The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-01 00:00:00

IIVIPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL.
Lord LYNDHURST, in moving the second reading
of this bill, said that he found a great extent of misap-
prehension had gone abroad as to the object of this bill,
and he was therefore desirous of explaining its nature
and purpose. The object of the bill was simply this: to
strike out of those oaths which patties were bound to
take, as a qualification for a seat in Parliament, or for
holding certain offices, such parts of those oaths as were
inoperative, idle, and, if he might be permitted to say so,
absurd. (Hear.) It appeared to him that no well-
founded objection could be made to such a course of pro-
ceeding. Sonic friends near him had stated that they
did not understand precisely what the bill meant. Ile
would state its meaning in a few words, and with as
much plainness and simplicity as he could. The oaths
required to be taken for sitting in Parliament were in
number three : first, the oath of allegiance ; secondly,
that of supremacy; and, lastly, the oath of abjuration.
These observations applied to the oath -of supremacy,
and he thought he had stated sufficient to satisfy their
lordships that, so far as Protestants were concerned, the
oath ought no longer to remain .on the statute book.
He trusted their lordships would bear with him patiently,
for his strength was hardly sufficient for the task he had
undertaken. (Loud cheers.) He came now to the oath of
abjuration—the oath that was notoriously framed on the
model of the oath of allegiance passed in the third year of
James 1., after the discovery of the gunpowder plot, and
the trial and conviction of the conspirators. That oath of
abjuration bore date in the thirteenth year of the reign of
William 111., and the occasion of its passing was stated
in the preamble of the act ; namely, the proclamation
of James 111. by the King of France being the pro-
clamation of the Pretender as King of England. That
oath related merely to the Pretender, and attested that
he had no right or title to the throne of England, at the
same time adjuring all allegiance and obedience to him.
Such were the terms of the oath of abjuration stated
rather shortly, and that oath was altered from time to
time in point of form, as change of circumstances might
call for alteration. It was altered on the accession of
Anne, and also on the union with Scotland. It was
afterwards altered on the accession of George I. ; and,
lastly, after the death of -the old Pretender, it was
altered in the reign of George 111., adapted to the new
state of things, and applied to the descendants of the
Pretender. Their lordships would see, then, that this
oath was altered from time to time to adapt it to the
state of the facts, and it was reasonable to suppose that,
when the whole case of the Pretender was at an end,
and, following the previous precedents, it would have
died out and terminated altogether. (Hear, hear.) To
take it at the present day when there was no Pretender
to adjure, nor one of his descendants in existence, was
an idle mockery, an obvious absurdity. (Loud cheers.)
If any person were voluntarily to enter a grave assem-
bly, and say, "I do sincerely in my conscience, before
God and the world, declare that no descendants of the
late Pretender"—there being no such known in exist-
ence—" That no such persons have a right to the throne
of Great Britain, and I abjure all obedience to them or
any of them, stating this in the true and ordinary sense
of the word, without any secret or mental reservation,
and on the true faith of a Christian." He said that if
any one came voluntarily into a, grave assembly and
made such a statement, such person could only be
looked on as a case for some personal restraint. (Cheers
and laughter.) But noble lords came into that house
and stood at that table—all business being meanwhile
suspended, and his noble and learned friend on the
woolsack assuming additional gravity for the solemn
occasion—and made that statement not voluntarily, but
on compulsion, and called on the Almighty to witness it.
(Loud cries of hear, hear.) TO make the matter more
ridiculous, each noble lord signed his name, in order
that this absurdity might be secure of being handed
down to posterity. Surely, hearing all this, their lord-
ships could not sanction such an absurdity for a moment
after it has been fairly brought under their notice.
(Cheers.) In addition to what he had said relative to
what he might call the expansion of the oath of alle-
giance, he would refer to what lie had before stated to
show how necessary that expansion was. To continue
it to suit present exigencies, he would propose to strike
out every part of the oath to which he had referred, ex-
cept that part which related to the succession to the
throne as settled by the act, and to the character of the
sovereign in as far as regarded religion. He retained
this latter, because he could conceive no greater cala-
mity that could befal this country, judging not only from
past experience, but from what was daily passing before
their eyes, than the allowing the crown of these realms
to be placed on the head of a Roman Catholic. (Loud
cheers.) Now several unfounded rumours had been
spread abroad respecting the fourth clause of this bill,
among others, that by that clause members of the
Jewish religion might be introduced into either house of
Parliament. Respecting this clause he had been attacked
in various shapes, as if he had introduced the clause with
such an intention. But he could assure their lordships
he should not feel justified in attempting to do that by a
side wind which he dared not do openly. (Loud cheers.)
There was no lawyer who would put such a construction
on the fourth clause as he had heard applied to it,
namely, that by its provision members of the Jewish
religion might go into the House of Commons, and
make a declaration, or take the oath therein specified.
Why, at that very moment the words, " on the true
faith of a Christian," were not in the affirmation of the
Quaker, nor in the oath of a Roman Catholic, and if a
person of the Jewish persuasion were to take either the
affirmation or the oath, it would be a mere nullity, and
he would be just as liable after the oath to be prose-
cuted for penalties as if no such oath or affirmation had
been made. But he admitted that the clause was copied
from a bill which had been laid on their lordships' table
by a noble and learned friend some years since, and con-
tained some general words having reference to the pro-
hibition of aliens and separatists from sitting in the
House of Commons. However, as lie had uo intention
to alter the classes of persons who were permitted to sit,
he should propose to strike out those general words, and
confine himself to the words used by the Quakers in
affirmation. He would be asked why he did not extend
this bill to the Roman Catholics. The answer was very
short and plain. He was anxious 'that the bill should
pass, and therefore did not wish to entangle with it any
matter that might render its passage difficult. (Hear,
hear.) That was the simple answer lie had to give, and
if any noble lord thought right to alter the oath taken
by Roman Catholics it was perfectly competent
for him to bring in a bill ; but he had not thought
right to encumber this bill with any attempt of the kind.
Further, he had been pressed much more strongly to
strike out the words, "On the true faith of a Christian."
The answer he had given to such applications was, that
he felt bound to respect a decision of their lordships'
house recently and decisively pronounced. He could
not strike out these words, because if lie struck them
out, there would be no chance of passing the bill, and
therefore he yielded to necessity in the matter. But at
the same time he must be allowed to say, after having
voted in the minority on the former occasion, that al-
though he yielded to necessity it was against his own con- •
viction. Perhaps he might be allowed in justification to
state very shortly the grounds of that conviction, so far
as it related to the words to which he hail referred. The
introduction of these words was very curious, and it
might not be out of place to detail them to their lordships
in as few words as possible. After the discovery of the
gunpowder plot in the third year of the reign of James
1., search was made in the chambers of a person named
Francis Tresham, one of the conspirators, who had cham-
bers in the Temple. During the search a manuscript
was found, entitled " A Treatise on Usurpation." The
manuscript was altered in the handwriting of Garnett,
the superior of the Jesuits, and had the imprimatur of
Blackball, at that time the archpriest of the Roman Ca-
tholics. It was made use of on the trial of the persons
implicated in the plot, and afterwards found its way,
through the hands of Archbishops Abbott and Laud, into
the Bodleian Library, where it remained for many years,
and was only lately brouLdit to light. It had recently
been reprinted with a sui table preface, and was well worthy
their lordships' attention. It had marginal notes in the
handwriting of Sir E. Coke, the Attorney-General for
the prosecution, and its object was to show how the obli-
gations of an oath might be avoided. It contained many
Chapters, and the doctrine was laid down that if a ques-
tion was put to you that you thought in your conscience
you were not bound to answer, you might answer that
question aloud, but might at the same time qualify it
with other words, spoken mentally, so that the whole,
being taken together, the " aloud" with the " reserve"
mentally expressed, if the whole was true, then you
might, without being considered guilty of taking a false
oath, swear to the truth of the proposition, so that,
while the person addressed, applied only the words that
he heard, the person who took the oath applied the
whole of the proposition,tthe "aloud" and the " reserve."
For instance, if you were asked by a person whom
in your conscience you thought you were not bound
to answer—a magistrate, perhaps, " Were you in London
to-day?" you might say you had not been in London,
provided you added mentally, "For any improper pur-
pose." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The reserve saved
the truth of the proposition. It was remarkable that
in the letters of Pascal, he ascribed to the Jesuits exactly
that doctrine, and here in this manuscript, in the hand-
pCzatrttl7olfi cthCahturch,
Church.er
writing of the superior of the Jesuits, they had it laid
there wore some ex-
ceptions,hat the words, " On
Roman Catholics taking an oath of that description. It
e
f
s
was remarkable that in the year in which the plot was
rather
71
ne
drrdua ioest faithaotanhpnerdtprinciple
these
e sphau laieeCtt wrfei wentisti htol dofn
1878:11towoanewt del eardelati used to prevent the
discovered the oath of allegiance was introduced, and
then for the first time the words " without equivocation,
evasion, or secret reservation, and on the true faith of a
while in possession o
f this document, carefully suited, to
itnhter oodautche d.
was (He a
framed (Hear, l e abry. )
sTi
rh eEr.e could
e
btCheherinoosctcidaaonstb"ntw,thearanetd so worded in order to prevent Roman
Catholics taking it evasively. It was perfectly clear
then that when that oath was framed and those words
introduced, they were not introduced as a test of Chris-
Isotlewlyas moretaoremmaalcrekaitble
circumstance
binding
also,o n R
that
when the oath of abjuration was framed, it was framed
Catholics.
on the model of the oath of allegiance, &n 4 glom) con-
cluding words added. To apply those words to persons
aanthitoylic buts.
of the Jewish persuasion, for whom they were never in-
tended, but for another class, and persons of the Jewish
persuasion being at the tuna in a state of banishment,
in which they had been absent for 400 years, and from
which they did not return for many years after, was, as
it appeared to him, a misapplication of the most extra-
ordinary description. (Hear, hear.) The case had
been argued at great 14.3nZh in the Court of Exchequer,
3 WAS
and he wished to state Oeir IPrdfahips. t

stated by some of the learned judges on that occasion,
with reference to the point to which he had just been
referring. He would first mention, however, that it was
said that if this oath, although framed for the purpose
which he had stated, namely, that of being binding
on the consciences of Roman Catholics, were not in
existence, some direct act of legislation would '.-.:tvF been
passed for the exclusion of members of the .1 cwiah
persuasion. But it was remarkable that during the
greater part of the reign of William 111. no attempt
was made to introduce such a bill, and yet there was
nothing whatever during that time to prevent Jews from
taking .their seats in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) He
admitted that at a subsequent period when the position
of the Jews in this country was not understood, and
when they were improperly considered as aliens, any
person attempting to sit in Parliament while professing
that religion would, in all probability, have been excluded
by an act of the Legislature, but no such an attempt
having been made, they were now solely excluded by the
operation of this oath. The passages to which lie re-
ferred were very short, and he should only read one or.
two. One learned judge said " There w:O3 not in the act
of abjuration any tendency to show that the Legislature
wished to exclude the Jews, the whole strain of the
statute being directed against persons who held commu-
nion with the Roman Catholics, and he thought the
words 'On the true faith of a Christian' were inserted in
the oath, not as a test of Christianity, but for a different
object, namely, for the purpose of framing the oath so as
to be most effectually binding on the consciences of the
Roman Catholies." Another learned judge, for whom
he had the greatest respect, a person of great learning,
acuteness, and soundness of judgment (Baron Alderson)
expressed himself in these terms :—"I do most sincerely
regret to be obliged as a mere expounder of the law, to
come to this conclusion, for I do not believe that the
case of the Jews was thought of by the Legislature in
framing this act. I think it would be more worthy of
this country to exclude the Jews; if they are to be ex-
cluded—a point on which I give no opinion—by some
direct enactment, and not merely by the casual operation
of a clause intended to apply to a different class of the
subjects of this country." (Cheers.) And in another
passage the learned judge said, "This act excludes Jews
from sitting in Parliaments not by the direct intention
of the act, but by an unforeseen and unintended applica-
catioa of a few words inserted with an entirely different
object. This I do not consider to be consistent with
the practice of the law of the land." (Hear, hear.)
Now in these principles he (Lord Lyndhurst) entirely
agreed, and he went further than what was stated by
Baron Alderson, when he said that if they were to be
excluded it would be more consistent with the honour
of this country to have it done by direct legislation.
He went further than that, and said that it was unjust
without such an express act to exclude them from Par-
liament, that it was contrary to the principles of the
Constitution, and that no natural born subject of this
Crown ought to be deprived of the same rights
as his fellow subjects unless lie had been con-
victed of some crime, or unless he was ex-
eluded by some direct act of Legislature directed
specially against him, or against the class to which he
belonged. (Hear, hear.) He stated that as a principle
of the Constitution, and if it were so the Jew could only
be excluded by the concurrent voice of both Houses of
Parliament, and with the assent of the crown. If you
excluded him by the casual operation of a clause which
had been directed against him or the class to which he
belonged, you deprived him of a right in opposition to
the opinions of the other house of Parliament. On
these grounds therefore he said, that although he re-
tained the words " On the true faith of a Christian,"
he maintained them as a necessity, but against his own
decided convictions. He was sorry to have troubled
their lordships at such length. (Loud cheers.) He
passed these points by, and recalling their lordships'
attention to the grounds which he had stated for repeal-
ing the oath of supremacy, and for the alteration of the
oath of abjuration, without repeating the arguments
which he had already adduced, and he trusted that on
these grounds he should have their lordships' concur-
rence to the second reading of the bill. (Cheers.)
The Earl of DERBY had waited for some member
of the Government to address himself to this subject,
but as none had so risen, he must beg to call attention
to a few points in the speech of the noble lord who had
just sat down. It was not his wish to offer any oppo-
sition to the second reading of the hill, but in assenting
to that stage he understood himself as assenting to the
necessity of considering certain oaths taken by members
of that and
.the other house of Parliament. Further

than that, in assenting to the second reading he did not
understand their lordships or himself to assent to any
specific alteration of the oath, or to relinquish any
opinion which they had already expressed on the sub- 1
ject. He admitted that a portion of the oath was sur-
plusage
and might require change, but he did not go
along with his noble and learned friend in thinking that
the securities to be substituted were sufficient. His
noble and learned friend sought to alter the oath of al-
legiance, and to do away with the oath of supremacy.
All admitted that the oath might require alteration, but
he could not admit the doctrine of his noble and learned
friend, that the admission of the Roman Catholics to
Parliament was a recognition of the spiritual power of
the Pope. He did not mean to deny that the Pope exer-
cised spiritual jurisdiction over the consciences of Roman
Catholics, but Parliament declared that it members Ire-
nounced such authority, and the law did not recognise it,
nor gave any power to enforce it. He (Lord Derby)
should be most unwilling, seeing the encroaching spirit of
the see of Rome, to omit from the oath taken by Protestant
members of Parliament, a solemn protest against the
domination of the see of Rome. With respect to the
oath of abjuration it might be ridiculous to renounce
allegiance to the Pretender; but he should like to see—
and in this he was happy to concur with his noble and
learned friend—in that oath also a declaration that the
succession to the throne of these realms should be exclu-
sively Protestant. (Cheers.) Now, if he was not mis-
taken, the view he had taken on both these points was
the view still maintained by a considerable number of her
Majesty's Ministers ; and it was a question upon which
Government would no doubt take some united action if
they could agree as to what was requisite and proper.
He held in his hand a bill which had been introduced in
the preceding session by Lord John Russell for the pur-
pose of amending the Parliamentary representation, and
although he found that for the purpose of admitting the
Jews Lord John Russell omitted the words which his
noble and learned friend proposed to retain, yet his lord -
ship introduced a most stringent declaration, maintain-
ing the succession in the hands of Protestants, and re-
nouncing obedience to any foreign prince or potentate
whatever. This bill also abjured in the strongest terms
*he belief in any power of the Pope to release subjects
from their allegiance. Therefore, what his noble and
learned friend proposed to reject, Lord J. Russell re-
tained in his bill of the preceding year, for the admission
of the Jews into Parliament, an object which his noble
and learned friend did not entertain. He was satisfied
that his noble and learned friend had no intention of re-
versing their lordships' decision given on the subject of
the admission of the Jews. The question had been
solemnly discussed and decided by a considerable majo-
rity, and besides his noble friend retained the words
which effected the exclusion of Jews. But he confessed
that such being the view of his noble and learned friend,
he regretted that he should have prejudiced the chances
of his bill, by introducing a very elaborate argument for
the admission of the Jews, and by showing exceedingly
good reasons why the excluding words should be struck
out. He certainly must look with suspicion on this bill.
His noble and learned friend said he retained those
words for the sole purpose of facilitating the passing of
the bill. Of course his noble and learned friend referred
only to the passim-, of the bill through their lord-
ships' house, for the retention of those words could
give no additional facility for passing it through
the other house. Now, he would put this to his
noble and learned friend. This bill was introduced
on the last day of May. The House of Commons
were so overwhelmed with business that they had made
very little progress with legislation ; and what certainty
had their lordships that if this bill were passed by their
lordships and sent down to the House of Commons,
worded as it was, it would not be amended by the omis-
sion of these words in the latter end of July or the com-
mencement of August, and then brought back for the
assent of the few peers who still remained to occupy their
seats in Parliament ? (Hear, hear.) He was not de-
sirous of throwing any impediments in the way of the
fair and impartial consideration of the object which his
noble and learned friend had in view; but he hoped he
should not be thought unreasonable if, looking forward
to what he deemed not a very improbable occurrence, he
put a plain question to noble lords opposite, namely,
what course they would pursue if such an amendment
were introduced ? (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that
if at that period of the year the bill were returned to the
house with such an amendment, her Majesty's Govern-
ment would then have absolute control over its adoption
or none adoption. Had the bill been brought in at the'
commencement of the session, their lordships might have
exercised a deliberate judgment upon it ; but under the
circumstances of the case, it was absolutely impossible
for them to exercise such a judgment ; and unless her
Majesty's Government declared that they adhered to the
decision to which their lordships had already come, and
would not use their influence in either house of Parlia-
ment to reverse it, then he warned their lordships against
permitting the bill at that period to leave that house for
the consideration and amendment of the other house.
(Hear, hear.) He did not speak from mere suspicion on
'this subject. There had been a very significant intima-
tion by the leader of the House of Commons, given in
answer to a deputation which went to him on the sub-
ject of Jewish claims, that, though he was not prepared
to bring in any direct measure, for the purpose of re-
opening the discussion on a question which had been
disposed of by the House of Lords, yet a bill for the
alteration of oaths was about to be introduced into the
other house of Parliament ; and he told the advocate of
Jewish claims that it would be prudent to see how far
that bill might be made available for the purpose of ob-
taining what they asked.
Lord LYNDHURST was understood to disclaim
having had any communication with Lord John Russell
in reference to this bill,
The Earl of DERBY said he had no intention to cast
the slightest reflection on his noble and learned
'
bf rr loeungdl: st
good faith, being perfectly convinced that hehad
forward his bill solely for the purpose which he ha,a
stated ; but the words of the present leader of the
House of Commons led him tolnfer that the bill
might posiLly be peryeyted from the purpose for which
it was introduced. (Hear, h
before that he did not intend to
the second reading. Re
wording of the Proposed ,
consideration in Committ a
the propriety and ex
in the oaths at present
serve to himself
he nii'ht think had do
ow he had stated
offer any opposition to
th don with regard to the
, but that was matter for
d. ee. lie was ready to admit
pte iency of making some alteration
en administered • but he must re-
serve perfect liberty to take' any course 034
‘,proper on the next star. 1-. Te trusted,

~" ;~~

that her Majesty's Government would not ho3ititte ta
give an assurance that both in that arid in the other
house of Parliament they would resist any attempt to
amend the bill so as to pervert it from the avowed object
of its framer. If they would give that assurance, then
they should meet with no obstruction from him in carry-
ing it through the house ; but if they declined to give
that assurance, he must be permitted to look at a pos-
sible and probable contingency, and, entertaining a sus-
picion as to the danger which would be incurred by pro-
ceeding with the bill, he must tell their lordships that he
thought it would be infinitely better to postpone its con-
sideration until the early period of the next session.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said—My lords, with re-
ference to the alteration in the oaths proposed by my
noble and learned friend, I must confess that I think his
speech, like all the most powerful eloquence, was marked
by great good sense—(cheers)—and I think it is impos-
sible for your lordships to reject the proposal which he
has made. It is of course quite unnecessary for me to

add a word to his statement, which must have carried

conviction to your lordships' minds. With respect to
the suggestion of the noble earl opposite, I must say that
'it is one of a most unusual description, one which I have
never beard made in this house before, and one to which
I should conceive it impossible for any Minister to give
an answer. In the first place the noble earl has totally
misrepresented—unintentionally, of course—the state-
ment of my noble friend the member for the city of
London. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell), lam in-
formed, stated to a deputation who addressed him on
the subject of relieving the Jews from the disabilities
under which they labour, that he was waiting to see
what was the nature of the bill which was to be intro-
duced by the noble and learned lord (Loid Lyndhurst),
of which at the time he was entirely ignorant, but the
object of which, according to common report, would affect
the condition of the Jews. The noble lord said, and said
only, that he would wait to tee what were the provisions
of that bill before he gave any advice or pronounced any
opinion on the subject. (Hear, hear.) Now I have
only one regret to express with reference to the speech
of my noble and learned friend, namely, that he did not
deliver the latter part of it some time ago ; for I think
there would at least have some chance of its diminishing
the majority with which your lordships rejected the
proposal which I had the honour to make. But as, not-
withstanding the desire which I then expressed, and
which is now entertained by her Majesty's Gvernment,
of relieving the Jews from those disabilities, I am cer-
tainly prepared to make no proposition on the subject at
present. Ido not wish to interfere with the progress
and success of a measure so manifestly consistent with
reason and common sense as the bill proposed by my
noble and learned friend. (Cheers.) I therefore ab-
stain entirely from interfering with any of the provisions
of this bill, and such will be the course of her Majesty's
Government. As to what we shall do in consequence of
any amendments being introduced in the House of Com-
mons, I most unquestionably decline to give any pledge
on that subject. (Hear, hear.) I think it most unrea-
sonable for the noble earl or any noble lord to expect
that we should fetter our discretion in any such manner.
The noble earl talks of his inability to meet an amend-
ment. Why is the noble earl unable to exercise the same
power in opposing amendments that he did in opposing
the bill rejected by himself and his friends the other day.
At all events, he has the power, which has been used
more than once, of enforcing a majority in this house,
by means of proxies. (Hear, hear.) Only the other
night, in the last division, the noble earl had a greater
number of proxies on his side than were used by her
Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) He may it he
choose—if his friends find it convenient to attend to
their duty in this house—ke may have recourse to the
same means again. At all events, I decline to give any
pledge ; I decline to fetter my discretion in dealing with
any amendments which may be made in the bill of my
noble and learned friend. As the bill stands I cordially
support ,it • and as it stands I have no doubt her
Majesty's Ministers will join with me in supporting it.
The Earl of CLANCARTY approved of that part of
the bill which related to the oath of abjuration, but ob-
jected to the removal by a side wind of the security given
to the Protestant Church by the Catholic Relief Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL said he rose to state for the infor-
mation of their lordships and the public, that an autho-
rity likely to have weight with those who were least dis-
posed to support this bill, might be quoted in its favour.
Lord Eldon's opinion was recorded to the effect that the
oath of supremacy was superfluous and improper. In
the year 1324 a bill was introduced by Lord Holland,
to enable the Duke of Norfolk, who was a Roman Catho-
lic to exercise the office of Earl Marshal on taking the
oath of allegiance ; for he could not take the oath of
supremacy as it was not then framed. That bill had
passed and received the royal assent. A violent protest
was afterwards made against it. The language of this pro-
test was supposed to be rather unparliamentary, and was
brought under the notice of the house, on which occasion
Lord Eldon said, " With respect to the oath of allegiance
to be taken by the Earl Marshal, I must say, as a lawyer,
that it contains in it everything included in the oath of
supremacy, and that the oath of supremacy was in fact.
added as an explanation of the oath of allegiance." He
(Lord Campbell) hoped that the oath of allegiance would
`soon be the only oath required to be taken in either
house of Parliament. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM said, on this subject, he did not
intend to trouble their lordships at any length ; and for
this reason, that after the inimitable, and he would add
unanswerable speech—(cheers)—ot his noble and learned
)
friend, it would be impertinent and superfluous for him
to add a word. One word, however, with regard to the
Lite of this bill. The noble earl asked the Government,
as the condition of his abstaining from opposing the bill
in its future stages, to pledge their word that at some
period, necessarily uncertain, when the bill should
come back from the other house with some alteration,
of which they were at the present moment necessarily
ignorant, the Government would oppose the amend-
ment which had been so introduced. How was it pos-
sible for the Government to pledge themselves as to
what their conduct would be in this most hypothetical
of possible cases ? (Hear, hear.) He hoped this bill
would receive the assent of their lordships in all its
stages, thereby removing a great blot from their legisla-
ture, not. merely in a civil but in a religious point of view.
The bill was then read a second time.
Lord LYNDHURST said that if it suited the noble
earl, he would move the committee on the bill on. Thurs-
day. He wished to know what amendments the noble
earl had to suggest.
The Earl of DERBY said that lie did hot suggest any
amendments. What he apprehended was that amend-
ments would be made elsewhere which would alter the
character of the bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS_-(YESTERDAY.)
CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS.
The orders of the day having been postponed pro
fennel, on the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the report upon the Customs Resolu-
tions was agreed to.
ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES OF IRELAND.
Mr. G. H. MOORE rose to move for a select com-
mittee to inquire into the ecclesiastical revenues of Ire-
land, with the view of ascertaining how far they are made
applicable to the benefit of the Irish people. No ques-
tion had been forced so much upon the attention of Par-
liament as this, and he believed none but Englishmen
would allow themselves to be bored with Irish grievances
simply to gratify a feeling of obstinacy. It was very
popular with some people to represent the Irish Roman
Catholic population of Ireland as exceedingly loyal ; but
those who made such representations were grossly de.
ceived if they believed them. The fact was, the Roman
Catholic population of Ireland were discontented with
the present state of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland ; and
if an American fleet were to attack the shores of Ire-
land, he believed its success would be hailed with joy
by the Irish people. Now, it was for the ex-
press purpose of removing this bad feeling that
he now proposed this motion. Ireland, in a time of war,
had rendered this country good service, and the period
might arrive when the aid of her sons would again be
required by the Crown. It was, therefore, of the utmost
importance that the feeling of discontent that now
prevailed in Ireland on ecclesiastical matters should
be removed, if it could possibly be done.
There was a wide difference between the situ-
ation of England and Ireland. In the former the
Church of the majority was closely iterwoven with
the State. It was distinctly represented in one branch
of the Legislature, while the Sovereign had sworn to
protect and cherish it. Not so in Ireland. There the
revenues of the Church were grossly misappropriated.
The majority were sacrificed for the sake of keeping up
the religious intolerance of the minority, and the con-
sequence was that there was no such thing known in
Ireland as ecclesiastical equality. Hence the discontent
to which he had referred in the opening of his address.
If the grievances of which the people of that country
complained were not redressed, the noble lord the leader
of that house was himself of opinion that the union could
not be maintained. The right hon. gentleman the leader
of the opposition was also of opinion that it was most
injudicious to ask for an identity of institutions for Eng-
land and Ireland, because the people of that country disapproved of the union between the Cluirch and State.
He was also of opinion that the Church question ought
to be immediately and satisfactorily settled. B
thg
those high authorities, it appeared, agreed i the °°l
demnation of this anomaly. Another great tlauthority,
con-
the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen s Bench, had
said that the Established Church in Ireland was the
greatest mischief in existence—that it was so considered
now, and would be considered so by prosperity ; and it
was only because their lordsliis were familiar with it
that they were not shocked at its nature. The noble
lord, formerly Lord Chancellor England, was of the
same opinion and one of the greoatest political writers of
the day—dr. Macaulay—said that the Established
Church of Ireland was a bad —a very bad institution,
and Ought to be abolish If all these high political
and legal authorities did.ednot justify the Irish people in
demanding an
iinnq into this question, they ought all
to be shut up Bedlam, and. the hon. member for North
Warwickshire appointed First Minister of the Crown.
Let them for a moment consider what were the facts of
this question, The Church revenues of Ireland were a
property, in themselves, set apart for a public purpose ;
they were held under a sacred trust for sacred purposes,
and it was the duty of the state to see that they were
not diverted from those purposes. He was not going to
say that because these funds were so appropriated in
Catholic times they ought now to be restored, and!
applied to such purposes ; but he contended at the
least that they ought not to he necessarily and
18 1731,
exclusively applied to Protestant
__
_pnTrowsPis. In
tZeeremein%sbeurrof *then Est3atlitilshee.Y
the Catholic population
were 6,500,000;
__ During that period,. the
850,000.iwbth?igitr of Protestantism, contributed
Church amours:
g
ii• of a million of money to increase the resources
upwards
o this gorged establishment. And now it was, pre.

~' y"~
i'

not accord with the feelings of the English people. (Hear,
hear.) What the opponents of the Establishment should
do was to get on inch by inch. (Hear, hear, from Mr.
Moore.) Although he seconded the motion, he thought
the present demonstration a rash one. (Oh and laughter.)
Sir J. YOUNG said that in one part of his speech the

hon. member for Mayo had stated that he desired a select

committee for the purpose of inquiry and investigation ;
but from what had fallen from him in another portion
of his observations it was clear that he did not think
inquiry or investigation necessary. If the house went
into committee it would be with the warning that it was
to abolish the functions of the Irish Church in Ireland ;
and the hon. member added, that nothing short of religious
equality would satisfy the people of Ireland.
Mr. MOORE—I said that the noble lord the member for
London said so.

Sir J. YOUNG—The hon. member quoted the noble
lord, but he also adopted his sentiment. Ho (Sir J. Young)
presumed that by religious equality the bon. member
meant the total destruction of the Established Church in
Ireland. (Hear, hear.) With regard to Ireland, various
causes, at various times, had been assigned for its distracted
and unfortunate position. The right hon. gentleman the
member for Buckinghamshire had attributed the evils of
that country to a starving population and an absentee aris-
tocracy. In 1816 or 1817 they were ascribed to the spirit
duties ; at another period to the want of a good system of
registration. If those evils, however, were to be traced to
a starving population and an absentee aristocracy, the best
Church in the world would fail to correct them. He (Sir
J. Young) was disposed to attribute the evils of Ireland to
bad commercial legislation and the general treatment of
the people. With respect to the property of the Irish
Church, it had been in its possession for 300 years, and if
the hon. member proposed to apply these revenues to other
uses he would violate a principle. Had the honourable
member, instead of advocating the abolition of the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland, adopted the more modified
-views which had recently appeared in the newspapers,
he (Sir J. Young) should have been prepared, to
show that there was room perhaps for a better dis-
tribution of Church property in Ireland, but that still
that property was not more than sufficient for the pur-
poses to which it was applied. It was the will of the
English people that there should be a Protestant establish-
ment in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) If any fault could be
found with the parochial system in Ireland, it would be
that the parishes were too large. If the present parochial
clergy were to exist, the revenue of the Irish Church did
not afford more than an adequate maintenance for them.
Although the Protestant population might be small in
numbers, it was scattered all over the country. Allowing
for the curates 45,0001., there remained for each incum-
bent 2101. a year. Now, comparing this stipend with the
emoluments of the ordinary run of clerks in public offices
or commercial establishments, ho was prepared to contend
that for the first ten years the incumbent would suffer a
loss of 100/. ; and, comparing it with those emoluments
for the next ten years—computing, in the mean time, the
" rise" which took place in such clerks' salaries—a loss of
1,0001. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Moore.) If there were any
great agitation in this country on the subject—which was
not the case—he could fancy that it might be for the ad-
vantage of the Church to make a sacrifice for the sake of
peace—to give up a portion of its revenue in order to afford
security to the rest of the property. There was no agita-
tion, however, in the public mind, and the English people
desired just the reverse of the sacrifice of the property of
the Irish establishment for Roman Catholic or secular pur-
poses. There was a jealousy of Roman Catholics inthis coun-
try, and he thought this motion calculated to increase it. At
the time of Roman Catholic emancipation an assurance was
given that the concession should in no way interfere with
the Church establishment. In 1817 Sir Robert Peel
delivered one of his speeches against emancipation, but in
1821, Mr. Plunket, in the course of an address in favour of
the measure, and as the organ of the Roman Catholics,
said that if he thought emancipation would in any way
militate against the Protestant Establishment, much as he
cherished the Roman Catholic claims, he would abandon
them ; and in the course of the same speech Mr. Plnnket
said, " I vindicate the Roman Catholics from any imputa-
tion of the kind, for they have no hostility to the Church
Establishment." Sir John Young went on to say that the
Established Church was the Church of Ireland before the
Union, although the church of the minority. The members
of the Irish Parliament were exclusively of the minority,
and it was clear that at the time of the Union they meant
to defend the temporalities of the Establishment, and to
see that no part of that property should be dealt with, ex-
cept for the benefit of the Church. If, however, it were for
the benefit of the Church that its property should be dif.
ferently allocated, the omnipotence of Parliament could
deal with the subject. The Church of Ireland had been
greatly reformed within the last 20 years ; but, according
to the hon. member for Mayo, the improvements and re-
trenchments had produced no good effect whatever. The
hon. member contended that the presence of the Church of
Ireland was as obnoxious to the Irish people as it was
before. With that announcement before them, he (Sir
J. Young) asked, what encouragement had they to go into
the proposed committee ? (Hear.) They might give up
another 100,0001., but, according to the hon. member for
Mayo, it was its existence and its efficiency which made
the Irish Church distasteful to the Irish people. If, as
the hon. member for Mayo had also admitted, the Irish
Establishment was not a tax on the Roman Catholics
of Ireland, it was a grievance connected with their faith.
But ought not the feelings of Protestants to be consulted ?
What must be the feelings of Irish Protestants, when it
-he'`ar.Pro_posed entirely to abolish their Church. (Hear,
what)bePerhaps the hon. member for Mayo would state
the eventPo7posed to do with the churches in Ireland, in
Two-thirds of sueemeding
in his motion. (Hear, hear.)
pairsn
mlbsc.rtiii7,3fundsrequired for building those churches
ad been ed by Protestants, and nearly all the re-
bees proposal keptexcite no by them. Would the hon. mem-
Protestants ? (Hear, bad feeling on the part of such
he regarded the motion ofta.r.) He (Sir J. Young) confessed
real object Was no, twilevueniltrtt',ltethaendtoitlall-taibraeedlit%9 Its
the Irish Church,
priueiwir henceforth to be ot llnoruoeft
as
Church hadubeleen
on the voluntary.
Pure and useful in their
formed • its ministers principle. That
, and the oh-
sphere of action as any that consld
PI:On-residency no
jections on the score of pluralities ann
longer existed. If the house, then, determined
committee thus warned, he believed tilr7ined to
go into
groat shock to the public thisfmaiitnhdoefd
persons country,e
towouldbe
lhieo yv gewi into
tl
induce quiet and sober-
there was no reliance to be placed on solemn coin t
in leaders or parties; and fmail pac
nor faith reposed .. Y, they
would loosen those ties IvHnicii
)were associated with pro-
perty and prescription. ear.
Mr. MURROTJGH suipp:rbtliesdteteh,eomf otthieonirist
Clohnugreahs
Ireland had the " corroding
upon her, so lon "would she chafe and be discontented.
a
As one holding communion withetrhrae PeansrotehadstanbteCenhubracdhroof.
Ireland, he believed that if prop

kr. NEWDEGATE said he must certainly accept the
statement of the hon. member for Mayo, and would sup-
pose that he was acting in contravention of the authority
of the Pope's legate. (Laughter.) Still he must contend
that this motion was brought forward under the sanction
of the Roman Catholic prelates, and with a view to destroy
the Established Church. If this were denied, he would
quote as authority a speech made by Dr. M‘Hale in 1851, at
a dinner at Athlone, given to the present Solicitor-General
for Ireland (Mr. Keogh), in which he spoke of the never-
ceasing spring of Irish calamity being about to be dried up,
meaning the Established Church. This motion was designed
to strike at every Protestant sect in Ireland, though aimed
directly at the Established Church. (" No, no," from Mr.
Moore.) The hon. member said he was an advocate for
religious equality ; but was there ever an instance of the
Romish church having been content with such equality?
The present Pope had issued an allocution, directed to
Spain, in which he declared that every other worship
ought to be removed and interdicted—(hear, hear)—and
that all the magistrates of the kingdom ought to enforce
due respect to the ecclesiastical authorities.
Mr. O'CONNELL again rose to order, aid protested
against any allusion to the Roman Catholic churches of
other countries. (Hear, hear, and cries of " order.")
Mr. NEWDEGATE referred to the late events in Tus-
cany, and said that the same allocution provided for the
suppression of other forms of worship in that kingdom.
The same arrangement had been made there as in Spain
for the enforcement of the temporal power in obedience to
the spiritual authority. The result was seen in the perse-
cution of the Madiai. The same spirit was at work in Ire-
land as in other countries where the Protestants were in a
minority ; and this motion was evidently part of an
organised plan to subvert the Established Church. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. Moore) at the same dinner to which
he referred had laid down a rule for the guidance of the
" Irish brigade," which was to deal impartial vengeance
between Whigs and Tories. That was an exposition of the
policy which had dictated this motion. The hon. gentle-
man and those who had acted with him sought to form a
party which should embarrass all Governments alike, until
they attained their object. (Hear, hear) They sought to
destroy the constitutional action of that house, in order
to destroy the Protestant liberty of Ireland. This inten-
tion was no secret ; it had been declared for years ; and
knowing the object with which this motion was proposed,
ho would give it the most decided opposition.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE said, the simple question was
whether the Irish Church, as at present constitutad, ful-
filled the high and important function of administering to
the spiritual wants of the Irish people. The result of his
inquiries led him to believe that the source of animosities
in Ireland was to be found in religious discord and reli-
gious inequality.
Mr. R. MOORE resisted the motion, contending that
. _

the revenues of the Irish Church were barely sufficient for
the spiritual wants of the people.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed'that no one could know
anything of the Irish Church without knowing that in it
there were as disgusting instances of nepotism as even in
the Church of Rome. But the question was whether the
state of the Irish Church was such as that the people ought
to be satisfied. Almost every statesman who had been dis-
ting,uished in that house had held that it was not. Many
years ago he had suggested a plan to Sir R. Peel, but that
right hon. baronet had rejected it ; and he afterwards
offered it to the noble lord (J. Russell), but he also showed
it the cold shoulder. (A laugh.) That plan, which he
still believed to be founded on substantial justice, was that
the whole ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland should be divided
between the Protestants and Catholics, according to their
numbers in the several parishes, and that in those parishes
where there were no Protestant inhabitants they should go
to the Roman Catholics. He would ask those hon. gentle-
men who saw no grievance in the present state of the Irish
Church why it was that they did not hold the same lan-
guage in regard to the Church of Scotland ? When hon.
gentlemen urged that this was not a question of expediency
and when they rejected altogether the carnal view and ap-
pealed to their consciences, he would ask, was not com-
science vs strong on the other side the Tweed as on the
other side of St. George's Channel ? This was his difficulty
—he could not understand how it was they practised one
thing in regard to Ireland and another thing in regard to
Scotland. He thought the time had come when the ques-
tion should be placed on a more secure and b3tter footing.
They had heard much about the ambition of the Popish
priests. The Popish priests were as they had ever been ;
but did they suppose the laymen were going to be such
fools as to lend themselves to their ambit: oas designs '!
They did not find the Roman Catholic laymen quite so obe-
dient in France or Italy. He observed one hon. member
had a notice upon the paper, the object of which was to
obtain the removal of the French troops from Rome, but
was he not aware that that would be tantamount to the
priests in Rome having their throats cut? (Laughter.) Ho
would say, refuse to the Roman Catholic priests or laymen
that which they demanded unjustly, but do not refuse
either priests or laymen that which they justly demand.
Mr. MAGUIRE considered that not only the represen-

tatives for Ireland, but English members also were indebted
to the hon. member for Mayo for bringing forward this
motion. That motion was not to destroy the Established
Church in Ireland, but merely to inquire with the view of
ascertaining how far the revenue of that Church could be
made applicable to the benefit of tho Irish people. And
who were the people of Ireland? Surely the mejority—
the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 Catholics, rather than the
800,000 Protestants. It was contrary to the spirt of the Act
of Union to force, by the power of this country, a Church
upon Ireland which was not the church of the majority,
but only that of a small minority. The argument that no
ono should contribute to the support of afaith in which
they did not believe was used by the opponents of the grant
to Maynooth, and the Roman Catholics of Ireland were
equally entitled to protest against money being taken out
of their pockets to support a church to which they did not
belong. He (Mr. Maguire) disclaimed being a member of
what was called the Brigade, but was an independent Irish
member, sent to that house, not by the Pope or Dr. Cullen,
but by those who wished him to act fairly towards all par-
ties, whether Tory or Whig, if they did justice to his coun-
try. The motion now made was only for inquiry—and a
fair case had been made out for inquiry—into the revenues
of a church which in Ireland caused dissension where peace
and union ought to prevail.
Mr. WHITESIDE observed, that, if this had boon a
motion by a member of the Church of the Reformation,
pointing out abuses, it should have his support ; but, com-
ing, as it did, from one who had openly advocated the
selling the whole property of the Church by auction, and
vesting the proceeds in trustees, and looking at the speeches
of its supporters, it could not be doubted that its real
purpose was not refoira, or even moderate spoliation,
but Legislative annihilation. He contrasted this purpose
with the disavowal on the part of the Roman Catholic
Bishops in Ireland in 1826, which was embodied, in dis-
tinct terms, in the oath under the Emancipation Act,
which disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured any
intention of subverting the present Church Establishment
as settled by law in Ireland. What Ireland wanted was
good government, and where Roman Catholic priests had
not confederated to stop the progress of Divine truth, the
Irish Protestant Church had advanced. He implored the
house to act on principle in this matter, and that principle
should be the maintenance of Protestantism ; for he be-
lieved the Papacy had two objects it desired to accomplish
—one to destroy Parliamentary government, the other to
beat down Protestantism.
Mr. LUCAS found it difficult and painful to speak upon
this question, which ought to pass as a matter of course;
it was difficult to restrain his feelings of indignation when
he considered the injustice done to 5,000,000 }Zeman Catho-
lics
been mistaken liosin Ireland i and it was painful to wound the feelings
injus-
tice. Protestantsi in dwelling upon a case of enormous injus-
submitted to the house by this motion
and misrepresented ; it was for inquiry
was proposed in order communityse how'poisftlirceelacon
into all ecclesiasticalaquestion of the
tice to all classes of abolitionof
the establishment of
to all religious
motion was said to be
endowments in Ireland ; it was not a
the Irish Church, but of jus-
perfect
classe idild; and
dionncleu inquiry
equality of treatment in re-
spects by act of Parliament. This
unconstitutional ; but how could

they talk of a Constitution in Ireland when they were dis- '
cussing the monstrous iniquity of the Established Church
there, and when inquiry into this despotism was refused?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—In rising to state as shortly as I
can my reasons for voting against this motion, I find it a
great facility in performing that task that the hon. mem-
ber for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had perfectly kept his word to
the house; that he has frankly stated his opinions; and
that those opinions may be dealt with instead of the mo-
tion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. G. H. Moore), or the
speech in which it was introduced. Laying aside every
question with regard to inquiry into a number of circum-
stances that are sufficiently known already—(hear)—or
which, if not sufficiently known, may be learned in the
library by consulting the returns presented to PoAliament
on the subject—laying aside every question of such sort
of inquiry, or the results which are to be pointed out
before the select committee, the hon. gentleman does not
conceal that this is a motion aimed directly at the aboli-
tion of the Irish Church. (Hear, hear.) The object may
be a good and praiseworthy one, but at all events, in the
speech of the lion. gentleman, it is not a concealed one ;
and that, therefore, is the motion with which we have to
deal. (Hear.) Now, sir, before I deal with that motion
at all, let me say that I think the hon. gentleman in his
statement of the condition to which he says the Irish peo-
ple are reduced by the existence of that Church goes far,
vary far indeed, beyond and beside the question. The
hon. gentleman says that the Roman Catholics are in a
state of social and political degradation. (Hear, hear.)
Now, sir, that statement I entirely deny. I do not
allow there is any political degradation, because, with
very few exceptions indeed, every political honour, every
political distinction, is open to Roman Catholics as it
is to Protestants. (Hear, hear.) The seats in this house
have been opened ; the highest honours of the State, with
one or two exceptions, may be obtained by Roman Catho-
lics. Neither is there, as matters at present stand, any
social inequality of which Roman Catholics have to com-
plain. Those inequalities which formerly were, we admit,
attended with degradation, have been removed in later
years. The hon. gentleman finds fault with those Roman
Catholics of former times who expressed their gratitude
for the relaxations made by Parliament in favour of
Roman Catholics. I own I have been accustomed rather
to admire than to blame the fervent zeal and loyalty with
which, even in the worst of times, Roman Catholics came
forward to defend this land, knowing they were debarred
from its honours and offices, and the generosity with which,
in any period of peril, they were apt to stand forward to
declare their loyalty to the Crown and their attachment to
the country to which they belonged, and not merely by
words, but by gallant deeds in arms, to prove that loyalty
and attachment. (Hear, hear.) It may have been a
fault, but if so, the hon. gentleman need not be afraid of
it ; for, instead of an exuberance of gratitude, the greatest
concessions made by Parliament, the largest admissions
to our offices and seats in Parliament have been met by
revilings and reproaches—(hear, hear)— which rather
seem to show that some, at least, of the Roman Catholics
of the present day wish to prove howmuch they differ from
their ancestors, and that they wish to make up for that
exuberance of loyalty and attachment to their country.
(Cheers.) My belief, however, is that the hon. gentleman,
and those who have spoken with him to-night, while they
represent some of those who carry to an extreme the poli- •
tical doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, do not:
represent the great body of the Roman Catholic people—
(hear, hear)—and ray right hon. friend the Secretary for
Ireland has been misrepresented as saying that, indeed it
might be desirable to enter into some inquiry upon this
subject if there was a great pressure and agitation upon
it. The meaning of my right hon. friend I believe was, that
if the intelligence of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland
in general,—if the intellectual part of the community in
England as well as in Ireland generally—complained of a
grievance, there would be more cause for inquiry than at
present it can be pretended there is. But having treated
of those political and social inequalities of which the hon.
gentleman complained, I will now come to that which I
admit exists—that to which the motion of to-night relates
—namely, the ecclesiastical inequality that exists in Ire-
land. It is not a religious inequality, because, with re-
spect to religion, the exercise of religious worship is as free
to the Roman Catholic as to the Protestant ; but, as re-
gards ecclesiastical revenues, there is no doubt a state of
law in Ireland by which the endowments of the state are
given to the minority, and the majority of the people share
none of the benefits of these revenues. (Hear, hear.) For
my own part I could wish, in treating of this question,
that the honourable gentleman and those who think with
him were entirely free from some of those bars and restric-
tions which have been imposed upon them in the debate
of this night ; for my part I could wish that there
was nothing in the oaths taken by members of Par-
liament which should preclude Roman Catholics from
discussing subjects of this kind—from asking, if they
thought proper, for the total abolition of the Established,
Church of Ireland, and voting for its subversal and sup-
pression as a political question as freely as they could vote
upon any other question. (Hear.) For my part I thought
these were matters that ought freely to be debated in Par-
liament, and I am exceedingly sorry any oath taken at
this table should stand in the way of any such discussion.
(Hear, hear.) I think likewise that that argument with
respect to the union of Ireland—though, no doubt, it is a
matter for consideration—should not be pushed too far
in an argument on this subject. My honourable friend the
member for the University of Oxford says there is a com-
pact between the two nations. I think that, although
you entered into that agreement, if it be clear that the
great body of the people of Ireland, if the intelligence and
wishes of the people were in favour of a change in that
respect, there is nothing in the Act of Union itself which
should prevent your making a change in favour of the
people of Ireland in respect to an article which was in-
tended for the benefit of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) So much
for those considerations which might prevent us from
coming to a fair argument and a fair decision upon this
question. But I may say further, that, for my own part,
I do not wish to hear any of those inquiries which the
hon. and learned gentleman opposite alluded to with
respect to any relations which may subsist between Ro-
man Catholics and the head of their church in a foreign

country. I am satisfied that Roman Catholics should
have and enjoy all the privileges they at present enjoy, and
all the funds or endowments granted, whether by Parlia-
ment or otherwise, should bo maintained to them ; and for
my own part I do not wish at all to interfere with the freest
liberty and enjoyment by them of all the advantages they
possess ; and when I say this, I do not say anything ex-
ceedingly liberal ; but I am saying more than any Roman
Catholic could say with regard to Protestant endowments.
(Hear, hear.) But when we come to this practical question,
whether or not we should make some very great change
with respect to the Established Church in Ireland, I must
own that, with respect to that great subject, the experi-
ence we have had of late years should not be lost upon us.
It has not been lost upon me with reference to this ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) I thought some years ago it would
be of great advantage, that it would tend to peace and
concord, if a part of the revenues now given to the Estab-
lished Church of Ireland had been applied to purposes of
education in which persons of all religious denomina-
tions might have participated • but I found in the course
of the discussions, both in Parliament and in the country,
neither side was willing to consent to such a compromise,
and, while one side steadily and honestly resisted all
that spoliation, as they considered it, of the property
of the Established Church, the other required the total
abolition of the revenues of that church. I was obliged,
therefore, to consider which course Parliament should
take ; how it could remedy that which was alleged as a
grievance ' • and I am sorry to think, that while I cannot
hold that the present state of things is, in its apparent
arrangement, satisfactory, I see the greatest difficulties—
the greatest objections. More than that, I see no small
peril in the alterations that have been proposed. The hon.
gentleman who spoke last, as I understood him, said, " Let
us have equality whatever mode you please to take to
attain that, I shall be content with it, provided it is equa-
lity." There are only two modes obviously in which eccle-
siastical equality—for that is the important question—
can be attained. The one is the total abolition of the
revenues of the Established Church of Ireland. I am not
prepared to take that course. (Hear, hear.) I never
shall be willing to consent to the total abolition of the
revenues of the Established Church of Ireland. (Hear.)
Putting aside the great change it would make—the viola-
tion of engagements it would make—setting aside these
matters—l cannot but think that you could not abolish
the revenues of the Established Church of Ireland without
striking at the root of ecclesiastical endowments and vio-
lating the great principle upon which all our endowments
are founded. (Hear, hear.) That may be a wrong prin-
ciple—l mean the principle of ecclesiastical endowments ;
but it is one that I am in favour of, which has been hitherto
maintained by the Parliament of this country, and I can-
not believe that you could abolish It iu Ireland without
leading in other parts of the United Kingdom to a similar
abolition. (Hear, hear.) Then let us consider whether
we can make a new distribution of the revenues at present
of the Established Church according to number ; and di-
viding them according to number you would give by far
the greater part of those revenues to the Roman Catholic
Church. In so doing you would be acting according to
principle—according to the principle you have adopted in
other cases, as the late Mr. O'Connell frequently put the
contrast before us,—as you have the Presbyterian religion
in Scotland, so you would have the Roman Catholic
religion endowed in Ireland. If the Roman Catholic
Church resembled the Presbyterian Church in Scotland,
although it would not be just that the Roman Catholics
should have, as the Presbyterians in Scotland have,
a national church entirely devoted to them, yet I can
imagine that a large endowment should be given to the
Roman Catholic Church ; but, unfortunately, ecclesiastical
equality would not be thereby increased. It has been evi-
dent of late years, that the Roman Catholic clergy—looking
to its proceedings in foreign countries—looking to its pro-
ceedings in this country—looking to that church, acting
under the direction of its head, himself a foreign Sovereign,
has aimed at political power—(hear)—which appears to
me to be at variance with a duo attachment to the Crown
of this country—(hear, hear)—with a duo attachment to
the general cause of liberty—(hear, hear)— with a due
attachment to the duties a subject of the State should per-
form towards it. (Hear, hoar.) Now, as I wish to speak
with as much frankness as the hon. gentleman who spoke
last, let me not be misunderstood in this house. I am far
from denying that there are many members of this house,
and many members of the Roman Catholic persuasion,
both in this country and in Ireland, who are attached to
the throne and to the liberties of this country; but what
I am saying, and that of which I am convinced, is, that if
the Roman Catholic clergy had increased power given to
them, and if they, as ecclesiastics, were to exercise greater
control and greater political influence than they do now,
that power would not be exercised in accordance with the
general freedom that prevails in this country—(loud
cheers)—and that neither in respect to political power nor
upon other subjects would they favour that general free-
dom of discussion, and that activity and energy of tho
human mind that belongs to the spirit of the constitution
of this country. (Loud and general cheering.) I do not
think that in that respect they are upon a par with the
Presbyterians of Scotland. (Cheers.) Tho Presbyterians
of Scotland, the Wesleyans of this country—(cheers)--and
the Established Church of this country and of Scotland,
all no doubt exercise a certain influence over their congre-
gations ; but that influence which they thus exercise over
their congregations must be compatible with a certain
freedom of the mind—must be compatible with a certain
spirit of inquiry which the ministers of these churches do
not dare to overstep, and if they did overstep it, that in- .
fluent* would be destroyed. (Hear, hear.) I am obliged,
then, to conclude—most unwillingly to conclude, but most
decidedly—that the endowment of the Roman Catholic
religion in Ireland in the place of the endowment of the
Protestant Church in that country, in connexion with
the State, is not an object which the Parliament of this
country ought to adopt or to sanction. (Cheers.) Sir,
these opinions of mine may lead to conclusions unpalatable
to many who belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

They may lead to a persistence in a state of things that I
quite admit to be anomalous and unusual ; but- I am
obliged, as a member of this Parliament, to consider—and
to consider most seriolisly in the present state of the world
—that which is best adapted to maintain the freedom and
permanence of our institutions. I must look around me at
what is passing elsewhere. I must see what is taking
place in Belgium. I must see what is taking place in Sar-
dinia and in various countries of Europe. I must regard
the influence which, if not exercised, has been attempted
to be exorcised, in the United Kingdom of late years.
(Cheers.) Seeing these things, I give my decided resis-
tance to the proposal of the hon. gentleman for the aboli-
tion of the Established Church in Ireland upon the princi-
ples which I have stated, and which appear to me to be
conclusive against the motion. (The noble lord resumed
his seat amid great cheering from all parts of the house.)
Mr. BRIGHT had been sorry to hear the speech of the
noble lord. (Ironical cheers and laughter from the Oppo-
sition benches.) He did not know how the noble lord re-
garded his past career, or how it would be regarded by the
country or by posterity, but no Minister, calling himself
liberal, had spoken in that house for 20 years in a sense so
adverse to those opinions which had been supposed to dis-
tinguish Liberal from Tory Governments for that period
—(Opposition cheers)—and the noble lord had been cheered
mainly by those who sat opposite to him, while those who
sat around and behind him had, many of them, listened iu
silence, and, he suspected, with disapprobation, if not
dismay, to the opinions he had expressed. (Hear, hear,
and laughter from the Opposition.) The noble lord had not
fairly met the question before the house. The motion was
ono which he might be expected to support, but the noble
lord assumed that every person who supported it was in
favour of the total abolition of the Church of Ireland, and
had met the motion, not with the previous question, but
with a direct negative. No one would undertake to de-
fend the Irish Church. But it was said, "If you allow this
question of Church establishments to be mooted on the
other side of the channel, you will find it very difficult to
maintain Church establishments here." (Hear, hear.)
The house knew that to be true, and that was the reason
why many people refused to do justice to Ireland. But
on what a rotten and decaying foundation, then, the
Church establishment in this country must be based—
(oh !)—if they were afraid that, because measures of obvious
justice were conceded to Ireland, they involved measures
of a similar character with regard to England. He (Mr.
Bright) conceived that the noble lord was associated with
gentlemen in the Government who found it extremely dif-
ficult to agree on a question like the present ; but the
noble lord's political reputation and character ought to be
dear to himself; and he (Mr. Bright) said, that the Roman
Catholics of Ireland would be worthy of the contempt of
the world if, with such an ecclesiastical arrangement in
Ireland, they did not attempt to correct it. He would
say that the Roman Catholic liberal members of Ireland
would be unworthy of a seat in any senate in the world
if they did not protest against the monstrous injustice
inflicted on their country. (Cheers.) He suspected that
all churches, if the truth were known, were not particu-
larly favourable to civil liberty, and ho did not think
that any church bound up in union with the State ever
encouraged that State or any State to grant increased civil
liberty to the people. The reason why in this country the
Church appeared to be, and was to a large extent, more
tolerant than many others was, because the people had
gained greater civil power, and had by slow degrees and
incessant conflict subjected in some measure the Church
and the clergy to a more wholesome public opinion. If i
any man complained that in Ireland Catholic- prelates
and priests had too much power over the people, he (Mr.
Bright) attributed that entirely to the fact, that for a -long
period the legislation of that house had bound priest and
people together in one bond, and had done much to subject
the people to whatever there was of unwholesome influence
on the part of the priests. (Hear, hear.), At the present
moment it was impossible for any-mala. t 6 trayeLthro ugh
Ireland and not perceive that there was one question which
poisoned all the social relations of that country. Whether
in the elections or in any other matter, political or social,
this one question of the Church Establishment was the
pestilent and poisonous question in Ireland, and made it as
impossible now as for the last 200 years that that country
should be in the possession of tranquillity and contentment
which every man, he hoped, in that house would wish to
prevail there. The hon. member for Meath said they
might have a long, an arduous, but he believed it would
be a successful, struggle. Now, if he (Mr. Bright) might
give a piece of advice to Irish Liberal members, whether
Protestant or Roman Catholic, it would be that they
should make this question of religious equality in Ireland
the cardinal question in their political movements. Were
he a Roman Catholic, he would not come into that house
and let any occasion slip of denouncing the insult offered
to his church and country. He said to the Irish members,
let their measures be practical—let them bring all the
information they had on the question before the house
and before the people of England ; and though at
present there existed a feeling adverse to giving
complete liberty to the Roman Catholics of Ireland
and England, yet they might rely on it these fevers
would pass away, and calmer and better times would
come. (Hear, hear.) Let the Irish members still join the
English Liberal members in all they attempted to do for
the common liberties of England and Ireland, and they
might be sure, despite of the noble lord, and despite of the
Government, which could not agree probably on a ques-
tion like this, there was goodness and there was greatness
enough in the people of this country yet to consent to a
measure of full justice to Ireland. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, as a Roman Catholic mem-
ber, could not permit the speech of the noble lord, the
leader of that house, to pass without observation. He had
felt the deepest disappointment at that speech ; for he cer-
tainly had not expected to hear the tone and arguments of
the hon. and learned member for Enniskillen (Mr. White-
side) adopted to some extent by the representative of the
Government. (Hear.) He had heard from the noble lord
that which he conceived to be an insult to the venerated
clergy of his church, and also to a considerable extent to
the Roman Catholic members of that house. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord had argued that the Irish Church Estab-
lishment was not to be interfered with, not because it was
just, but because there was a spirit abroad which induced
the Roman Catholics and the clergy of the Roman Catholic
Church to give political power to a foreign Sovereign, and
interfered with the constitution of this country. He felt
, called on entirely to deny that statement—(bear, hear)—
) and in support of his denial he appealed to the experience
L of the 24 years during which Roman Catholics had been
members of that house. There were many other points
which had fallen from hon. members on the other side of
the house to which he should have wished to reply, but
seeing the lateness of the hour, he would no longer trespass
upon the attention of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOORE having replied,
Thy house then divided ; when the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes 260

Majority against the motion 162
ACCIDENTS IN COAL MINES

Mr. HUTCHINS moved that a select committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the causes of the numerous accidents
in coal mines, with a view of suggesting the best means for
their prevention.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the question was one of
great interest, and was well worthy of being inquired
into by a select committee. He had himself sent to
different parts of the continent for the purpose of ascer-
taining what were the modes adopted to prevent accidents
in mines.

Tho motion was agreed to, and the nomination of the
committee was fixed for Tuesday next.
REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.

Sir J. YOUNG (for Lord J. Russell) moved that the
following gentlemen be nominated the select committee :
The Attorney-General, the.Solicitor-General, the Marquis
of Chandos, Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Evelyn Denison,
Mr. Vincent Scully, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Drum-
mond, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Mul-
rings; Mr. Butt, and Mr. Hadfield.—Agreed to.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE of YESTERDAY.

WHITEHALL, MAY 23,

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to
be passed under the Seal appointed by the Treaty of Union
to be made use of in place of the Great Seal of Scotland,
nominating and appointing Cospatrick Alexander, Earl of
Home, to be Keeper of the said Seal.
WHITEHALL, MAY 25.

The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to
be passed under the Seal appointed by the Treaty of Union
to be made use of in the place of the Great Seal of Scot-
land, nominating and appointing the Right Honourable
Fox, Lord Panmure, to be Keeper of the Privy Seal of
Scotland.

The Queen has been pleased to grant the place of one of
the Lords of Session in Scotland to George Deas, Esquire,
Advocate, in the room of John Cunninghame, Esquire,
resigned.