ; but his answer to that was, that he had brought in the Bill with a compulsory clause in it, but found that he was finally obliged to abandon it, in consequence of the opposition which it met with from the Irish Members, and he was compelled to accept a voluntary composition for 21 years, on the understand ing that the Bill would at a future period be more efficient.- -(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gent. had said that they were enemies to non-residence; now he asked who had brought in a Bill to put a stop to non-residence—who had brought in the Curate Bill ? Were they not introduced by himself?-=( Hear.) These Bills had been passed into laws, ar,d he wanted no far ther proof of their efficacy than what had taken place since they had been agreed to. More had been done by these mea sures than by any previous measures that had been introduced. A Bill had also been introduced for the severance of Unions, and to unite those sinecure situations in the Church of Ireland to the poorer vicarages, or give them to the working clergy. This princifple had afterwards been carried out to a greater ex tent in the Church Temporalities Bill, by which a portion of the income of the dignitaries of the Church was applied to the general instruction of the people in connection with the Church. The Government of which he was a Member, on their return to power in 1828, appointed a Commission to see how far the principle of the Bill could beneficially be carried into effect; shortly after the principle was made to apply with reference to two bishoprics—namely, those of Down and Ra phoe ; from the revenues of the dignitaries of each of which 2,0001. a year was taken, to be divided in each diocese amongst the incumbents of twelve different parishes, which had been placed under the superintendence of curates who then had miserable incomes, and by means of this allowance a respect able but moderate income was allowed to each of them. Each of these persons also possessed a large Protestant con gregation, he contended, however, that more depended on the manner in which the Government distributed the Church patronage than anything else, as affected the Church of Ire land—he meant that proper care was taken that the persons appointed to the higher offices in the Church were compe tent to the proper discharge of the duties they had to per form. He would appeal to the lists of appointments made in the Church during the time he was Secretary to the Marquis of Wellesley, under the Administration of Lord Liverpool, as a proof of the sincere desire of the Government to re form abuses, and to put the Church on a proper footing. His Right Hon. Friend had said that they ought not to con / skier the Church of England as connected with the Church of Ireland, and read an extract from " Mr. Knox's Remains," with a view of proving this assertion. He (Mr. Goulburn) admitted that there were differences between the circum stances of the two countries, but he considered that the prin ciples said to be applicable to the Church of Ireland, were equally applicable to the Church of England. Therefore, when he considered a measure proposed for adoption with regard to the Church in Ireland, he could not help look ing to see how far it was applicable to this country. Now, he maintained that the arguments that would justify the ap plication of many of the most objectionable provisions in this Bill, would equally apply to a measure, with similar pro visions, as affecting the Church of England. For instance, the principle of sequestrating the revenues of a parish, and appropriating it to other purposes than the payment of a re sident clergyman, where there were not fifty Protestants in a parish, applied equally to the latter Church as to the former. He could sincerely say, that in all his attempts to oppose this or other measures connected with the Church, he contended only on the principle that he believed that the existence of the Establishment, was essential to the proper maintenance of re ligion, and to the promotion of morality throughout the coun try. He could not disguise from himself that in some parts of Ireland the Church must be considered as somewhat resem bling a Missionary Establishment. In this view of the case he believed that there was more efficacy in a small congrega tion in each parish under its separate minister, than in making the Protestants form themselves into large congregations be fore a minister was allowed them. The Noble Lord, by his Bill, proposed to sequestrate the incomes of all parishes not containing more than fifty members of the Church. Now, out of the one hundred and ten parishes in this diocese there were only thirty-four the Protestant population of which exceeded fifty. In the diocese of Clogher there were very few parishes that would not fall under the plan of the Noble Lord. The Report not only gave the census of 1834, but also that of 1831, by which it would be easy to see the relative increase of Protestants and Catholics. In the diocese of Water ford there were seventy-six parishes to which the Noble Lord's Bill would be applicable. Now, in this diocese, the Catholic population had increased in three years about per cent , and the increase of the Protestant population in this diocese during the same period had been 30 per cent.—( Hear.) In the diocese of Clogher the Roman Catholic population had increased from 3to 31 per cent., and the Protestant po pulation had increased 3i per cent. The different classes, therefore, in this diocese kept up a just proportion. In the former diocese the means of religious instruction in connection with the establishment had been increased within the last three years. Would they then withhold the incomes from the incum bents of parishes wifh comparatively small congregations, when they had such evidence that when a judicious selection was made of a Protestant clergyman, a rapid increase took place in the number of Protestants? in this ground he trusted that the House would not rashly adopt this principle of the Bill. The Noble Lord had asked whether they ought to continue a clergyman in a parish with a large income, in which there were no Protestants. The question was not, however, whether they should maintain a clergyman in a parish with a large income where there was not a large. congregation. All agreed that any superfluity of income should be taken away, but what he demanded was that they should maintain the means of religious instruction for the members of the establishment in every pa rish. If they took one parish to which acre was a large in come annexed, and in which the number of Protestants was but small, ought they not to take, on the other hand, those nu merous cases in which there was a small income and a numerous congregation attending divine service in the church? He could quote numerous cases of this kind ; for instance, there was the parish of Carlow, and the case quoted the other night by the Hon. Member for Tipperary—namely, that of Carrick. Again there was the benefice of Cullen, which had been alluded to last night by his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir Robert Peel), in which case two adjoining parishes, containing few Protestants, had been united to the parish of Cullen, which contained a great number of members of the Church. The income of the latter parish being extremely small, but being joined to the two former a moderate income was afforded to the clergyman. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that this case would come within some clause in the Bill, but he (Mr. Goul burn) found that the two parishes affording the income of the benefice were to be severed from the parish of Cullen. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had said that his Right Hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) had demonstrated that there would be no surplus ; but towards the conclusion of his speech he had said that he could demonstrate that there would be a surplus. flow the Hon. Gentleman could reconcile this he could not tell, but, allowing the Hon. Member every merit for his powers of calculation, lie should prefer to adhere to the demonstra tion—as the Hon. Member admitted it to be—of his Right Hon. Friend, that there could not be a surplus, if they main tained the Established Church in anything like respectability or decency, or in proportion to its just claims in affording reli gious instruction to the people. The Right Hon. Gentleman said last night that Ireland had been driven almost to rebellion by measures of this kind, and that on every refusal the de mands for concession increased, until they became dangerous to the Establishment. He (Mr. Goulburn) contended, how ever, that the evils apprehended by his Right Hon. Friend were likely to arise by pursuing the course recommended by the Government. He could not but apprehend that by pursuing this course, more and more would be taken from the Irish Church, until the whole of its income would be absorbed. Urged on step by step, and year after year, they would be com pelled to continue to lower the limited means to be afforded for the maintenance of religion in Ireland, until the whole form and fabric of the Establishment would be destroyed. He could not consent to a measure which would ultimately expel from the profession of a Clergyman every man who had a liberal education. He trusted that the House would be disposed to gimhaetasure ve t a deeply o affectingme a s measure e t h o e f i s n u t c e h r e i m s t p s oorft thence e u a n s i t t h e e d p e r measure con sideration which it so imperatively demanded, and to allow the separating of the Bill into the two distinct portions marked out by his Right Hon. Friend.--( Cheers.) Mr. PU SE Y expressed his intention of voting against the }sereamendment re foefrrtehde to Rightthe Report, Hon. B Baronet. The show Gentle mar,dispro- portiontThheestrHikoitni.ge number i o o c ef se,in n Ireland. He k the Catholic an Protestant ne whe inhabitantsmight betweenth thatanythese of the d dioceses had been consolidated ; but he remembered, that when the Noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire salu tary measure to which he was adverting, the same cry of i'cllbetold ilnd many (Lord Stanley) Sacrilecse 1" was raised against it by a portion of the public Press, that was now most unduly raised against the pre sent Ministers. This charge would, he thought, fall with greater justice upon the heads of those Protestants who, for three centuries, had allowed the revenues of the Church to be diverted from their original and legitimate objects to purposes of jobbing.—( Cheers.) His reference to this word " sacri - l ege ," reminded him of another species of attack made upon the Bill now before the House. It was said to be a Bill to " unchi istanize" 895 parishes. • Now, how many did the House suppose there were out of this number of parishes with neither church, nor parsonage, nor resident minister, nor, with very few exceptions, the performance of any divine service Whatever, nor any resident Protestant population ? Why, out of the 895 parishes, there were no less than 704 of the de scription he had just mentioned.----( Ministeri a l c h eers .) O ut of the 1,385 benefices which were to be reduced by the Bill by 172--out of these 1,385 benefices there were only 885 re sident incumbents (so we understood the Hon. Member, but it was exceedingly difficult to hear him.) If he compared the present state of things with the change which the Bill would effect, he found that there would be an increase in the effi cient body of the Church, of no less than 300 in 900. (Cheers.) He would now address a word to the House on the questien of appropriation, and here he confessed that he could not disguise from himself the danger of breaking down the principle of the inalionation of Church p ro p erty .—( Oppo sition cheers.) Certainly, as a Protestant, he could not de sire to reduce the funds of the Established Chuich ; he would rather apply any surplus there might be in building up churches i n t h os e parts of Ireland where there were Protestants--( C)p position Cheers)—or in improving the poorer livings,—(ol)po- itiol cheers.) But when he turned to the vast Catholic spopulation of Ireland—( Ministerial cheers)-.and when he re membered the beneficence of their ancestors, who founded the local trust funds for the benefit of the parishioners—( Minis terial cheers)—he could not be surprised at the Catholic po pulation advancing a claim. Pere was a difficulty; and how was he to get rid of it ?—( Hear, hear.) The Protestants of course wished to retain the whole of these funds for their own Establishment—(Hear, hear)—the Catholics might not un justly lay claim to a large portion. Ia this state of things, he turned to the Bill upon the table of the House, and he con sidered it to be an award made by his Majesty's Government between the two parties.—('Great cheering from the Minis terial benches.) Though he was opposed to the present Go vernment is general, yet he must say, with reference to this particular measure, that he saw in it an award which gave a boon to the Protestants. He would refer to an illustration of what he meant. When the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), much to his honour, introduced the Bill for the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, he accompanied it with a measure for the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. There was a boon given to the Roman Catholics—the boon of emancipation given on a certain condition. There was a boon to be given to the Protestant clergy in Ireland, and it was accompanied by a condition in favour of the Roman Ca tholics.—(Cheers.) It was a subject of deep regret will him to differ from the party with whom he was accustomed to act —(Hear, hear); but if it were the last vote he should ever give in this House, he must consider the sacrifice, he was about to make due to the honour of his political oppouents— (Chcering)—and he must consider it to the interest of the Church of which he was a member, not to expose this ques tion to further agitation.—(Ministerial cheers.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Lord HO WICK rose at the same time ; but the Noble Lord gave way, and the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded. It was impossible f o r him once again address them on this painful subject without referri7.-g to what had fallen from the Noble Lord the §ce7..;tary for Ireland when he introduced the measure now tefore the House: The Noble Lord concluded his able address by stating that if in his conscience he did not believe that the interests of the Protestant religion would not be maintained by the present Bill, no man would rejoice more th an h e s h ou ld i f i t were de feated.---( Hear, hear, hear.) Respecting, as he did, the Noble Lord's statements and character —respecting as he did his private virtub and public principl es , h e cou ld not h ear such a declaration from him without carefully reconsidering all the opinions which himself had formed on the subject, and with out reviewing the conduct which he had thought proper to pursue. And if such reconsideration and review had brought him to a conclusion similar to that stated by the Hon. Member for Berkshire, nothing that had passed, no opinions that he had before expressed, would prevent him from coming forward and avowing to the House that under all the circumstances of the case he was prepared to make that compromise on the sub ject which the Hon. Member for Middlesex had so strenuously and strongly recommended. But he was bound to say that so far from his opinion having been changed, his retrospection had led him to the conclusion that all the evil forebodings he had expressed when the abstract resolution on which this Bill was founded was under the consideration of the House, had been more than realized—be felt certain that all the evils that he had expected would inevitably flow from the measure under consideration. In the first place he had a remark to make on what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Berkshire, who had just sat down.—( Hear, hear.) The argument on which he principally founded his approbation of the present Bill, was the insufficient number of the resident Clergy—the in sufficient number of the Parsonage Houses—and the inade quate provision for the scattered population of the Protestants of Ireland. Mr. PUSEY observed, what he said was, that owing to the minute number of the Protestants in certain districts, no , Churches could exist there to any good purpose ; therefore, it was not desirable to build any. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the question whether churches could or could not exist advantageously in such dis tricts under such circumstances, was the great principle for which they were now contending.--(Opposition cheers.) But he would deal for the present with the substantive objection, viz., the insufficiency of the resident clergy, and the insuffi ciency of the glebe-houses; and he would put it to the Hon. Member for Berkshire, and urge this consideration upon him, that the present Bill, to which he was now disposed to give his assent, struck at the very root of a measure which was intended to supply, and which would supply, a sufficient re medy for the evil which he pointed out. The means to which he alluded was the Irish Church Temporalities Ad.—( Hear, hear.) It should be remembered that when that Bill was brought forward, several of the Hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House were parties to its introduction. The main provisions of the present Bill would have the effect of destroying the fund which was to be made available by the former Bill to remedying the very defects of which the Hon. Member fer Berkshire complained.—(Hear, hear.) He was confident it could not be said that this measure was not a vir tual repeal of the Church Temporalities Act. Now, what were the sources from which the funds were to be derived that were to supply the ecclesiastical purposes which the Clan ch Temporalities Act was destined to perform ? There were only three that he would enumerate. First, there was the amount arising out of the next presentations to livings, the appointment to which was to be suspended in conformity with the Act—that, under the Act, was to be carried to the credit of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; but by this Bill it was to be taken from them, and to go to the reserve fund, and the right was given, if an overplus was found to exist, to appro priate it to secular purposes, which was the final arrange ment of the reserve fund.—( Hear, hear.) The next provision to which he would advert was more peculiarly applicable to the purposes to which the Hon. Member for Berkshire re ferred. It was that all those funds which were appropriated to livings attached to certain dignitaries in the Irish Church, as they became vacant were to be applied, first to the aug mentation of the smaller livings to which they were united, and were to go to the ecclesiastical fund to be applied to ec clesiastical purposes. Here again was an alteration. These funds, under the present Bill, were no longer to go to the ecclesiastical fund, but they were also to go to the reserve fund. Then there was the perpetuity fund, which was to be most heavily charged—that fund was to be charged five per c en t. under this Bill. The result was, that this Bill, which went to destroy the Act by which provision was made for the aug mentation of small livings, and for building glebe-houses and Churches, the Hon. Member for Berkshire would sopport, though at the same time he was complaining of the defi ciency that existed.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had also addressed himself to a point of form—he had objected to the division of the Bill as proposed by the Right Hon_ Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and illustrated his ar gument by a reference to what took place on the introduc tion of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. He trusted the Hon. Gentleman would excuse him for saying he did not think a more unhappy illustration could by possibility have been adduced. What was the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet on that occasion ? It was admitted by him, that the two measures, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill and the Forty -shilling Free holders' Disfranchisement Bill, were more or less connected ; but he did not say that they were connected so intimately that he thought it safe to embody th em i nto one Bill.—(llear, hear.) He next wished to mak e a f ew o b servations on the speech of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and he thanked him for the plaip, manly, and direct manner in which he had declared his opinions on the prese n t occas i on. Ile thought that some of the mists and obscurity which hung about the measure had been dispelled by the clear light of truth reflected on it by the Hon. Member for Middlesex.--( Hear, hear.) He doubted, indeed, whether the Hon. Member for Berkshire could have been present, and could have heard the speech of that Right Hon. Gentleman ; but it appeared that he must have heard the adroit and admirable speech of his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor cf the Exchequer, addressed to the House last night. His Right Hon. Friend declared that it was now necessary, once and for ever, to settle this ques tion. So said the Hon. Member for Berkshire. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had treated ,it as a po un d s , shil lings, and pence qpestion, and had gone into d e t a il s , f or entering upon which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was complained of by his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, strange to say, declared that lie would not have condescended to grapple with details. —( Opposition cheers.) But the Hon. Member for Mid dlesex, having the pounds, shillings, and pence language, which he could use so efficiently, when he came to comment on the request of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of thc Ex chequer to settle the tithe question by passing this Bill, ad mitted to the House that he did not consider it a satisfactory measure ; he offered, however, to take it as an instalment— ( Hear, hear)--though he would not give a release—( Hear, hear)—in the same way as when he went for 6s. Bd. if he could not get the whole he would take an instalment of 3s. 4d. in the pound. The Hon. Member for Middlesex was, if pos sible, still more explicit. The Right Hon. Baronet had ap pointed out many deficiencies ; these the Hon. Member said he was aware of, and he never had considered the measure as perfectly satisfactory. He then added that he had a plan of WI, own, which was to abolish every parish in Ireland ; he would change the system entirely and adopt a new one—he would make the clergy altogether stipendiary—he would break up and re-arrange tEe whole Establishment on a spick-and span new plan of his own—the long established system he con sidered entirely inapplicable to the present times, and indeed completely worn out—the ancient distances and landmarks were not worth preserving.—( Cheers.) Where, then, it might be asked, was this final settlement ?—( Great cheering.) Once and for ever they were asked to settle this question ; but where was the cry of peace ?—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the cry was peace—but there was no peace.—( Cheers.) He was prepared to contend that this measure, which it was said would send peace to Ireland, would send a sword to Ireland.—( Cheers. ) Let them look to this question as they would, through all its shiftings, its turning round, and its doubles, and they would come at last to the point on which they really die. fered, and that was, what should be the favored religion of the State in Ireland ? and when they decided the Protestant should be, what was necessary to give effect to that deci sion ? Clear it was-Lthey might dissemble it as they would —and clear it would be, whatever their attempts at con cealment, that this measure, or rather that portion of it which was founded on the Resolution passed at the early part of this . Session, was an attack on the great principle of an Established Church.—(Cheers.) It was now neces sary for him to, advert to one or two facts stated by the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening. Though he said he would not deal with figures, and danced past them as if they were hot irons, yet he did burn his fingers with them a little. He saw that there were 41 be nefices without Protestants. Now, in candour, his Right Hon. Friend should not have omitted the statement that if there were 41 benefices without Protestants, there were 64 benefices which, if they were without Protestants, paid no tithes whatever. There were 47 without any provision for the cure of souls, and 17 inappropriate. He repeeted that there were 64 benefices, one,-fourth of the whale number, iu which there was no ecclesiastical tithe.--( Hear.:) The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a new light had broken in upon them—that they were now quite enamoured of the Commission and its Report. He must say, in reply to this, that he did not understand the Right Hon. Baronet to express any approbation of the principles on which the Commission was appointed--( Hear, hear)—but that the Report was most useful could not be denied, because it , dis posed of many of the gross delusions which had existed re specting tile amount of parochial tithes. But whatever might be the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in resp2et to the Commission, he ( Sir J. Graham) would state that he had not in the least changed the opinion which he had before entertained of the great danger of the principle on which the Commission must rest. He repeated, that Übe felt objections to the latent principle which it W'. clear to him it contained, those objections had been cont r med an hundred-fold by the measure new founded upcos i t. The principle to which he alluded was that of parocP,at proportions, which clearly' were made the groundwork, for the decision of the question, whether from a parish i n which there shall be less than some given number of persons professing the Esta blished religion, the ministor of the Established Churdo shall be withdrawn or not. That principle, he contended, was fatal to the existence of any Church Establishment. He contended, moreover, that if it were a sound principle, its application could not possibly bo confined to Ireland, and that five years would not roll over their heads before its extension to England was pressed on them with irresistible force ; and he hisatself would frankly say, that if he were called upon to sacrifice the principle of an Established Church at aP., by yielding to the principle of paroebial proportion's', he would rather sacrifice it to th Protestant Dissnters in this country, than . to the It _ aomart Catholics o o°lreland.—( Loud cheers.) been asked by his P2.ght Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wts it not absurd to levy the revenues of Ca hel and Tuam, where there were few Protestants and many Catholics, and with them supply certain ecclesiastical purposes which might be necessary in the provinces of Dublin and Ar magh ? He ( Sir J. Graham) would answer that question, in the first place, by asking the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had avoided the very same absurdity under the very provisions of the present' Bill? Was it not indeed certain that he would levy front the rich Pro testant parishes in the diocese of Armagh, under the title of the Reserve Fund, the revenues to be expended in the educa tion of Catholics in the south of Ireland. A question had been put to him distinctly, when the principle of appropria tion had been discussed in the shape of the abstract reso lution, to this effect :—" Suppose a surplus to be admitted, how do you mean to appropriate it" (and the question had 'been put as presenting somewhat of a dilemma)? D o you mean where there shall be a limit to any district existing, to p apply the revenues of th a t li m it l oca ll y — to t h e educat i on 01 the population of the particular parish; or do you mean, in order to render the measure more acceptable to the whole population of Ireland, to levy funds from the limited dis tricts, and expend them in some remote part of the country ? If you say that you will expend them locally, you will he driven into the great absurdity in some cases, where the funds to be applied to education may be large, of surfeiting the object you have in view—if you expend them in a distant district, what will become of your measure of peace ? Where in will be the satisfaction to the confiscated parish, which contributes a large sum, not to be expended within its own limits, but to be enjoy e d by some non-conf i scated parish? " To these representations the Noble Lord had, at the time when they were made, given a definite answer; but how bad he left the case in the Bill now before them ? He had left it just as vague as that most vague of all resolutions on which the Bill was founded.---( Laughter. ) It had been always ar gued that the striking and flagrant injustice of the Church Establishment in Ireland arose from the circumstance of pay ment for the maintenance of that Church being made by the great bulk of the Catholics of the community. He contended that that was a gross fallacy.—( Hear, hear.) He absolutely denied that tithes were paid by the husbandman, by the la bourer, by the occupier; he contended,, on the contrary, that they were a tax on property, and were paid by the owners of it. He would read on this subject, a few words, written by one now no more, but who was gifted with a remarkably clear understanding —who grasped strongly every subject which be touched, and who rendered it intelligible to all whom he ad dressed upon it—he meant the late Mr. Cobbett, who had ex pressed himself, so late as 1834, as follows :—" The clergy are not paid by the people, anymore than the landowners are. The tithes are as much their property, as rent is the property o f the landlord ; the right of the former can no more be destroyed, than the title of the latter ; and why the clergyman should receive aa pay what the landlord demands as his own I cannot conceive. The tithes do not belong to the husbandman, they never can be his. It has been the fashion of late years to talk of abo lishing tithes. Those who have land would do well to con sider how they would relish the abolishing of rent, f o r they must rest assured that the latter will never be far from the former. Those who would make a law for abolishing tithes would not wish to have another for abolishing rent ; for they would soon find a set of legislators to do it for them"-- (cheers)--a very pertinent observation, which it was not inex pedient that landlords should bear in mind. His Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had quoted the authority of a Mr. Knox, to show the connection of the Church of Ireland with that of England formed no necessary part of the union. He ( Sir J. Graham) had not been aware that that person was so high an authority as the Right Ho' Gentleman seemed to regard him ; but, however high a one he might be, he would appeal from him to the authority of $ Catholic eminent for his learning, and now occupying a high station—he alluded to Mr. Blake. In 1828 that gentleman had been asked whether he thought the Catholic Relief Bill would be injurious to the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland? and his answer was, " I do not think that it would be ; if I did, nothing should induce me to support ,its for I am of opinion, that the Church Establishment is a strong link in the chain which binds England to Ireland ; and that, connection is, in my o pi n i on , i n di spensa bl e to the safety and happiness of both." What was the opinion of Lord Plunkett, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? It was stil l more explicit. He had said that if ever, in an unhappy roo" tnent, they rashly laid hands on the protssrty of the Protestant Church in I re l an d, t o ro b it o f i ts rielats, they would seal the doom of, and destroy the conneeton between, the two mull' tries ; from that moment tht'ir connection could no longer sur vive. H e h e ld i n his :land, a Return f rom twenty-three pay rishes in the diocese of Kilmore, which he had every reason to believe aecurs,:te, inasmuch as it was signed by the clergyinell. of the dflerent parishes, and had been some time uncontra dieted before the public. From that it appeared that the gross number of acres paying tithe in these parishes, was 363,832' and the gross amount of tithe compqsition levied upon these was 8,6291. Of that number of acres what proportion did the House believe to be the property of Protestant chief landlords ? No fewer than 357,234—( Hear)—only 6,578 acres being held by Catholic chief landlords. What was the proportion of the payment ? Of the gross sum of 8,629/., the composition paid by Protestant chief landlords was 7,921/. ; and that paid by the Catholic chief landlords was only 1471.—( Hear, hear.) The average rate of composition for the whole was exactly 50• per acre. The amount contributed by the Catholic was a quarter of a farthing per acre. If the average rental w ere taken at Bs. 9d. per acre, and the average produce at 1/. 6s. per acre, the tithe in those 23 parishes would be one-twentieth of the rent, or one-sixtieth of the produce. The tithe was to the rent as one to twenty ; and rent being to the produce is the proportion of one to three, the tithe was to the produce as one to sixty. He begged the Noble Lord to recall to his recollection what bad been the wish expressed by his former constituents is Devonshire. Ile denied that there should be a commutation of tithe in England on the principle of approximating it to rent. They had petitioned, indeed, that tithe should be to rent in the proportion of one to ten. In Ire land, however, tithe was to rent as one to twenty ; in England it was as one to three. In Ireland also tithe was to produce as one to sixty ; in England it was as one to ten. He con tended, therefore, that whatever disparity might exist between the proportions of those professing the Established religion i° the two countries, the difference in the payment was greater still than that disparity.--( Hear.) He had already said that he was satisfied that the present was not a measure which would give pea ce . H e we ll remembered that when the enu meration of the people of Ireland by religious classes was first called for, th e H on . an d L earne d Member for Dublin gave a distinct warning to the Government that it was a most dan gerous process so to range a whole population, in classes, ac cording to their different religions. All these dangers and feuds which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman anticipated from the original enumeration, he ( Sir J. Graham) anticipated from the present Bill. He contended, that if its promoters were sincere in their wish to give effect to the Church Tempos ralities Act, their assent to the measures now before the House was astonisning. He alluded more particularly to those with whom it had been formerly his fortune to act as a colleague , and who had been parties to the introduction of the Church Temporalities Act.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had refer re d to two passages in the speeches of Lords Grey and Lansdowne; wherein those No ble Lords, moving that measure most strenuously, urge d o n the Legislature the necessity of making an immediate and large provision for the augmentation of smaller livings in Ireland , and for the building of glebe houses. He might here observe that when the Legislature passed that Act they did stamp, 85 far as possible, their decided judgment as to what ought to he the amount of the income of each benefice in Ireland • f o r the provision s o f t h at Bi ll were that no living under 300. a year should be taxed, and that livings under 2001. a year should be, augmented. M oreover, as if to render the point clear heyona doubt, the 106th clause was inserted, providing that the Ef'' clesiastical Commissioners might dissolve unions of parishes , with this remarkable proviso, " that the annual value of golf such parish so divided as aforesaid shall not by such division in any case be reduced below the sum of 300/." He would, hay ing observed thus much, now refer to what had been said by i Lord G rey two years ago, since which period no money had been expended in the building of glebe houses:.-" The so° of 10,000/. a year," said that Noble Earl, "to be applied to the erection of glebe houses, is a very necessary expenditures inasmuch as not one half of the benefices of Ireland are pre' vided with glebe houses." That was the very objection take n by the Honourable Member for Berkshire : the Church Temporalities Act had had for one of its objects to rattail that insufficiency, and the Bill now on the table would hay° the effect of virtually repealing that Act.-:-(Hear, bear.) On what principle did the Roman Catholic Church act? That Church, whose members prescribe to those of the Esta blished Church the doctrine that unless there exist a numerous congregation, calling for a large supply of spiritual assistance. , a resident Minister shall not be continued. He knew from his own personal experience, that in some cases Catholic c hapels had been built, and Ministers appointed in places where the congregation was exceedingly small. The maintenance by ilP 3 _ Legislature of a f avoure d religion, was neither more nor les s . than the imp os i t i on o f a tax. It was needless to argue thallt there was t o b e a f avoured rel i g i on, the State should dec i d e what that religio n s h ou ld b e , Thi s b rought him to the ques t 11.... ti3n and num th e Ire! tens the Porn mel t