The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

appeal to the people of England, to the Catholics themselves,
though not with equal confidence, on this point; he would ask
them whether they had not received consolation and relief in
the hour of sickness and distress from ministers of the Esta-
blished Church, and whether in such times any distinction had
been made between the members of their community and the
professors of a different faith ? Whether the Protestant clergy-
men had few or many parishioners in particular places, he
held that they were equally entitled to that decent stipend
which became their character and station.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to the appropriation of any surplus, supposing
one to exist, which he greatly doubted, he did not question
the right of Parliament to interfere in that respect ; but he con-
tended that its interference would have the effect. of diminish-
ing the security of property, and preventing the investment
of capital ; and although its power would not be disputed, its
injustice would awaken feelings of indignation and astonish-
ment. To the principle of providing education for the people
—always supposing that education to be connected with the
Established religion—he had no objection. He had no objec-
tion to an annual grant for this purpose, but then it must be
applied to purposes strictly in unison with the doctrines of the
Established Church, of that Established Church which, he
should never cease to maintain, was the Church of the majority
of the people of these realms ; of that Established Church
which found its strongest basis in the general conviction of
the truth of its doctrines. This Established Church the
Catholics had themselves confessed it was their object to sub-
vert. The Irish people had been relieved from the pressure of
tithe. If he might believe the examination of Mr. O'Con-
nell, the pressure of which they complained was wholly
unconnected with religion. They were told by that evidence
that they complained of that pressure, whether they paid tithe
to a clerical or a lay impropriator ; that, indeed, they consi-
dered the latter the more objectionable cf the two, as no service
was performed in return. Considerable feeling existed in fa-
vour of a re-distribution of benefices, and a very exaggerated
notion had been keeled of the wealth of the Establishment.
No one would be more glad than he if their Lordships could
succeed in persuading the other House of Parliament to ac-
cept those portions of the Bill to which no objection existed.
There could be no doubt that the settlement of the tithe ques-
tion would be most satisfactory to the people of Ireland ; that
it would be a complete satisfaction was, he feared, more than
could be expected of any measure. He would pay no atten-
tion to the threats of civil vengeance which had been held out.
IL. would pay no attention to the threats that if they refused
-to pass the Bill now, it would come back to them in a more
aggravated shape. He would not believe that his Majesty's
Ministers would make such an attempt.
Lord HA THERTON said that if he could for one mo-
ment consider the Bill injurious to the Established Church
in Ireland, educated as he had been in its precepts, and reared
as he had been in its principles, he should be the last to sup-
port it. But he had been the advocate of the measure because
Inn had long since arrived at the conviction that, surrounded as
the Church in Ireland was by a hostile population, who were
constantly dragging its abuses into light, there was no hope of
its salvation but in an unsparing and unflinching removal of its
abuses : and in giving that hostile population some interest in
such a surplus of its revenues as should be proved to exist. It
was very important, in the consideration of that question, to
remember that the Church of England and the Church of
Ireland were placed in very dissimilar situations.—(Hear.)
Did any man believe that if the Irish people, with their
present independent elective body, had an independent
Parliament sittiag in Ireland, the existing Church Esta-
blishment could be maintained for a single session ? Did
any man doubt that the people, with one loud and unanimous
veice, would have demanded its reform, that the Commons
verealci have refused it, and that the Pe: r=, from every consi-
deration of policy, would have ccnce.ded it? Ho (lid not ques-
tion the expediency of maintaining a Church Establishment in
Ireland. He knee, that it bad long existed in that country,
and that it had been maintained there, not by the feelings of
the Iris}: people, but suecessfolly, to a certain extent, by the
eoetinued prevalence of British pea er ; vast interests had
alirileg up, which required protection ; he did not advocate the
spolietion of those interests, but he unequivocally declared
that there never was a plainer course of policy for the British
Legislature to pursue than that which was open to them on
this question. It was no doubt the object of his Ma-
jesty's Government, on the one hand, to show that a sur-
plus could be created, and of the Noble and Learned Lord,
on the other, to show that no surplus could ever arise. After
recapitulating the statement of figures made by Lord Merpeth
in the lieuse of Commons, to prove that a surplus of 75,475/.
did exist, and that the sum realized under the Church Tem-
poralities Bill rasher exceeded Mr. Finlayson's
thm, in consequence of tine rapidity with which the lives
ha I fallen in, the ' Noble Lord proceeded to say that
by the proposed arrangement the clergy of Ireland would
be placed in a better situation than tine clergy of the Esta-
blished Church in England. The average net income to be
secured to the farmer was 282/. a-year, while that of the latter
law( only thls/ , they being subject to many losses in the col-
lection, and having moreover to sustain the expense of employ-
ing curates. Their Lordships had brought before them a mea-
sure—lie bad stated it before, and he now repeated it—giving
to the clergy an income of 80 per cent.. on the gross amount of
their composition—a measure totally and entirely unconnected
.iii) the question of appropriation, and that measure they had
decidedly and deliberately rejected.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The aporopriation clause was now the only price at which
.it was practicable to adjust this question ; and if they wished
to discharge the lanemwners and the tithe-payers of the bur-
dens which they now had to bear, that price must be paid. If
thin principle were not now accepted, he very much appre-
hended that the question of suppression would speedily take
place of the question cf appropriation. The present exclusive
appropriation of the Church revenue of Ireland was the real
source of all the frays and disputes, almost amounting to civil
war, which at present destroyed the peace and obstructed the
execution of the law in Ireland. The Church at the present
moncent depended for its existence upon the four Barons of the
Exchequer, and their deunhen Commissioners of rebellion. In
the discussion of this question their Lordships should bear in
mind this important fact, that the reformation had never taken
effect in Ireland. For three hundred years, by a series of the
most arbitrary and sanguinary enactments, by the disinherit-
ance of the brother in favour of a brother, of the father for the
son, this country had endeavoured to support the quasi autho-
rity of that reformation in Ireland ; but all in vain. The Ca-
tholics of Ireland bad, by persevering efforts recovered all
their civil rights, and now their Lordships were still in blind-
:ness, debating the question, riot whether the property
of the Church should be divided between the two
fa:larches according to the proportions of the population,
not whether some portion, however small, should be given to
the Catholic clergy, but whether, however great the tempora-
lities of the Established Church might be, however abundant
its superfluities might be, not one farthing of its vast reve-
nues should be applied to the enlightenment or education
of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, forming, as
they did, ten-elevenths of the constituency. There were
esti./ churches in Ireland to which there were not more than
ton parishioners attached ; and he would ask whether several
of their Lordships had not been witness to a scene which he
had he-held some years ago when he was in Ireland, of some
hundreds' of poor Roman Catholic peasants crowding round
the porch of the humble edifice which served them for a
place of weTs.liip, forming a group of wretchedness, of filth,
and rags, whilet the walls of the neighbouring Established
Church echoed tilie footsteps of the single parishioner who be-
longed to it, or more frequently stood an untenanted and use-
less sinecure. In the diocese of Kilfinara, for instance, the
Protestants bore the proportion of only two-thirds of a man
per cent. to the population, and hence, if equal justice were
pretended to be administered in Ireland, the clergyman would
hardly have salt to cat with his meals. There were three
'dioceses in which the Protestants were only as one-fiftieth
aof the population. These were a few of the glaring and
u.adeniable facts of the case. If it could be answered to
the se facts that there was a hope that at any distant period
those facts might be altered and those proportions reversed,
then, indeed, there might be some pretence in favour of the
exclusive system which it was now endeavoured to maintain.
—(Hear, hear.) Let their Lordships look back to the his-
ory of some years, and see from analogy whether there was
any chance of such a .change ever taking place. He held in
ids hand an extract from an article published, he honeyed, by
Mr. Lister, in the Edinburgh Review for July, in which it
appeared, on the authority of Sir Wm. Petty, that in the reign
of Charles 11. the members of the Established Church were in
.the proportion of 3 to 8 of the Roman Catholics, in 1733 they
wore stated by one authority to be as 3 to 74, and by another
authority as 3to 8; whilst another authority, Dr. Bourke, the
Bishop Jif Ossory in 1731, stated them to be as 3to 51. At
present the number •of Protestants to Roman Catholics was
only as 3 to 1.2 i; and he would ask in the face of this fact
what reasonable hope was there that the Established Church
could ever sta•nd upon a better footing with regard to the
Roman Catholics than it did at present ? He did not mean
to pronounce such an event impossible, but as long as the
present system was persisted in, he looked upon it as out of
the question. Liberality, and liberality alone, might in time
effect what force and tyranny had vainly endeavoured to
achieve. In Ireland alone it was thought prudent and fit
to discourage and endeavour to repress the religion of the
majority of the population ; and the consequence was that
.they found a powerful Establishment, and one not destitute
of wealth, erecting itself in uncompromising opposition to
the Protestant Church, and the priests bringing up their
Roman Catholic flocks in a feeling of deadly hatred to Eng-
land, to her Church, and to her institutions. The tnoral edu-
cation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland could now no longer
be neglected with safety to the State or to the Established
Church. He had no doubt that this system must eventually
'prove successful, and therefore it was that he rejoiced to see
that the House of Commons had a second time passed a mea-
sure calculated, as he believed, to put the Church of Ireland
upon a more efficient as well as a more equitable footing, with
better distribution of its funds.
The Bishop of E PETER rose in consequence of what had
fa,:len from the Noble Baron who had just sat down, who had
put forward observations in the course of his speech which
Nobt'a Lords on that side of the House had hitherto ab-
stained from expressing. The Noble Baron had told the
1-louse that the Church Establishment of Ireland had be-
come thoroughly useless ; and that there was 120 hope, as
long as it was maintained on its present footing, of peace being
preserved for Ireland. The Noble Baron had, furthermore,
especially challenged the House to consider what progress
the Reformation had made in Ireland; and had finished by
declaring, that no steps had been taken towards spreading the
knowledge of the pure Christian religion in that country, an
amnion to which he (the Bishop of Exeter) begged to give
a most unqualified contradiction. True it was that the cause
of the' Reformation had for a long time been taken up in a
very un becoming temper: true it was, that since the days of
Eliz abet. h, the Sovereigns of this kingdom had strangely
neglected their duties, and had had done very little to enhance
the value of those religious truths on which the stability of
their thrones alepended. Shame be to their memories that

such should hiavi,: been the case; but so it was, that until

within the last 36 years there had existed too much of the im-
pure leaven in the management of the Church of Ireland. The
result was, that down to a very late period the Church was ac-
tually in a state of beggary and starvation. He would refer
to the letters of Sir H. Sidney and of Sir John Davis, to
Clarke's history of Ireland, and indeed to any book giving
any account of the state of Ireland during the 16th and
17th centuries, for a verification of the assertion, that the
Church of Ireland was left in a state of the most disgraceful
and degraded neglect until about half a century ago. The
infamous resolution of 1734—he hesitated not to call it by
that name—that infamous resolution of the Irish House of
Commons, declaring that whoever paid agistment tithes was an
enemy to his country, had ensured the poverty of the Church
for ages to come. Since the Union, however, affairs had be-
gun to assume a different complexion, and, if he were asked
to point out a spot in the empire where the Established
Church presented a hopeful and gratifying appearance, he
should refer with confidence to Ireland. He appealed to
that Church, as it stood at present, with two thousand
ministers, who would do credit to any Church Establish-
ment, and a million other members of that Church, zealous
and vigcrous supporters of its principles, who, though they
might occasionally give vent to the warmth of their feel-
ins.'s in irregularities of demeanour, which he was not dis-
posed to applaud, must eventually, by their generol conduct,
lead to the diffusion of the vital truth, and the apprecia-
tion of the sober Christian spirit of the Protestant religion.
He was astonished to find the party by whom this Bill was
sanctioned pursuing the very injurious course that they had
done for the last few years. According to a return, then on
their Lordships' table, it appeared, that in spite of all the dis-
couragements which necessarily were offered to applications of
this kind, there wrs an application for not less than 38 new
churches, for enlarging churches already built, 147, and for
rebuilding, 113. These demands were made from those who
did not desire that the churches should be built gratuitously
for them, but those who supplied a large portion of the ex-
pense themselves. Amidst all the distress and sufferings of
of Ireland, these persons were ready to come forward with
contributions when they sought that assistance which they
thought they might justly hope for from Government.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) Did not this fact afford them the hope
that the Church was on the increase ? Again, with regard to
glebe-houses. There was one undeviating conclusion to be
made as to the general state of residence, and that was the
means of residence afforded by glebe houses. It appeared
that there were now 850 glebe houses, many built for clergy-
men with very small assistance from the State. It was in
this state they were told by the Noble Viscount that they were
to anticipate a reduction of the Established Church. They
thought that the opulence of the clergymen of Ireland was so
great that it was necessary to chock the exuberant state of
their prosperity.
Lord HOLLAND—No, no.
The Bishop of EXETER did not use the words of the
Noble Viscount, but he had a right to use the argument of the
Noble Viscount, if, indeed, the Noble Viscount did make use
of any arguments, and then apply that argument in his (the
Bishop of Exeter's) own language. The Noble Viscount re-
commended them to strike off a large portion of the Protestant
Establishment. Unless there was, then, an exuberant state of
prosperity in the Church could the Noble Viscount be justified
in striking off any portion of it? The Noble Baron indeed had
said that the clergymen in the Church of Ireland would be
better off than the clergymen of the Church of England.
Now, what was the result of the Noble Viscount's figures?
There were to be 365,3601. for the endowment of 1,250 bene-
fices, making for each about cool. a year. Now, he had gone
through the calculations of the Noble Viscount, and com-
pared them with the enactments of the Bill, and he had first
to remark, that tile Noble Viscount had forgotten,.when lie
made his statement, what were the provisions of the Bill. In
the first place, the Noble Viscount had no right to assume
that the Commissioners would in all cases give the sum
that he had stated. If they did so, they would violate the
instructions of the Act. The Act prescribed a graduated
scale, and if the Commissioners took the highest or the
lowest part of that scale, they would be guilty of a grievous
departure of their duty. The Noble Viscount then had
no right to assume that they would take it at the highest.
The necessary conclusion was, that it would in many cases
be less than 3001. a year. Not only the Noble Viscount
but the Commissioners and tax-gatherers, must also forget
certain charges against those revenues—the two and a half
per cent. tax, the benefice tax, and the charge for curates—
before the incomes of the clergymen could be anything hke
what the Noble Viscount had stated.—( Hear, hear.) First,
they should have 123 benefices not worth more than 100/. a-
yeer. That was not the minimum, but the maximum. Taking
them at 75/. a-year—and then there was the right to glebe—
in no cane it was to be worth more then 451. a-year ; in those
below 1001 a-year they might be well content with 25/.
From this there was a deduction of 1/. 7s. 6d. ; the income
then was cut clown to 98/. 12s. 6d. Such was to be the in-
come for these 123 benefices. The next class was more nu-
merous, for there were 675 benefices, with a population of
from 50 to 500 ' • they were not to have less than 150/., nor
more than 2001. a-year ; 175/. was a fair average for them ;
251. were allowed for the glebe-house. The 24 per cent.
reduced them to 201/. There were 211 benefices, with a
population of from 500 to 1,000, and these were to have from
2501. to 300/. a-year. here then came into operation the
various deductions, which reduced these, even with the aid ( f
the glebe lands, at the highest to 3211. The Right Rev.
Prelate here entered into calculations of the same sort, to
show the reduction in the incomes of the clergymen which
would be effected by the Bill then before the House.
This Bill had done all that Noble Lords who sup.
ported it could desire—it answered the objects of the moment.
Noble Lords must be satisfied that in this way it had attained
the only object it could serve—it carried the Administration
through another year--and they trusted to the chapter of
accidents for something else.—( Hear, hear ! and cheers from
the Opposition Peers.) But all this while let them recollect
what they were doing—they were not only encouraging a vio-
lation of the law of the land, but they were abetting and
encouraging men in a gigantic scheme of perfidy and per-
jtay.—(llear; hear ! and cries of " Oh, oh !") The history of
mankind furnished few examples equal to this. In listening
to all the Noble Lords who had spoken upon this subject,
he remarked that all had most cautiously abstained in mak-
ing, as they might have done, this the ground for their argu-
ment—that this Bill was essentially theirs, who in promoting
it were guilty of the most tremendous perjury. He really con-
sidered that the guilt of the Roman Catholic agitators was
sufficient to appal the very imagination.—(Hear.) 'Was
it to be thought that a British House of Parliament
could consent to a measure which was based upon such perjury?
That it should do so without merely looking at it was quite
sufficient to make one think that they had not fallen upon very
honest times. Was there a Noble Lord who had spoken,
was there a Noble Lord who would speak, who could stand up
and say, that he did not consider every one of those Roman
Catholics who supported this measure was not guilty of per-
jury and treachery ?__( Hear, hear, hear.) He asked any
one of those Noble Lords—he defied any Noble Lord—he
defied any one of them to say, that there was a single
Catholic agitator free from the guilt of the most tremendous
perjury in supporting this Bill.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
"Oh !") He did not say this of every Member of Parlia-
ment only, but he said it of all Roman Catholics who sug-
gested this measure.—(llear, from the Opposition Peers.)
The very condition for their having the privileges they now
enjoyed was violated by them. In the consideration of this
question of perjury, he had to mention one or two circum-
stances which were quite conclusive, on the authority of Ro-
man Catholics themselves. By the Relief Bill, all those
taking any public offices were bound to take the oath pre-
scribed by that Bill. In Malta the Roman Catholic bishop
had been nominated to be one of the Council for that island.
The oath was of course tendered to him. As he (the Bishop
of Exeter) understood, he began reading it, and when he, as
a Roman Catholic, found what was required of him as re-
garded the Established Church, he did that which as an honest
man became his duty—he refused to take the oath, and was
not a member of the Council. The Noble Viscount was able
to contradict him if what he stated were not the fact ; he re-
gretted he had not the Noble Secretary for the Colonies to
refer to on this point. It (lid not, however, rest upon this au-
thority alone ; he could cite the authority of another Roman
Catholic, of a member he believed of the other House, the
Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse), who published a " His-
tory of the Catholic Association." In a digest of circum-
stances there was to be found, under the date of March 5,
1829, the notice of the Relief Bill passing, abolishing the oaths
of abjuration and supremacy, and requiring and substituting
instead of these, the oath of allegiance to the Hanoverian line,
and binding the Roman Catholics to a settlement of property,
and not to injure or subvert the present Church Establish-
ment. Here then was the opinion of a Roman Catholic as to
the sense in which the oath was to be taken.--( Hear.) He
asked any Noble Lord whether, at the time that the Catholic
Relief Bill was passing, the person would not be said to be
tainted with illiberality who would stand up and declare that
in seven years every one of the Irish Roman Catholics ad-
mitted into the House of Commons would do his utmost to
subvert the Church Establishment; nay, more, that an officer
high in his Majesty's Government—no less a person than his
Majesty's Attorney- General—would be one of those to bring
in a Bill for these purposes ?—(Hear, from Opposition Peers.)
This Bill was brought into the House of Commons, bear-
ing the name of the Attorney-General on its back. That
Attorney-General was a Roman Catholic. That Attorney..
General had sworn to do nothing to injure the Protestant
Establishment in Ireland, and yet he had brought in a Bill
to cut off that Establishment.—(Hear, and cheers from the
Opposition Peers.) He repeated it, that Bill did make the
Protestant Establishment completely dependent upon the
Privy Council—a Privy Council of course nominated by
the Secretary for Ireland—by a nobleman who, unless greatly
slandered, was accustomed to attend to the recommen-
dations to fill situations of all sorts coming from the gentle-
men in question.—( Hear, hear, from Opposition Peers.) Now
it was thought that such persons could be bound by their
oaths ; and he had this upon the high authority of the Noble
Baron (Lord Holland) near him. In a correspondence be-
tween that Noble Baron and Dr. Shuttleworth he found it
stated, in a reply to aquestion from the Rev. Dr. Shuttleworth,
whether Roman Catholics were to be believed, as bound by
their oaths not to injure the Protestant Establishment, Lord
Holland, in 1827, replied, " I can only answer, that for the
last twenty-seven years they have so repeated, solemnly, dis-
tinctly, and I believe sincerely, in their petitions, declara-
tions, and evidence upon oath." Upon this high authority?,
then, he found that those persons had been perjuring them-
selves most grossly, by violating their oaths, by thus acting
against the Protestant Establishment. All who concurred
in concocting this Bill were guilty of that perjury ; for
this Bill was an injury to the Protestant Church in that
country. The Noble Viscount, who spoke openly and
broadly., admitted it to be so, for he said that "it was a great
discouragement to Protestantism."—( Hear, hear.) After
this admission of the Noble Viscount, did not common sense

proclaim against Ministers they were perjurers? Were they

not then bound to refuse to make themselves parties to perjury
and perfidy like this?—(Hear, hear, and cheers from the
Opposition Peers.) Had there not been a solemn engage-
ment upon their part that as far as they were concerned they
were bound to preserve that Church inviolate ?—(1-lear, hear.)
The Right Rev. Prelate then proceeded to quote some pas-
sages from a pamphlet, which we understood him to ascribe
to Lord Holland. The pamphlet in question related to the
relief of the Roman Catholics from their civil disabilities, and
the passages to which he particularly referred were to the
effect that the Noble Lord had maintained the Protestant
Irish Church and her enormous revenues. Now he would
call on that Noble Lord, by his honour and his love of peace
and charity, and he might even say on such a subject as
this, by his faith as a Christian, to redeem his pledge—a
pledge given, not in the heat of debate, but as a reason
why concessions should be made to the Roman Catholics.—
( Hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate also referred to an opi-
nion delivered by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) during
the discussions on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. That
Noble Lord was represented to have said that he was ready
to forego the hope of Catholic relief if he saw that the
consequences of it would be that it would check the spread
of the Protestant religion. He asked their Lordships what
was likeiy to be the effect of the present measure ? This
night they were called on to adhere to the faith of their
forefathers, and not to sacrifice it to the expediency of the
hour.

Lord HOLLAND gave their Lordships his assurance that
he should vote for this Bill, and he should vote for it for the
purpose which the Noble and Rev. Lord said he was pledged
to fulfil—(Cheers)—to take his chance of maintaining the
Irish Church • and he considered he maintained that
Church though it might be in some small degree dimi-
nished by this Bill in its enormous revenues.—(Hear,
hear.) Enormous revenues, perhaps, the Noble and Rev.
Lord did not consider them, who held such notions of Church
reformation, glebe-houses, and agistment tithes; whose un-
derstanding seemed to be that a revenue of 600,0001. was not
an enormous revenue for the Church. It might not be in the
view of the Noble and Rev. Lord a matter of any importance,
for large was the amount of the revenue in comparison with
the number of their flock, their wants, and the duties to be
performed.---(Hear, hear.) The Noble and Rev. Lord
talked of the flourishing state of the Church and of the Pro-
testant religion in Ireland; he told them of a great many
churches that had been built, of a great many glebe lands that
had been improved, and this was the- evidence he brought of the
progress of the Church. But did he tell them of any increase
in the number of the Protestants ?—he did not understand
these abstract notions of the Church. What he understood a
Church to consist of was a great number of laymen and cler-
gymen professing the same religion. He did not understand
the Church to be flourishing because there were more churches
and a less number of people to go to them than there were
formerly. He did not think the Noble and Rev. Lord
had adopted a decent or decorous manner of answering ques-
tions in the House. It was neither decent nor decorous to
quote pamphlets, as his had been quoted on the present occa-
sion ; bat the Right Rev. Father in God had set the example,
and it was not impossible that he might yet some day find the
inconvenience of having set such an example.—( Laughter and
cheers.) It was well known at the time of the Union
that Mr. Pitt contemplated two measures for the com-
plete separation of the Churches. It was impossible to
nok at the proceedings of that period, and to contend that
:he Union was any bar to that measure. The Noble Lord
:hen proceeded to say that men who sat in that or in the
other House of Parliament were not to be fettered in
their judgment; and he would ask, was it orderly for the
Noble and Rev. Lord, whose sacred character was that
of a preserver of peace, a promoter of good fellowship
and charity, to lay down as a principle that one man
should be the judge of the conscience of another ?—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Was it for the Members of that House
to stand up and arraign Members of the other House of Par-
liament of no less a crime than perjury?—(Renewed cries of
" Hear, hear.) Perjury !—what did it amount to ? If a per-
son did not apply the same sense to a particular Act of Par-
liament as that applied to it by the Noble and Rev. Lord, was
he to be charged with perjury? He contended that the At-
torney-General for Ireland had a perfect right, acting in his
capacity as a legislator, to put that construction on the oath
which his conscience dictated ; and no man had a right to pass
judgment on another who so acted. Some stress had been
laid on the present clause being made a condition of the Bill
being accepted. Had Noble Lords so entirely forgotten the
principles of the Constitution as not to recollect that there
;vas nothing extraordinary in the grant and condition going
together? A complaint was made of the insecurity of the
property of tithes. The House of Commons was perfectly
right and acted in conformity with the old constitutional prin-
ciple in saving " We grant you the additional security you ask,
hut we will take care, in doing so, that means arc taken to pre-
scree the peace of the country." The Noble Lord concluded
by contending that the Irish Protestant Church, in its present
state, was an anomaly, and that the only chance of preserving
it was by securing to it the affections and confidence of the
people.

The Earl of WINC FILL SEA contended that the oath was
framed for. the security of the Protestant Church, and that it
had been directly violated. The measure was one which would
strike a fatal blow at the existence of the Church.

The larquis of CLANRICARDE trusted the time would
come wizen their Lordships would take a more favourable
view of this measure.

After a few words from the Archbishop of ARMAGH, which
were inaudible in the gallery, the Committee divided—
For the clause
For the amendment
Majority
On our return to the gallery, we found the Chairman put-
ting the question whether the 77th clause should stand part
of the Bill ; the Committee again divided :
For the clause 47
Against it 135
Majority BB
The remaining clauses of the Bill were disposed of, the
House resumed, and the report ordered to be received to-
morrow.—Adjourned at a Quarter before Two.

LIST OF THE. MINORITY
On the Division in Committee on the Third Clause of the Church
of Ireland Bill.-48.

Lord Chancellor

DUKES.
Argyll
Grafton
Leinster
Sutherland
MARQUISE 3,
Clanricarde
Conynghain
Headtbrt
Lansdowne
Queensberry
Tavistock
Westminster
EARLS.
Albemarle
Burlington
Carlisle
Charlemont

EARLS.
Craven
Granville
lichester
Leitrim
I%linto
Radnor
Scarborough
Sefton
Thanet

VISCOUNTS.
Duncannon
Falkland
Melbourne

The Minority on till
same Noble Lords, wit
Bishop of Hereford, ar
the addition of Viseot
norben, and Langdale.
Cleveland, together wit

BARONS.
Barham
Crewe
Ducie
Foley
Gardner
Glenlyon
Hatherton
Holland
Mostyn
Plunket
Saye and Sele
Segrave
Sea:ord
StratiOrd
Suffield
Templemore
Teynham

BISHOPS,
Bristol
Durham
Hereford

ie Appropriation Clause was composed of th
th the omission of the Lord Chancellor, the
nd. Lords Barham, Crewe, and Teynham, and
unt Torrington, and Lords Cottingham, Di-
The Dukes of Norfolk, Devonshire and
ith 32 other Peers, paired off.

SHIPPING.-(THIS DAY.)

(FROM LLOYD'S.)
DEAL, JULY 25. —Wind W.N.W.—Arrived the Enchan-
tress, Christie, from Mogadore; and Enterprise, Gibbs, from
Belfast. Arrived from the river and remains the Tam
O'Shanter, Freeman, and Christian, Gibbons, for Opoito;
Tickler, White, and Fairy Queen, —, for Ceylon; Plumb,
Strangleton, for Cadiz; Dungivan Castle, ---, and Clara,
for Quebec; Harmony, Mattison, for Trieste; and
Alexander, Todd, for Rio Janeiro.

PORTSMOUTH, JULY 25.—Wind W. to W.N.W.—No arri-
vals. Sailed the Malabar, Voss, for Bombay ; and London,
Winckle, for Calcutta.

PLYMOUTH, JULY 24. —Wind W. N.W.—Arrived the Sym
metry, Ritchie, from Quebec.

FALmoirru, -Jrzy 24. —Wind S. W. to N. W.—Arrived the
Lord Melville Packet, from Lisbon—sailed the 11th instant ;
and Bragalia, Taylor, from Quebec. No sailings.
DOVER, JULY 25.—Arrived off port the Elizabeth, Cran-
ston, from Alicant.

SOUTHAMPTON, JULY 24.—Arrived the Andes, Holmes,
from Miramichi.

ISLE OF WIGHT, JULY 23.—Arrived off port the Henrietta,
Lobb, from Rio Janeiro.

PORTLAND, JULY 24.—Arrived off port the Bombay, Routh,
'rom Canton.

LIVERPOOL, JULY 23.—Arrived the Otter, —, from Bra-
zil; Walter, Yorke, and John and Robert, —, from New
Orleans ; Georgia, —, from Apalachiola ; Governor Troup,
Smith, from Darien ; Corsair, —, and Clyde, Brown, from
Quebec; China, Lorman, and Osage, from Charleston; Ame-
rican, Waterman, and Carrol, of Carrolton, --, from New
York ; Lark, Power, from Newfoundland ; Cambyses, Hut-
chinson, from Archangel ; and Randolph, Sparburg, from
Stettin. Off port the Dalmatia, —, from New Orleans;
Carlton, --, and Sir William Scott, --, from Quebec.
July 24.—The Attakapos, Cormier, from New Orleans to
Tampico, was totally wrecked on the Bar of Tampico pre-
vious to the 16th ult., part of the cargo much damaged. Five
ships outward-bound were on the Bar of the Mississippi the
14th ult.

he Friends, Dyer, from Guernsey to London, struck on
the Shingles on Sunday night, and filled--crew saved.
The Ann, Pike, from Ostend to London, was on shore at
Ostend on Sunday night, but was expected to be got off.

SURREY THEATRE.—The unequivocal success of
the ne w tragedy, represented for the first time last night, en-
titled Arnold Von Winhelried ; or, The Fight of Sempach,
must operate as an incentive to playwrights, and as an induce-
ment to the "powers that be" of the small theatres to
rageencou-
the " legitimate." The house was crowded to excess,
ery part
of it being occupied by anxious spectators, if not
ev
attentive listeners. This overflow was the cause of some con-
!usion, •and the "gods" were unusually obstreporous and up-
roarious. To the varied sounds not calculated for "ears po-
lite" were added the cries of some half-dozen infants, and the
audible attempts to pacify the " little dears;" so that a fair
hearing was not given to the play, the language of which be-
ing written in blank verse, exacted more tranquillity. The
action of the piece was, however, thoroughly understood, and ,
as the plot was developed, the enthusiasm of the audience ma-
nife itself. The acting was certainly superior to that which
it w our painful lot at times to witness last season at Covent-
garden. The getting up of the piece and the general mise en
scene arc praiseworthy. Mr. Butler enacted the hero :he
played with considerable talent; but he appeared to us to be
less animated than he might have been. The tragedy was
announced for repetition amidst a storm of cheering.