The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-03 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1836,

from the payments he was forced to make to the ecclesiasti-
cal funds was applied to meet the wants of a dista-it
county.—( Hear, hear.) But it appears that the Noble
Lord's good intention for the benefit of residents extends only
to the cases of country parishes—it does not apply to towns,
and the inhabitants of Dublin and Belfast will not profit by its
But I confess I was rather surprised that the author of the
English Tithe Bill should be the individual to raise such an
outcry on behalf of the poor. Irish farmer, while he was intro-
ducing in it the opposite principle of applying savings to one
county to supply deficiencies at a distance.—( Loud cheerints.)
I did not think that the Noble Lord would be the first to fur-
nish the lion. Members for Durham with such an argument
against his plan for diverting the revenues of that see away
from the reach of the impoverished farmers of that county to
relieve the deficiencies that might exist in Nottingham.—
( Cheers.) With respect to the omission of the education
clause by the Lords, on which so much stress has been laid,
it is evident that if the clause had been so altered as to in-
clude that object, it wonld have been fatal to the Bill, as they
would thereby have been intrenching on a money clause. But
now, I say, to prevent any further objections on that head—.
propose what sum may be necessary for the education of the
people of Ireland, and we will consent to its appropriation.—
(Cheers.) I say, further, that such a sum ought to.be voted,
riot out of the insufficient ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland,
but out of the Consolidated Fund of this country.—( Hear.)
I decidedly think that no system of national education is cal-
culated to take in Ireland, unless founded on the great lead-
ing truths in which we all concur. I shall, therefore, not ob-
ject to any bona fide application of national funds for such a
national purpose, but I do object to the appropriation of
ecclesiastical funds for that purpose,—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord now advises the House to reject this amended
Bill, because it does not contain the resolution adopted in
April, 1833. That resolution had the effect of removing
the Administration of which I was the head. It fulfilled
its object ; but having done so, I may be permitted to
ask, as it is wise to persist in it now, without any real be-
nefit to be derived from such pertinacity ?—( Hear.) The
Noble Lord says he will not consent to take all the improve-
ments offered in the Bill, because it does not recognize a
surplus, and its appropriation to secular purposes ; but there
is no surplus.—( Hear, hear.) Give me the ratio of income
you have already allotted for the Irish dignitaries, and
which I contend are utterly inadequate, either for high or
for low ; and even so, I will deny that you have a sur-
plus. But I entirely protest against the mode in which you
have made your calculations ; and then I must say that
the course you have adopted to insure a surplus, in accordance
therewith, is still more objectionable. The Noble Lord says
if we do not reject this Bill—if we make ourselves responsible
for the non-adjustment and non-settlement of this question—
what hopes can we entertain of peace in Ireland? Will the
Noble Lord tell me what hopes we can have of satisfaction
and peace in Ireland if we were to pass the Bill as originally
framed ? Does the Noble Lord read the declarations daily
made on the subject in the public newspapers and in popular
assemblies? Is it rational to believe that when the Roman
Catholic tenants and occupiers, who now refuse to pay tithe
in any shape, are called on to pay five pence to their landlord
as a charge for tithe, they will be perfectly satisfied after we
have entirely unsettled the question, because 4d. of that sd.
only will go to the Protestant minister; and that this sudden
and entire satisfaction is to be expected from them because
the remaining penny will be devoted—to what purpose ? Not
to the immediate provision for education, for that is not to be
made till the claims of all existing incumbents are satisfied—
scarcely for the ultimate purposes of education ; for wherever
education is required it is to be provided for out of the Consoli-
dated fund, and to the re-payment of that Consolidated Fund is
this remaining penny to be devoted.—;(Hear, hear.) I can-
not understand on what grounds you expect the acquiescence
of the Irish Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) Their resistance, we
have been often told, both in this House and out of this House,
does not arise from the amount claimed so much as from the
opposition to the principle on which it is claimed. Now, I
say it is not the amount of the sum taken from the Church
which constitutes the chief ground of my objection, but it is
that I object to any alienation of Church property whatever.—
( Hear.) Ido not think the wit of man could devise a mode
of alienation more objectionable than that contained iu this
Bill. My objection is to the principle of the alienation, and
not to the amount. I can conceive that a Government, urged
by some great necessity, may take away front a man, contrary
to the usual course of law, a portion of his possessions, in the
shape of a forced contribution. I can conceive that, under the
influence of some overwhelming necessity, the inhabitants of
towns might be forced to contribute a portion of their worldly
goods. This would be bad enough ; the hardship would be
great and the injustice grievous ; still such a demand would
be limited and definite, and no right or claim would be set up
to the remainder of the property, and the tyrant claims of
stern necessity ought in some measure to justify your pro-
ceedings ; but here a forced contribution is to be raised,
without any similar justification, without any similar neces-
sity. This sum of 50,0001. a year, if you want it for the pur-
pose, can be easily taken from other sources. Here is not, as
in the case of the forced contribution, any specific demand.
You do not say that you require of the Church 100,000 Z, or
any other sum, and then leave it an independent corporation
regulating its own concerns, and clearly entitled to its remain-
ing property; but you lay down the vague principle that, after
providing for the spiritual wants of the Protestant population,
the whole remainder belongs to the people of Ireland. In
what light then do you place the Protestant ministers of that
country ?—( Hear.) You bid the Catholic population of Ire-
land to consider them in the light of interlopers, diverting
from them their property for purposes to which they are de-
cidedly opposed.—( Hear, hear.) Who is to say what consti-
tutes the legitimate wants of the Protestant community of
Ireland? These wants will vary with every Administration—
they will vary with every majority. The Noble Lord would
leave the Church in Ireland subject to the controul of a Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, indefinite in point of number.
To this I entirely object. I object to the nature of the de-
pendence which it establishes on the Government, a depend-
ence perfectly indefinite in its nature—as undefinable as the
demand which they may make for the purposes of education.
—(Hear.) The Noble Lord says he relics much on the force
of public opinion on this measure. Sir, as far as we have the
means of ascertaining the bias of public opinion since the dis-
cussion of this question in April, 1835, it does not confirm the
Noble Lord's proposition. The Government has been in of-
fice ; whatever influence office may confer in favour of a
principle espoused by the Government has been theirs. There
have since then been many vacancies. Have those vacancies been
decided in favour of that principle or have they not ?—( Cheers.)
The House has now before it what will be generally ad-
mitted to be in most respects an useful and conciliatory set-
tlement of the tithe question in Ireland—a settlement re-
commended by a large majority of the House of Lords, sup-
ported by a powerful minority in the House of Commons—a
minority approaching within twenty-seven of the last occa-
sion of division. The opinions of the Legislature were di-
vided, and of the House of Commons nearly balanced. You
have had since the opinion for what you are now contending
was embodied in a resolution thirty-one vacancies. When
that resolution was voted in April last the occupiers of those
scats (if my calculations be correct) voted in favour of your
principle in the proportion of twenty-one to ten. Of the
Members of those seats which have since become vacant
yoe had then a clear majority of more than two to one. If
I mistake not the representatives of those scats either did on
the last occasion, or will on the present, vote on this question
in the proportion of sixteen to fifteen, being nearly an
equality instead of, as at first, two to one.—(Loud
cheers.) I cannot, therefore, consider this indication of
public opinion, so far as it is to be collected from inter-
vening vacancies, justify the Noble Lord in the reliance
that he places on that opinion as being in favour of his mea-
sure. The Noble Lord says, " What ! shall we go suppliant
to the House of Lords, and retreat from a principle which we
solemnly embodied in the Bill sent up to them?" Why, the
Noble Lord has already consented to adopt such a course upon
an occasion not utterly dissimilar. The Noble Lord contrives
to realise as much good as possible. Though he approved of
the principle of the 147th clause, yet, fearing he must relin-
quish the good contained in the rest of the Bill if lie insisted
on the present enforcement of that principle, he considered it
perfectly consistent with honour, prudence, and sound policy
to forego that principle and obtain all the good that was set
within his grasp—to take those advantages which were imme-
diately attainable, and to leave questions of doubtful and dis-
puted advantage for after discussion.—(Hear.) Why not take
this even course on the present occasion ? You say that a clear
surplus will ultimately exist ; but you admit there is little pro-
bability of it for some years to come ; and yet you insist on the
present enforcement of a principle which, if now carried by
the Legislature, could not possibly be carried into practice.
I objected at the time to the resolution embodying this prin-
ciple. I feared the consequences which have resulted from
it. I regarded it as fatal to the future calm, practical, rational,
and unbiassed discussion of this question ; and though I know
you will not retract that fatal step, yet I am sure there is
no Member who hears me to whom the difficulty in which we
are now placed will not operate as a warning of the great
constitutional danger of embodying principles in resolutions
before the proper time for discussing it arrives.—(Great
cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord contends that the acceptance
of the Bill will be for the benefit of the Church itself, and
that by passing this Bill we shall provide the only adequate
security for the collection of the revenues which this Bill
leaves to the Church. The Noble Lord reminds us of the
American war—of the concessions demanded by the inhabit-
ants of the United States—demanded and refused—and
made only when concession was too late. Let me tell the
Noble Lord that the question after all to be considered
is, whether the same principles which dictated those con-
cessions applies to this case whether the demand it-
self be a reasonable and a just one, or whether it
be a demand of a totally opposite character ; and if, as I
contend it is, the latter is the case, then the analogy drawn
from former concessions does not apply.—(Hear.) When
this Bill was brought forward last year by the chief of the
Government in the other House, he did not urge the acceptance
of the Bill on the ground of ensuring safety to the Church.
The Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire had quoted the
passage to the Noble Lord opposite, who admitted that the
speech did not bear him out as quoted, but produced a revised
and corrected copy. Those words I will again quote, for
they show in the strongest possible light how delusive are the
hopes held out of security to the Protestant Church from the
adoption of this principle. The Noble Premier said, "I am
deeply sensible and much concerned at one result of this mea-
sure. I feel that this Bill may, and I cannot conceal from

myself that it will be, in the first instance;;;dieraCertain
time a heavy blow and a great discouragement to Protestantism
in I' eland—(Loud cries of " Hear, heat")—that it will
be also a great triumph to the adverse party.— ( Hear.)
I rAmit the great peril and danger which necessarily attends
upon and accompanies such mighty and fundamental changes,
and that the shake and convulsion they create render
f doubtful the safety not only of the Established Church, but
of the Constitution of the country."_( Great cheering.) I

agree in this, and seeing the assurances which you gave at the
Union with respect to the Protestant Church—seeing the
hope that you held ottt at the removal of civil disabilities, that,
so far from permitting it to prejudice, it should increase the
security of the Church—l greatly doubt, whatever be the
alterriative, that it is either justice or policy to give that ter-
rible, that heavy blow to Protestantism in Ireland.—( Hear,
hear.) If that Wavy be inevitable, this I know, that ice are
much more likely to take some security against its prejudicial
effects by resisting the force of it, and by standing erect against
it, than by lending cur arms to aid the vigour of that blow.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) If that heavy blow must be given, my
hand at least will not unite in the stroke. If the. cheer of
adverse triumph must be raised, our voices at least shall not
swell the unholy shout. If the pillars of the Church and the
Constitution itself must undergo a shake and a convulsion,
then we, seeing no absolute necessity for this injustice, protest
against the policy of it, and refuse to be your accomplices.—
( Loud cheers.) I move, therefore, that the Lords' amend-
ments be now taken into considssation.
Mr. E. DENISON saw no "Eason for the House giving up
the principle which it had embodied in the Bill. The Right
Hon. Baronet professed not to believe in the existence of any
surplus, and perhaps if the Bill left the question of the disposal
of the surplus to be dealt with till the surplus arose, it might
meet the full justice of the case.---( Cheers from the Opposi-
tion ) But, under all the circumstances, he approved of the
course recommended by the Noble Lord, and lie would sup-
port his motion.
Lord SA NDON deprecated the rejection of a measure
fraught with much good to Ireland. He defied Hon. Gentle-
men opposite to show any practical advantage originally con-
templated by this Bill of which it was now deprived. Were
the real interests of the people of Ireland to be sacrificed to a
point of honour? The real grievance, they bad often been
told was, that the Catholics of Ireland were called on to pay
the Priests of another religion. Did the Noble Lord propose
to remove that grievance? Quite the contrary; he proposed
to confirm it. The real interests of Ireland would be sacri-
ficed to party spirit.—( Cheers and counter cheers.)
Mr. HUME said that the party spirit of which the Noble
Lord complained was to be found in the ranks of those who
opposed Ministers on this occasion. Seeing the advantages
which the country had derived already from having got rid of
the Noble Lord opposite and his party in the Government,
were they again to run the hazard of another experiment with
such men ? If the Noble Lord, and those with whom he
acted, were really the friends of Ireland, and wished to confer
upon that country the benefits which they affected to desire,
why did they refuse to give up for the attainment of such an
end a principle which they themselves called a shadow? He
supported the Bill of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) be-
cause he considered it a better measure than that sent down
from the Lords, although he confessed that, in his opinion,
neither of them was sufficient to meet the wants and demands
of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
He repeated that neither Bill went far enough; but of the
two he would take that which was calculated to produce the
most good. He begged it, however, to be understood that,
in supporting the Bill of the Noble Lord, he was not com-
promising himself not to demand a more extensive measure
of Church Reform when time and circumstances should
make it advisable to do so.—(lmmense cheers from the
Opposition.) What did those cheers amount to ? Did the
Hon. Gentlemen opposite pretend to say that their own
measure must be a final one ?—( Hear.) If so he would
at once reject it, upon that account. The Noble Lord's Bill
he preferred, because it was a thousand times better than the
Bill of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, both for a fair distribu-
tion of the revenues of the Church, and the general ameliora-
tion of the condition of the Irish people. The people of Ire-
land had already begun to feel a just confidence in the dispo-
sition of the present Government to do them justice and grant
them their rights.--(" Oh I") Yes, their rights. To be sure
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandon) said that he granted
this and granted that, but he (Mr. Hume) did not want any
of the Noble Lord's grants. He demanded for the people
their rights. It was the disposition which the present
Government had shown to do justice that gave the people
of Ireland a moral confidence in them. That the Govern-
ment had many faults he too well knew ; but they might
live and mend.—(Laughter.) One of their greatest faults,
in his opinion, was that they were constantly preferring their
enemies to their friends.--( Cheers and laughter.) He spoke
seriously and feelingly upon this point.--(Loud laughter.)
The people of Ireland saw in the Nobleman who at present
governed them a sure guarantee that, with the aid of the pre-
sent Government, and the progress of a little time, full and
substantial justice would be done to them, and the greatest
advantages worked out for the country. It was, he thought,
a question of some importance to that House whether or
not the people of Ireland were to be treated with contempt
and insult by the House of Lords. To what was it that they
owed the remarkable decrease of crime in Ireland of late but
to the confidence which the people had in the present Govern-
ment ? With respect to the principle involved in the present
measure, he need not tell Hon. Gentlemen opposite what his
opinion was upon that principle, because he had so often re-
peated in that House that he looked upon all Church pro-
perty, both in England and Ireland, as the property of the
public. With this view, was it not his duty to support any
measure for applying that principle in the way likely to pro-
duce the most good ? It was the duty of the House itself to
follow up the principle of this Bill, and deprive of Church
preferment those who had no duty to perform in that Church.
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had ad-
dressed them with an air of great triumph—not, indeed, those
on his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House, but those who sat
behind himself.—(oh, and laughter.) Yes, it was to those
gentlemen that the Right Hon. Baronet always turned round
and addressed himself, and he asked them in triumph did. they
think 2001. a-year too much to give a Protestant Clergyman
in Ireland who had the cure of souls ? But did not the Right
Hon. Baronet recollect that there were in England 5,230
Curates of the Established Church whose average incomes
was only 811. a-year ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Were the Hon.
Gentleman opposite to have one doctrine for England and an-
other for Ireland ? It was impossible to give credit for
principle to men who acted thus. The Right Hon. Baronet
had stated that he was opposed altogether to the principle of
alienation ; and if he were so why did he deem it necessary to
go into any details? Why did he not take his stand against
alienation, as he (Mr. Hume) took his stand for alienation?
He (Mr. Hume) would have clergymen paid on the same
principle that soldiers and sailors were paid.—( Hear, and
laughter.) Yes, and he looked upon it that clergymen were
far below soldiers and sailors in the services they rendered to
the country. But the truth was that the whole of this struggle
was for the loaves and fishes.—(Cheers from both sides of the
House.) It was all a love of money.—( Cheers and laughter.)
The struggle was how to make the most money of the Church,
and to pay as little as possible to those who did the most work.
The Noble Lord ( Sandon) had said that there was no surplus,
and that there could be none. If so, why did the Noble
Lord quarrel with a shadow ? If the Government gave up
the principle of appropriation maintained in the Bill which
they had sent up to the House of Lords, they would be de-
graded for ever as public men, and would be inflicting a
deep injury upon the country and the cause which they
had espoused. The Right Hon. Baronet opposite, whom
he regretted not to see just then in his place, had spoken
of the small majority of twenty-six by which the principle of
appropriation was supported; but did the Right Hon. Baronet
forget his own speech when he was taking leave of office ?
In that speech the Right Hon. Baronet had said that he
had hoped to break down the majority of twenty that first ap-
peared against him, but, finding that he was unable to do so,
and that the majority had increased to so large a number as
twenty-seven ,he thought it his duty to resign.— (Ministerial
cheers.) Yet, after this, the Right Hon. Baronet said that
the Government ought not to persevere with so small a majo-
rity as twenty-six. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really forgot
themselves. They were like the animals that thought no one
could see them but themselves. They were like the Chinese
eye, that thought no eye equal to it. He would recommend
the Right Hon. Baronet to read his own speech made to his
own Parliament, where lie confessed that he could not go on
with a majority of twenty-seven against him. But then the
Right Honourable Baronet said that he had the Lords with
him. What cared he (Mr. Hume) about the Lords ?

(Laughter.) Let the Lords confine themselves to their
own Chamber. What community of feeling was there be-
tween the Lords and the people of this country ? And could
it be said that the people of England were adverse to the
claims of the Irish nation ? They called themselves, he be-
lieved, sometimes the hereditary protectors of the poor; but
did the poor look upon them as protectors at all? The
fact was that the people now saw through them. He and
those on his side of the House acted upon principle, but the
Hon. Gentleman opposite acted altogether upon party feeling.
He was happy to see the Right Hon. Baronet now in his place
—( Sir R. Peel had that moment entered and taken his seat)
—and he would shortly inform him of what he had been say-
ing.—(" Oh, oh 1" and laughter.) He was not going to re-
peat the whole of his speech over again—( Loud laughter)—
but briefly to remind the Right lion. Baronet of his allusion
to the small majority of twenty-six, and of the fact that the
Right Hon. Baronet himself, while holding the fortress of the
Government, and in actual possession of the citadel, was
obliged to surrender to a majority of twenty-seven. Could
the Right lion. Baronet hope to succeed, then, with a ma-
jority of twenty-six now against him, and the fortress out of
his possession ? He feared that the Hon. Gentleman opposite
indulged too much in thinking of the good old times that
were gone by, and in dreaming of good new times to come.
But if those on his (Mr. Hurtle's) side of the House were
true to themselves, and true to the cause of the people and of
good government, there was no doubt that they must be suc-
cessful. All the co:mtry now wanted was to get rid of the
party opposite—and cf the evil influence of that party. If
they were destroyed, he could see no end to the prosperity of
the country.—(Cheers.) He should give his most cordial
support to the motion of the. Noble Lord, which he had no
doubt would be carried by a larger majority than that which
compelled the Right Hon. Baronet opposite to give up the
reins of Government.
Mr. SHAW could have wished that the Hon. Gentleman
had favoured the House With the species of animals to which
he had alluded, as thinking that no one saw them but them-
selves.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had very candidly
confessed that it was a party question ; but then he said that
the party feeling was all on his (Mr. Shaw's) side of the
House. But the Hon. Gentleman seemed to differ very widely

from the Government which he supported upon this question;
for the Hon. Gentleman avowed that he did not look to this
as a final measure, but maintained the principle of alienation,
while the Noble Lord opposite declared that he viewed the
present Bill as leading to a final settlement of the question.
In his (Mr. Shaw's) opinion the real question was whether
under the present circumstances of the Established Church
in Ireland, it would be right, or just, or expedient, to apply
its revenues to any other than its own proper purposes. It was
surprising, after all that had been said and written upon the
subject, that the real state of the Church did not seem as
yet seem 10 have reached the minds of the Hon. Gentlemen

opposite. They were so enamoured of their principle of ap-
propriation that they seemed utterly blind to every other
consideration. Now what was the real amount of the Church
property of Ireland ? The Hon. Member for Middlesex at
one time rated it at 3,000,000/., but that delusion was now
completely removed. The Church property of Ireland, in-
cluding tithes, glebes, Ministers's money, income of Bishops,
vestry cess, and every other item was 613,114/. 10s., including
the reduction of 251. per cent. He would take it in round
numbers at 600,0(101. This statement did not rest merely
upon his assertion—it was taken from authentic documents.
Of this sum the parochial clergy and perpetual curates received
400,0001., the Bishops and other dignitaries of the Church,
100,000/., and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 100,000/. more,
making altogether 600,0001. It was said that the average in-
come of 2001. a year was too high for the Irish Protestant
Clergy, inasmuch as there were great numbers of the Pro-
testant Clergy of England whose average income was not
more than 80/. a year. He could not see the force of this ar-
gument. The friends of the Established Church would be
most ready and willing to improve the situation of the English
Protestant clergy, if it was in their power to do so, and if cir-
cumstances would admit of it. But because many of the Pro-
testant clergy of England were underpaid, was that any rea-
son why the Irish Church and the Protestant clergy of
Ireland should be robbed ? There were in Ireland two
thousand resident clergy, including curates. Now what
was their average income what was the sum allowed
them to support themselves and their families ? Not
more, on an average, than 2001. a year. It might be said
that the Clergy were too numerous for the duties that were to
be performed. He believed, however, that no person who
considered the subject dispassionately would say that they were
too numerous. Could any person reasonably complain of the
income of the twelve Bishops ? The income of all the Bishops
put together was not so much as three non-resident proprietors
drew from the country. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners
had about 105,000/, a-year. Of this sum the vestry cess took
away 60,0001. a-year, and, including all the charges upon this
fund in the hands of the Commissioners, their surplus did not
exceed 05,000/. Twenty years must elapse before their in-
come could become equal to their expenditure, and it would
take twenty years more—that was up to 1873—before they
would have a surplus above the necessary expenditure; and
what would be the amount of that surplus ? Lord Grey cal-
culated that the charge for the building of glebe houses, the
building and repair of churches, would be 146,000/. ; so that,
in place of a surplus, there would be a deficiency of 46,0001.,
and the perpetual fund would never be equal to the charge
upon it. The Noble Lord (Morpeth) took his surplus at
97,000/. ; but he altogether omitted various items which, had
he taken them into account, would more than equal his
97,000/. There was the item of clergy tax, 10,000/. ; sine-
cures, 20,000/. ; overcharge for glebes, 76,0001. The Noble
Lord also gave thirty acres of land to each glebe; but he made
no reduction under this head.
Lord MO RPETH said he did make allowance for this.
Mr. SHAW proceeded—He was not aware the Noble Lord
had done so. The Noble Lord made no reduction for the
building of glebes, which would be eleven thousand pounds
more. These sums, taken together, amounted to one hundred
and thirty-four thousand pounds, considerably more than suf-
ficient to exhaust his surplus of ninety-seven thousand pounds.
With regard to non-residence in Ireland, great misrepresenta-
tion had gone abroad. Out of fourteen hundred Clergy, there
were twelve hundred of them resident, and one hundred who
held other livings. Non-residence was every day becoming
less prevalent ; and unions, another subject of complaint, were
every day dissolved ; and as regarded pluralities, the Church
of Ireland was rapidly improving. The tendency of the Bill
brought in by Ministers was, not to promote residence or to
dissolve unions, but the very contrary. It did not contain one
provision having any tendency to improve the condition and
promote the efficiency of the Church of Ireland. Those who
supported the Ministerial measure said their object was to in-
troduce and give support to a general, efficient, and united plan
of education, in the benefits of which all classes of the popula-
tion of Ireland, no matter what their religion might be, might
equally partake ; andthat, to effect this object, they would ap-
propriate any surplus of Church revenue that might arise.—
( Hear.) Now, was it not contrary to reason—was it not con-
trary to common sense—to expect that the system proposed
to be acted upon could produce union and cordiality,
when the way in which it was to be supported was by de-
priving the Protestant Church of its revenues ?—( Hear. )
The Clergy could not starve ; the law must protect them in
the maintenance of their rights. Government could not re-
fuse them this protection. He believed the majority of the
Clergy of Ireland would be better pleased if they were left to
the protection of the law; they would prefer that to any ar-
rangement that had been hitherto proposed. He did not,
however, agree with the majority in this. On the contrary,
he wished to see a lasting and satisfactory settlement of the
question. He called upon Ministers, and upon the House to
enter upon that settlement now, and not allow themselves to
be prevented from finally disposing of the question because
they would not give up a barren principle. Let them, here-
after, if they pleased, introduce another Bill, founded on the
principle of appropriation. If the Gentlemen opposite who
now supported the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should here-
after think that it suited their own views they might turn this
principle against himself, and the Government of which he
formed a part. They might, on bringing up the Mutiny Bill,
or any other Bill, refuse the supplies, unless it was accom-
panied with a clause establishing the principle of universal
suffrage, vote by ballot, or any other political opinion they en-
tertained.
Mr. Sergeant O'L OGHLIN said there were two questions
before the House. One called upon them to dissent from
the amendments of the other House of Parliament; and the
other to concur in the measure as sent down to them. One
who had not heard or read former debates in that House on
the Irish tithe question would suppose that the present propo-
sition from the opposite side of the House was quite a new
one. In point of fact, it amounted only to this—to take 25
per cent. from the Clergy and to give it to the landlords ; and
they were told that such a settlement would be final and satis-
factory. Now, in 1834 a Bill was sent up to the other House,
calling for an abatement of 40 per cent., and it was rejected
by a majority of 67. Now, contrasting the observations matte
by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) on the measure of
1834 with those which fell from him upon the present occa-
sion, it was impossible not to feel surprise that the Right Hon.
Gentleman could entertain a hope that the present proposal
would lead to a final settlement. In the debate which took
place on the 4th of August, 1834, the Right Hon. Gentle-
man said that by the measure then before the House two-fifths
of the tithes were to be given to the landlords. It would be folly,
said the Right Hon. Gentleman, to think that a proposition in-
volving such gross injustice could succeed, and even if it did,
that two-fifths would not satisfy Ireland.—( Hear.) Now, how-
ever, the Right Hon. Gentleman contended that an abatement
of 25 per cent. would settle the question finally and satisfac-
torily.—(Loud cheers.) Was there any reason to hope that
the proposition involved in the Bill sent down to them would
give satisfaction ? The people of Ireland could hope to de-
rive no benefit whatever from the principle of this Bill. The
Hon. Gentleman on the opposite side said they resisted upon
principle the appropriation of Church revenue to any but
Church purposes. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw)
seemed, indeed, to relax a little, and to yield upon this occa-
sion some little of the sternness of his former opposition. If
no part of the Church property was to be alienated, he should
like to know why 25 per cent. of Church property was to be
given to the landlords ?—( Hear, hear.) They might talk as
much as they pleased about principle, and the inviolability of
Church property, but here they departed from the principle.
Nothing could be expected but resistance to the payment of
the reduced rent-charge if this Bill should pass. They must
pass again through the same riots, disturbance, and opposition.
Sooner or later, either under a Whig or Tory Government,
the principle of appropriation must be adopted. He was not
disposed to take any part, or but a very small part, in this de-
bate, were it not for a charge which was reported as having
been brought against him in another place by a Right Rev.
Prelate—a charge involving his character as a Member of
that House and as a servant of the Government.—( Cries of
" Hear, hear.") His name appeared on the Bill as
one of those by whom it was introduced. He did not
shrink from any responsibility that might attach to him as a
Member of that House or as a servant of the Government ;
but it so happened that he had not read a line of the Bill till
it was put into his hands by a Member of the Government.
This circumstance was made the ground of a most unwarrant-
able charge against him. He found in one of the public
papers observations attributed to a Right Rev. Prelate charg-
ing him with a violation of his oath in attaching his name to
the Bill. He believed these observations were attributed to
the Right Rev. Prelate unjustly, and he was the more satisfied
of this from what took place on the presentation of a petition
in 1834 in the other House of Parliament. That petition
contained an allegation against the motives and conduct of
the Irish Roman Catholic Members of the House of Commons
of a kind precisely similar to the one to which he was now re-
ferring. It was met by the Right Rev. Prelate, who opposed
its reception, saying that "the petition must be rejected, be-
cause it contained a charge against Members of the other
House of Parliament of having violated the oath taken
by them on their entrance into that House by their votes
and proceedings with respect to the Protestant Estab-
lished Church. A petition containing such language was
unfit to be received."—(Ministerial cheers.) Such being
the language used by the Right Rev. Prelate in 1834, he
(Mr. O'Loghlin) could certainly with difficulty bring himself
to believe that he could have been guilty of the argument at-
tributed to him in 1836. He had another reason why lie could
scarcely bring himself to believe that the Right Rev. Prelate
had used the words attributed to him, and that wss, that in a
pamphlet referred to in the Report of the Commissioners of
Education, the writer of that pamphlet, in alluding to some
statement made by a Roman Catholic Archbishop, gave that
Roman Catholic Archbishop credit for having, in the opinion
to which he was adverting, acted conscientiously upon his oath,
and stated that he believed him on his oath. This pamphlet,
which some person had taken the liberty of publishing, was
attributed to the Right Rev. Prelate, and it moreover con-
tained a statement that some facts which had been put forth
by the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whateley), by Dr. Car-
lisle, and some other individuals, were not true. Yet when he
(Mr. O'Loghlin) found the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr.
Whateley), Dr. Sandys, Dr. Carlisle, the Presbyterian clergy-
man, and the members of the Board of Education in Ireland,
branding the author of the pamphlet in question as a slanderer,
and a violator of one of the commandments of God, he felt that
lie was bound to believe that the fabricator of the charges
thus branded was also indeed the individual to whom the ut-
terance of that most unwarrantable charge bad been attri-
buted.—( Hear, hear.) But, from whatever quarter it came,
he did not hesitate to pronounce it a foul and false calumny.—
(Ministerial cheers.) It implied a doctrine to which he could
never be brought to agree—that, as a Member of that House,
he was not at liberty to give his opinion on whatever question
came before it, without being subjected to the charge of having
perjured himself.—(Renewed cheers.) Why, if that doctrine
were propounded no Roman Catholic ought to sit in that