The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-20 00:00:00

only remark that be had not on the occasion alluded to'
etuee use of scarcely a single observation. What he stated
was this, that tee policy pursued by the present Govern-
'meta, from the moment they came into office, had been
the cause of their being in the situation in which they
now were, and that this measure was the earnest of that
line of policy which the Noble Earl adopted when he first
introduced the measure of reform. The Noble and
Learned Lord who spoke last night sta.ed that this mea-
sure was occasioned in consequence of the delay after
1825, in granting Catholic emancipation. But he begged
to ask that Nebte and Learned Lord how long the spirit
of agitation had existed in Ireland ? It had existed est, r
wince the discussion of the Roman Catholic question—that
was to say, ever since the day of the restricted Regency.
From that period to this moment there had been nothing
but agitation in Ireland, except in 1829. Agitation re-
commenced in 1330, upon the occasion of the events in
Paris and at Brussels, and which placed the Government
of that day under the necessity of carrying into execution
the Proclamation Act by the Noble Duke (Northum-
berland), whom he did not see In his piece. Upon the
change of Government, the INoble Earl sent out a Noble-
man, for whom he (thc Duke of Wellington) enter-
tained great respect, but who certainly was the very
last meson who ought to have been selected on that oc-
casion. What was it that the Government) aimr the
passing of the Roman Cathclic Relief Bill, ought to
have done? The Roman Catholics were conciliated by that
measure. The Government ought then to have con-
ciliated whom? Why the Protestants.—(Cheers.) But
instead of that they soot the Noble Lord over to that
country) who immediately lie arrived there issued a sort
of proclamation, urging that agitation should be continued
for the purpose of obtaining political reform, as they had
by agitation obtained religious relief. This agitation was
founded upon a conspiracy of priests and demagogues to
obtain a purpose by force and menace, whether justifiable
or not was not the question; but it was force, and me-
nace, and tame, and the use of mobs wherever that
terror and those mobs could be used to produce effect by
his Majesty's Government. This was done by seditious
speeches at public meetings, by publications by the libel-
lous part of the Pre-s, by exaggerations, by flattery, by
all the means it was in the power of that description of
persons to use in order to excite the multitude. They'
were excited, and assembled in large bodses to terrify the
people. If any parson ventured to oppose these dema-
gogues he was either immediately murdered or his house
was destroyed, and he and his family ruined. Combina-
tions were then formed, and every effort was made to de-
stroy the Constitution itself. This was what occurred,
and it was this system of agitation which the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government in Ireland recommended
to be adopted, that Noble Lord being chosen by the Noble
Earl opposite. Then came the refusal to poy tithes.
Combinations were funned to resist their payment, funds
were subscribed, distresses were levied, and then terror was
used to (1, ter persons from becoming purchasers, and
many of the Protestant clergy were reduced to poverty
and wretchedness, and compelled to exist upon charity.
Now while these things were going on, the Lord Lieute-
nant of Ireland certainly did mere than any man to ex-
cite that spirit of combination against tithes. The
understanding was that tithes were not to he enforced.
Many people were tried and sentenced, and many fines of
1001. were imposed upon jurymen (as we understood the
Noble Duke) who refused to serve, but absolutely nothing
was done. The police did what they could ; no mea-
sures, however, were adopted, except that the Lord Lieu-
tenant had the manliness to carry into execution the
Proclamation •Aet, an Act which, in his individual
capacity, he had expressed his disapprobation of. Now
the Lord Lieutenant was eminently successful, hut the
Noble Lords who formed his Majesty's Cabinet advised
their Sovereign to dissolve the Parliament, and, conse-
speedy, the punishment of off-nders was not carried into
execution; and then what happened? Why, not only
did the Noble Lords when Parliement assembled bring in
an Act empowering the Lord Lieutenant to adopt the
only measure to put a stop to these combinations against
the payment of tithes, but they came down to that House,
and brought down his Majesty also, to, open the Parlia-
ment, and dictated on the first day of the session in June,
1831, as part of the speech from the Throne upon the
state of Ireland, the language which he was about to read
to their Lordships :—" Local disturbances unconnected
with any political causes have taken place both in this
part of the United Kingdom and in Ireland. In the
county of Clare, and in the adjoining parts of Ros-
common and Galway, a system of violence and out-
rage has for some time been carried on to an alarm-
ing extent, for the repression of which the consti-
tuted authorities of the law have been rigorously and
successfully exerted. By these means the necessity of
enacting new laws to strengthen the executive Government
with further powers will, I trust, be prevented. To avert

such a necessity has been, and ever will be, my most
earnest desire; but if.it should unfortunately arise, I do
not doubt your firm resolution to maintain the peace and
order of society by the adoption of such measures as may
be required for their more effectual protection." Now
ti:eir Lordships would observe that at that very time, in
June, 1831, the affair at Wexford happened under Capt.
Graham, and if they would only refer to the Appendix to
the Report of the Committee of the Home on the subject
of tithes, they would there find the correspondence on
which that speech was founded ; they would there see the
state of the country to which that speech ought to have
referred ; they would there see that the country was then
in a complete state of disorganization ; that property in
tithes no longer existed. And that being the state of the
Protestant religion in Ireland, that was the speech which
his Majesty's Ministers had put into his Majesty's mouth.
Then his Mijesty addressed the 1-I,,use, in December,

1831, in the following terms:—" In parts of Ireland a
systematic opposition has been made to the payment of
tithes.' This, it was to be observed, was one year
after the opposition to the payment of tithes had com-

meneed, end yet the Ministers put into the mouth of
his Majesty these words, in December, 1831 :—" In
some parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has
been made to the payment of tithes, attended in
some instances with afflicting results; and it will
be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may
not be possible to effect improvements in the laws
respecting this subject which may afford the necessary
protection to the Established Church, and at the same
time remove the present causes of complaint." Now it
was upon that occasion the Tithe Committees were pro-
posed, and from that moment, it appeared in evidence,
the collection of tithes ceased in Ireland altogether in fact ;
and the Noble Lord having no plan to propose, the Com-
mittees were to fish cut evidence, they were to find out a
plan to alter the existing system. But from that time
until a few weeks after list Easter, when what was called
the Irish Coercion Bill was passed, no tithes hid been
collected in Ireland except a few thousand pounds which
were collected by the Government. In the course then
of this Session, as their Lordships were aware, the Co-
ercion Bill was passed, and the effect of it was, that for
a certain time the clergy diri collect their tithes, and in
point of fact some of the tithes for 1633 had been col•

lected under the operation of that Act. That description
of property at this moment no longer existed ; in fact no
one thought of paying tithes. Frum three to four years

tithes were now due, and there was not the smallest chance
of any part of these arrears being collected. Now the
notice of the Solicitor to the Treasury in Ireland, was
to this effect :—.‘ That no proceedings will be
had at the approaching Quarter Sessions against
persons owing tithes for 1831, due to his Majesty,
agreeably to the Act 23 William IV." From the day that
notice had app-tired, no tithes had been collected. Now
he begged to ask whether, when the Duke of Northum-
berland was in Ireland, this property was not secure
under his Lord Lieutenancy ? Ile aske l whether it was
fair and just to throw upon the predecessors of the pre-
sent Government all the blame of these subsequent trans-
actions, or whether they were not fairly bound to take it
upon themselves; or whether the policy of his Majesty's
late Government was not the best calculated to protect
the Protestant religion, a duty which the Noble Earl
admitted to be the paramount duty of the King's Govern-
ment? He thought he had said enough to show that at
the present moment the parochial clergy had in fact no
property; and to prove that the more strongly, he begged
to refer their Lordships to the statement which bad been
made by the Right Rev. Prelate on the lower bench a
short time ago, the force of which he would not weaken
by dwelling up,,in it. He had said fairly, however, that
the clergy were totally ruined ; he had told their Lord-
ships that at the present moment they were the objects of
the charity of the Government; that his Majesty's ser-
vants hail given notice of their intention to propose a
measure to Parliament to pay their salaries for the last
three years, but that measure had never yet been pro-
duced, and therefore these men were at the present mo-
ment absolutely at the mercy of the Government. Then
let their Lordships look at another branch of the Pro-
testant clergy, he meant that branch who were partly de-
pendent upon the revenue called church cess. The church
cess, it was true, was always obtained with extreme diffr
culty ; there was a greater facility in opposing the levying
of the church cess than in the case of tithes. The Noble
Duke made some further observations upon the nature of
church cess, the mode of appeal, &c., which did not reach
us. The provision fur the services of the Church arising
from this source now no longer existed, any more than that
of tithes existed for the payment of the salaries of the
Ministers. Then there] was nothing for repairing the

fences of the churchyard, paying the salaries of clerks anti
other persons, and for many articles which were essen-
tially necessary for the performance of the service.
But there was another class of persons attached to the
service of the Church in Ireland, namely, the
Bishops ; and he begged to state that these Bishops,
who formed the hierarchy of the Church of Ireland, were
understood generally to have amongst them a revenue of
'150,000/. ; and it appeared that two-thirds of that
amount, say 100,0007. a year; were paid to them in fines,
and those fines were paid annually for the renewal of
leases by the tenants. Under the law of the last Session
the Bishops were under the necessity of insisting upon
receiving from their tenants the fines on those lands which
they as tenants held by lease under the Bishoph. The
tenants, however, in anticipation of this measure, refused
to renew the leases; they refused to pty their fines to the.
Bishops, who ivere thus deprived of two-thirds of their
ineofnes, and of their means of subsistence. Then, as to
curates, nothing was left for the sustentation of the
in
come,
and and the Bishops were deprived of their
and nothing was left to them but the rent of their lands,
which, upon the gross of all their incomes, amounted to
50,0001. This, then, was the state of the Church in
Ireland at this moment, and these were the means left for
the performance of the whole duties, for the maintenance
of the churches of the Protestant religion in that country.
Now a Noble Marquis, who bad spoken two nights ago,
had talked of the magnificent revenues of the Church,
and of the 1,000,000 acres of the church lands. But the
Bishops had now nothing hut the rents which they derived
from their tenants, and the rent received last year was not
more than 50,0001. for their 1,000,000 acres. But that
which induced him not to oppose the committal of this Bill
im
possible
that that it appeared to him to be absolutely
that the Church of England established in Ireland could
continue to exist for a single day if some measure of this
description were not passed to relieve it from the unfortu-
nate situation in which it was placed. It was impossible
to carry on its duties unless some measure of relief was
adopted by Parliament ; and on the 19th July, when they
were called upon to effect this measure, the Noble Duke
said he would stand upon principle, and he had said,
" Do not allow the property of the church to be touched
on any account whatsoever; maintain your principle
firmly, and with honour. And what then must happen ?
Why, the church of Ireland must be destroyed, it is true ;
but we shall have the honour of having maintained our
principle !" If the world were governed by principle
alone nothitig would be co easy as for a man to conduct
the greatest possible affairs. But in all affairs it was the
custom of most men to choose the lesser of two contending
d,fficulties; and in this case he would say that the lesser
of these two contending or conflicting difficulties was to
go into Committee upon this Bill, and to see what mea-
sures could be devised to give relief to this church. One
Noble Lord said, " Reject the Bill, and let those persons
who brought it in be respoesible." Their Lordships
were now on the 19th of July called upon to entertain
this measue, and it was absolutely impossible to delay it,
so urgent was the matter; something must he done im
mediately to give relief, and if this were not done the
church must go.--(n•ar. ) The Right Rev. Prelate
who bad spoken with so much ability last night had urged
upon their Lordships' 'consideration the different measures
which might be adopted in order to give relief to the
Church of Ireland ; and a Right Rev. Prelate, whose
authority was not to be deub•ed, hid likewise stated some
measure which might be adopted. Now he (the Duke
of Wellington) would not dispute that it might he very
proper that the cess should be thrown upon the proprietor
of the land rather than the occupier; but lie would beg to
remind those Right Rev. Prelates, that that teas as much
contrary to principle as it was to call upon the clergy to
remit a certain part of their property. But he wanted to
know why they were to call upon the owners of land to
pay that for which they snade an allowance to the occu-
piers.—(After some observations which did not reach us,
the Noel Duke proceeded.) He therefore entreated their
Lordships to believe that they could stand upon no prin-
ciple in this case except that of the destruction of the
Church, and it was their Lordships' duty to protect the
Church, and to allow the Bill to to into Committee. He
now came to some of the details of the measure. He
must say he could not see the principle of levying a tax
in lieu of the church eess in order to enable the Pro-
testant clergy to perform divine service. He objected,
also, to the formation of the Commission under this Act.
He confessed be bad not yet heard from any one Peer
who had spoken upon this subject, excepting from the
Noble Marquis opposite, who had said a few words against
it, anything urged against the Board of First Fruits.
He roust likewise confess that be objected to the diminu-
tion of the number of bishoprics in Ireland, and he could
not concur in the argument upon which that diminution
was founded and justified by tl,e Noble Earl. This with-
drawal of a number of the Bishops &ion Ireland could not
be done without a proportional withdrawal from the Pro-
testant religious establishments in Ireland that protection
arid countenance which it had throughout enjoyed from
the Government and from the Parliament; and he would
say that that circumstance alone was sufficient to induce
them to make every effiirt to maintain the same number of
Bishops. There was another consideration which had been
most ably stated by a Right Rev. Prelate and a Most Rev.
Prelate, and that was, that wherever a Protestant Bishop
should be withdrawn there a Roman Catholic Bishop would
be left ; and moreover, that that Roman Catholic Bishop
would remain in the enjoyment perhaps of the domain,
and not only of the domain, but even of the furniture pro •
bably, of the Protestant Bishop who would have been ptr.
down. Again, it was not a fair mode of calculating the
duties of these Bishops to sly that so much expense was
incurred to so many benefices in comparison with the du-
ties of the Bishops in England. It was probably true,
and indeed he believed it was true, that the Irish Bishop,
with thirty, forty, or perhaps fifty benefices within hit
diacese, had more trouble and mote anxiety than any
Bishop in England had with 600, or even 1,000, benefices
to superintend. But there was another circumstance
which was well worthy of attention in discussing this
subject, and that was, that whereas the English Bishops
derived great assistance from the archdeacons and deacons,
in the Church of Ire and the Bishops had no such
assistance. The other part of the Bill to *hie) he cer-
tainly ha I strong objections, was that which prevented the
building of churches in those parishes where divine service
should not have been performed in a period of three years;
and their Lordships would observe that that was a pro-
vision which was wholly inapplicable to Ireland, where,
from scenes of violence, or (ruin any particular opposition
to the attempt, clergymen were prevented perhaps from
proceeding. in the performance of their duties. That clause
was in direct contradiction to all previous provisions of the
Parliament on that subject. The old previsions of former
Acts, on the contrary, went to give assistance to the build.
ing of churches in those parishes where divine service had
nut been performed for twenty years. He happened to
have in his hand a statement of the number of churches
which had been built in Ireland under former Acts of
Parliament, and he must beg LI- eir Lordships' attention,
whilst he stated what would be the consequences of the
measure then brought before them, and what would have
been the consequences if former Parliaments had pursued a
course in accordance to the principles of this measure.
Previous to 1805 the principle was to grant money for
building churches in parishes where divine service had
not been performed for 20 years ; and the substance of a
paper from the Board of First Fruits proved that, previous
to 1805, 202 churches and 41 glebe-houses bad been
built; that from 1808 to 1826 there were built 562
churches and 537 glebe-houses. Now, supposing that the
Parliaments of 30 years past had acted upon the principle
of this Bill, and had said, " You shall give no money to
build churches in any parishes in which divine service
shell not have been performed for three years," the con-
sequence would have been that out of 1,199 churches now
inlreland they would have had to take away 639,being more
than one-half the number which now existed. Now lie
w
everytt
hb eo upg
rloltatseeistt
atmno ut
dsot be admitted
religion,
everything
w h
h iehi
nt
he
ea it
theirt
i n
powerb their
is conscience
to promote o duty i
be-
lievedn
to be the best and most pure system.
to say
Noble
tl
leia Duke
ut
the
e
The Bishop of EXETER explained. The
had misunderstood him. He never meant
charge should be laid upon the landlord.
Lord MELBOURNE said, considering the very severe
attack which had been made on his Majesty's Ministers,
their Lordships would not be surprised at his immediately'
rising to reply to it. The Noble Duke had adverted, in
terms of commendation, to that part of the speech of
the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) which re-
commended an abstinence from all party politics whilst
discussing this Bill—an absence from all crimination and
recrimination—but it appeared to him the Noble Duke
had only done so for the purpose of showing how far he
could Hear.) himself depart from his own advice.---(
In-
stead of a calmness suited to the importance of the sub-
ject, their Lordships had been compelled to listen to a
i
speech of the most bitter invective—a speech abounding in
personalities—a speech full of attempts at critnination—
and one wholly anti solely calculated to rip up all ancient
he had hoped, buried animosities, and re-intro.
and, as
duce every topic which, for the last two or teree years,
had agitated and inflamed the public mind.-...(cheers.)
Such was the Noble Duke's idea of the calmness and
temper recommended by the Right Rev. Prelate, and
which it was the duty of their Lordships, ou all Occasions,
and throughout all their proceedings, rigorously to ob-
serve. The Noble Duke had taunted his Majesty's Mi-
nisters, on the ground that changes did not end with the

passing of the Reform Bill. Why, what mattered such
changes as these ? The Noble Duke must well recollect
if he chose to do so, that on the second reacting of the
Reform Bill, he (Lord Melbourne) had distinctly stated,
that if that Bill ever passed, it roust and would necessarily
leol to other great and very important changes.—(Loud
cheers.) there was no deceit then—there was no ground
for taunt now. He had distinctly stated the ulterior con-
sequences of that great measure—consequences, forsooth,
which every man must have seen that chose,
or strove to see at all.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Duke went through a variety of matters, drawing from
them all most sweeping censures on the Govern-
ment, although he himself admitted, that in every one of
them some step or other would have to be taken—some
alteration or ether to be effected. The Noble Duke had
also chosen wholly to misinterpret what had fallen from
his Noble Friend (Earl Grey), in proposing the second
reading of this Bill, for their Lordships would all recollect,
that his Noble Friend did not attribute the many evils of
our system to the government of the Noble Duke, hut to,
that series of Governments to all of which his Noble
Friend It td, throughout his life-time, been opposed. But,
said the Noble Duke, they had not introduced one mea-
sure but what tended to produce that disorganized state of
society which all good men lamented so much. Their
very first act, on entering office, had been stigmatized as-
b ; for, according to the Noble Duke, they had appointed
as Viceroy of Ireland an individual the most unfit of any
man that could be found in the whole kingdom. If the
Noble Duke had rested there, he should have gone no fur-
ther either, but merely denied the truth of the observation,
thus throwing assertion against assertion. But the Noble.
Duke had gone on to state that the Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland had written a letter recommending agitation, and'
described that letter as laying the foundation of a con-
spiracy between the priests and the people, which acted by
a tax on property—by murder—and by everything that
would degrade and disturb society. Now he (Lord Mel-
bourne) must say this was not fair—it was not generous—
no, nor was it just.—(Cheers from the Ministerial, echoed
from the Opposition benches:)
The Duke of WELLINGTON said something in a low
tone across the table, which was inaudible in the gallery.
Lord MELBOURNE proceeded—Then the Noble Duke
disconnected the Marquis of Anglesea from the agitation,
as far as intention went.
The Duke of WELLINGTON again said something in
a very low tone.
Lord MELBOURNE resumed—Why,the letter alluded
to was imprudent, he freely admitted.—(Cheers.) It was
not such as he himself would have written, or as be would
have advised another to write. But had the Noble Duke
never written an imprudent letter ?—(Vehement cheer-
ing.) Was there no letter contemporaneous with this
unfortunate one ?—(Cheers.) One, too, not the roost
wise or most prudent that any man could write, especially
. .

if that man happened to be Prime Minister of England._
(Continued cheers.) If that letter then were not the most
wise that ever Prime Minister wrote, surely it was some

ground for expecting a little consideration towards ti,e
errors of others.—(Herr, hear.) As to the Noble Duke's
remarks about the tithe disturbances, he should only say,
that if the Government, of which he was a Member, bad

been unsuccessful, even by a vigorous application of the
law in putting them down, he did not believe that the
power of the law would, under the circumstances, have

been effectual had it been wielded by other hands. For
the recovery of tithes there was still a legal remedy, nor
was there any difference as to the right to them. It had
been asserted by a noble individual that this Bill was an
entire departure from that system of policy in respect to
the Irish Church which had been pursued by this c,iuntry
from the revolution to the present time. What, how-
ever, was the system previous to the reformation but
extirpation and extermination ?—(Hear, hear.) To ex-
terminate the Catholics, to extirpate their religion, and
establish the Protestant Church was the policy of Ed•
ward the Sixth, of James the First, of Strafford. At the
Revolution this policy was changed and penal laws were
enacted. These two systems, however, produced precisely
the same effects—by strengthening and increasing the
proscribed religion. Such policy brought over the higher
orders to the dominant religion, but left the lower orders
to nourish in secret the love of their own and tile hatred
of a persecuting and foreign church. In 1759 the exist-
ence of the Catholics was first acknowledged by an address
received in Dublin from that body. Thence they had
power of mortgage—from that the power of taking leases
and then of holding freehold property. Then it was that
the penal laws were really abolished. From that moment
followed all those measures which necessarily led to those
which the present Government were solicitous of putting
in force. They must recollect that Ireland was in a most
peculiar situation—that her condition was without a
parallel—that she had an established religion different
from that of the great majority of her population, and
they must legislate accordingly. As to the suspension,
he wished to say one word. The Noble Duke argued as
if it would be imperative on Commissioners to close up
any church where divine worship had not been performed
for three years. Now he begged to state, that by the Bill
they were expressly empowered to exercise a discretion—
to consider the reason and causes for the non-performance
of the ri.ual—and to act accordingly.—( Hear, hear.) He
would not longer detain their Lordships on a subject so
exhausted. lie thought the Bill well calculated to meet
the object they had in view, and be therefore entreated
their Lordships to consent to that which was for the good
of the Church, and the safety, repose, and well-being of
the whole kingdom.
The Earl of LONGFORD had heard no arguments
sufficiently strong to induce him to consent to the second
reading of the Bill. Among the reasons urged for their
Lordships' adopting it, was one that it hid been sent up
from the other House by so large a majority. But, he
asked, while they paid respect to a majority, was there
nothing due to the opinion of a minority which, without
the least disrespect, was in its composition quite as influ-
ential as the numerical strength which overpowered it?
Another reason urged was, that if they rejected the Bill
the expectations of the people would be disappointed, and
a clamour he caused. But he would ask who raised those
expectations? Those who brought in the Reform Bill,
as they called it—the revolutionary measure, as it appeared
to him, a measure concocted in madness, forwarded in
manoeuvre, arid concluded in mischief—this was the grand
origin of all the clamour now .made; but the clamour
would soon end, if the Lords showed themselves deter-
mined upon an inflexible perseverance in the execution of
their duty. It was said that t, eir Lordships' House
would be in danger if it did not give way to the desires of
the people; but he believed that the danger would consist
is yielding to their wild caprices, and administering to
their passions. As to this Bill, in bringing it forward,
Ministers had set loose a political spring which they had
not perception to understand the force of, nor mental power
enough to control. Much stress had been laid upon the al-
leged nece-city for giving this conciliatory measure, in
order to counterbalance the effects of the Coercion Bill,
as they called it. He saw no such necessity ; for, in
point of fact, the Coercion Bill was no Coercion Bill ; it
was a Bill intended to put an end to the most appalling
description of outrage, and violation of law. The Noble
Earl proceeded to protest against the sweeping away of
so many Bishops, and the unjust and unjustifiable tax on
the clergy of Ireland. It had been pretended that be-
cause the Protestant population was small, their pastors
need not be many. Yes, if they were the sole popula-
tion—(Hear, hear)—but was it right to leave such an
immense Catholic population uncared for? Was it no-
thing to neglect the diffusion of Protestant principles? So
far from withdrawing any of the Protestant teachers, the
greatest possible number that could he spared from our
own establishment ought to be sent as teachers of the true
faith among the Catholics. But while the number of
Protestant Bishops was cut down by half, the whole 27
Roman Catholic Bishops were allowed to remain. This
was clearly encouraging their religion to the detriment of
our own. He hoped the House would not allow the
Bill to pass as it was. Even its supporters did not seem
to have a very positive notion of its merits. It certainly
had its merits, and he thought that if delayed to another
session—a delay which could do no harm—its defects
mig • ht be omitted or rectified—its merits retained, and
thus, with perhaps an additional proviso or two, a really
good Bill might be made up. The Noble Earl, after hesi-
tating a moment or two, said that there were two or three
other remarks which he bad intended to make, but which
were now gone out of his head, and he would, therefore,
not trouble their Lordships any further.—(A laugh.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE protested against the
measure.

Tre Duke of WELLINGTON was willing to make
the best use he could of the beneficial parts of the Bill,
and endeavour to obviate those that were otherwise.

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS svauld give his
vote for the second leading of the Bill, because it had been
adopted by a large majority of the other House, and he
hoped that it would be adopted by as large a majority of
that House.
The Bishop of HEREFORD would give his support
to the second reading of the Bill. He felt great confi-
dence io those who had proposed the measure, and he
felt a conviction that they would never have sanctioned,
far less have brought forward, a measure which they did
not believe would be beneficial to the Church. He be-
lieved his Majesty's Government to be sincere friends to
the Established Church. There were several of tile pro-
visions of the Bill, indeed, on which he looked with
uneasiness and distress, but he hoped that they would be

modified in the Committee, Several modifications bad
been made which had done away with the must ttiateri
objections which he had to it. The withdrawal of that
clause especially, which went to appropriate the pro.
perty of the Church to secular purposes, had made
it much less objectionable. Still, however, there was
much in it of which he could not approve. He would
not then enter into details, but would simply say, that
much as he disliked some of the details, he would vote
for the second reading, from a conviction in his mind
that some measure of the kind was necessary for the safety
of the Church of Ireland—(Hear)—and that much
gre iter injury would befal the Church from a rejection of
the Bill than by its adoption. On those grounds, as
they were not lightly taken up, he had come to the eon.
elusion that it was his duty to support the Bill. He could
not support it with the same cordiality with which he
'ound himself enabled tb support the other measures of
his Noble Friends, but he still would vote for the second
reading, as he considered the Bill essential to the tran-
quillity of Ireland..---(Hear.)
Earl De GREY meant to support the second reading;
of the Bill. He did so on the same principle with the
Right Rev. Prelate who had last spoken, and who bad
stated that he would give a reluctant vote in favour of the
s cond reading of the Bill ; but that he would give that
vote with much pain. He thought that no man would
deny but the Church of Ireland was in a state which called
for interfrrence.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the
withdrawing of the clause which had been withdrawn had
wry much diminished the danger, and though lie con-
sidered that there was still some danger, yet he hoped
that by the wisdom of Parliament it would also be with-
drawn.

The LORD CHANCELLOR entirely agreed with the
Right. Rev. Prelate who had last spoken, and with the
Noble Earl who had just sat down, in considering that an
absolute necessity existed of introducing a measure of the
nature of that which was before that House; but he en-
tirely differed from them in the reluctance with which
they would give their votes in favour of this Bill. It had
been admitted by the Noble and Gallant Duke that
this measure, or a measure of the same kind, was
absolutely necessary, both on account of the safety of
the Church, and the security of the state.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) The Noble Duke had not proposed any other mea-
sure instead of the present Bill ; he had not brought
forward even the outline of a measure which he would
recommend to their Lordships as a substitute for the pre-
sent measure, and he (Lord Brougham) therefore under-
stood, that though the Noble and Gallant Duke was by
no means pledged to the Bill in its details, and might
accordingly vote for any modification of those details—
still, that he was pledged to the admission of the principle
upon which the Bill was founded—and that on that ad-
mission of the principle he was prepared to send the Bill
to a Committee of their Lordships' House.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Lord Brougham) thought that among the Noble
Lords who had spoken in opposition to the Bill, there
existed a great degree of misunderstanding both as to the
principles on which the Bill was iounded, as to the ends
proposed from the measure, and also as regarded the con-
nection which existed between this Bill and another mea-
sure which had occupied their Lordships' attention at an
early period of the session. They had heard from a
Right Reverend Prelate, that doubtless this measure
was brought forward as a boon to the people of Ireland
in conjunction with, and to counteract, the Coercion
Bill. He said that the Coercion Bill was brought
int as Ireland,t e pr,
present
mea-
surethat was
a
i
begged
peoplebri o f
bring
te
ll their Lordships,
the
in
sat thereforenecessary
boon.
yuponßt
be the
t o
that the Coercion Bill could only be justified by stern
necessity, and to preserve the peace of the Empire
and the lives of his Majesty's subjects; and that it could
not therefore be considered as an infliction, but as in
itself a boon.—(Cheers.) But no one connected with the.
Government had put the juAlfication of that measure upon
such grounds. What had been said by them was chi,._
The peace of Ireland was broken, and there was no odor
way of restoring tranquillity to that country. The first
duty of a Government was to preserve the lives and pro-
perty of the King's subjects, and as in these circumstances
there was a necessity to use strung means, however pain-
ful to themselves, but still as there was a necessity, they
proposed the Coercion Bill, and it was passed by their
Lordship. In equal proportion to the necessity of using
strong measures was the pain which the Government felt
in being obliged to yield to the measure ; and in exact
proportion to the sufferings of that class of society
which suffered front the state of Ireland was it the duty
of the Government to recommend that the laws should be
suspended. But it was the duty of the Governmeut in-
stantly to devise and bring forward such other measures
as they thought would prevent the recurrence of such a
state of things, and would allay the heats and discontent
out of which they had arisen, and which had rendered
the Coercion Bill a case of urgent necessity ; and it now
had become necessary to consider how they coal prevent
the recurrence of those mischiefs. It was in that view
that these two measures were connected ; and he main-
tained that he not only would have been guilty of
a breach of duty to his country, and of a breach of
hie professional and ministerial duty to his King, but that
he would have been totally unworthy of the confidence and
respect of the country, if he had abstained from taking
the very first opportunity of allaying the anxiety of
the minds of the people of Ireland, and of meeting the great
body with measures of kindness and conciliation.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, that the measure should produce the full
effect which was expected from it, that it should produce
that conciliation and satisfaction which were essential to
the full effect intended from it, was more than he would
take upon himself to hold out. But it was enough to
justify the Government, that it had been founded upon
that principle, and that the same principle was followed
out in all its details; that it was a measure, which, what-
ever its effects might be, ought to give satisfaction—
(Hear, hear)—and which ought to produce conciliation,
and if such was the nature of the Bill, that it was such a
measure as the Government was bound to propose.—
(Hear, hear.) When he considered the great grievances
which existed in Ireland, and which it was mani!est had
produced the state of disorder to which the country was
'educed, and the acts of violence which had been com-
mitted in it, he could hardly wonder that such were the
effete produced by them. He did not wish, however, to
be understood as intending to praise any of those acts.
He disapproved of them as much as any man, and
though be could find something like an excuse for them
in the grievances from which they suffered, still he
condemned them, on broad principles, as much as if
they had not had any such extenuation. Let them
look in the first place to the church cess. Could they
conceive any thing more galling titan that tax was ?
(Hear.) Did they recollect the manner in which that tax
was collected—tor what purpose it was raised—andby whom
it was raised ? Let their Lordships put themselves in the
same situation, and consider how they would bear it. Let
them suppose that the Catholics of England raised a cess
upon the Protestants of that country for the support of the
altar, for the repairs of the Catholic churches, for vespers,
and all the other different services of the Catholic religion,
which they, as Protestants were inclined to treat, though
not with contempt, still with abhorrence; and such was
exactly the situation in which the Catholics of Ireland
were now placed in regard to the members of the Esta-
blished Church in that country. He would ask if they
could conceive any tax more painful to the persons on whom
it was forcibly levied, however trifling its amount might
be ; especially when they received no benefit from it, and
it was exacted to support a religion for which they had
not the least respect. That was the state of tee Catholics
of Ireland, and to relieve them of that church cess was one
of the great objects of this Bill.—(Hear.) It was a
grievance which came round every year, and was con-
stantly rankling in their breasts, and irritating them, sod
their Lordships bad only to suppose themselves placid in
the same situation to be made aware of the force of the
grievance of which the people of Ireland were now to be
rid. It had been sail that the Catholics and Dissenters
of England had to contribute to the support of the Esta-
blishedhwa a dsthat to C
pay
ah
lulr ri imee—ns ;ethyl atbtyt thshai eitnynt
ilhaddthtelslteowy
epnraneyt
ntaoi
as well
sehtel arp rat
pyd r
caoespsest
r.ht—eyy,
(Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) The answer
but that it teas part of the property held by the Church.
But that was very different from the cess, which was a
tax—and that a tax to be paid for the purposes of a tell
gion for which those that paid it had the same sort of
abhorrence which their Lordships had for the Cathol.c
religion. They had heard a great deal of the fund
from which the purposes of this Bill were to be car-
ried into execution. They had heard from a Right Re-
verend Prelate that an error had been made by the
fGo-
vernment in the calculations on which the measure was
founded ; but the Right Rev. Prelate had himself corn-
milted as gross au error as well could be. He said that
the Government had made an error of 100,0001., because
they had taken the amount to be derived from the sale of
Bishops' leases at bOO,OOO/., which, he said, they had
over-estimated, because, instead of founding their calcu-
lation on the amount to be derived from the net valise of
those taxes, they had taken the gross value, which error
made a difference of 100,0001., and that consequently
400,000/. was all that they could reckon upon from that
source. He (Lord Brougham) would at once admit that
if the Right Rev. Prelate's preinises were correct, the
conclusions were, perfectly right. But so far were the
premises from being correct, that they were radically
wrong, and there was a fundamental error is his whole

calculations; for, in fact, the calculations had been
from the net amount of the value of thes,..! !rages.

Noble and Learned Lord then entered into a long /1
lation to show that they had taken the 'net amount j,
value of the leases, from which it appeared that ion
the amount being over-stated, the Government bad Pci
these ealculati, ns oh a lower scale than they were eiljjs
to do.] He then said that he had gone into this e
tion because be wished to set their Lordships right it
that head, as it was one of the principal foundatiostA,
the whole measure. As he had set the Right Retr,
Prelate right on that great point, it might be as well;
him also right on some smaller points; for it was not is
calculations only that the Right Rev. Prelate cogrfin..!'
gross blunders, for when he came to smaller sums
accuracy was fully as great. He had stated that
saving in the bishopric of Derry would be only two ty
sand pounds.
The Bishop of EXETER had stated that the 61/1
saving would be 2,000/.
The LORD CHANCELLOR resumed—The 11
Rev. Prelate was still wrong, fdr the ithmediate
on the bishopric of Derry would be 4,160 E.; /IP
ultimate saving would be 6,160/.
The Bishop of EXETER had given them credit fOO,
4,1601., and that there would be an additional e.a/'
hereafter of 2,000/.

The LORD CHANCELLOR certainly then hadn
nederstood him, for he had understood the Right e'
Prelate to say that the ultimate swing would 01
2,0001. It did not, however, much signify how 4 ,
been stared, for the fact was, that the immediate in
would be 4,1601, and the ultimate saving 6,160/.
he had also said that 264,0001. was to be deducted ,
that sum, which the Commissioners would be
to pay for arrears due by the Board of First Fruits. e
it would be found, that though 264,000/. had bre'
down to the debit of the Commissioners, as they wet`
succeed to the Board of First Fruits, yet that they
to succeed to ail sums which appeared at the credit
of the Board, as well as those on the debit side, and,l;i
a sum appeared on the credit side. which exactly co,/
the sum due. So that both sides might be struck
and therb would not he one fraction to pay over of
sum of 261,000/.---(Cries of as Hear, hear.") lie'
only entered into this calcul to show that it
incorrect to sly that the Government had foufi
this measure newt false grounds, or that they
~,I
not right in supposing that they should have ample lee
at their disposal for the accomplishment of the ohjeetifo
view. He was not disposed to agree with those who
that the arrangement of the church cess was the only
ject of the Bill, although he admitted that that pat
the Bill was very important, in order to afford securiti
l.
the Church. But so far from thinking that the sole??
did not even think it the principal merit of the Bill. )
said at once—and he did not fear to be contradicted 0,
he said so—that the diminutionejigin,hr,
g:fmn_atbtliii.ete,e:rantiosi
rufadat
snntteb eyhteel
ormpoopanafse;
doi
pastors
in Ireland had become absolutely necessary.—(Chl
Let any one compare the number of Irish Bishops )
the
:ppieer
cent
number
thuot
nemmit:het erewroni
ftuhomft
eEee
regard
ago,
r, English
f
he
the number of benefices ; and when he saw the disprei
thin between the labourers and those benefitted, and
cially when he saw the gross disproportion between ot
number of the English and of the Irish clergy, the Woej,'
would be that the feelings of the people of Ireland hadL'
fered them to bear it so'long as they had done.
nine times the same number of members of the Establl
Church of England should have only the same nunahep
i•relates as were inlreland,surely could not but he deemed,
be monstrous. And whether the subject was looked
i
with regard to the revenue or the population, 4
equally monstrous. The net revenue of the Archbis'
and Bishops of Ireland was 128 0001., and the re '
of the Archbishops and Bishops of the whole of Bog'
was little mere. Now was it to he endured that for a po'
tion .1800,000 or 900,000, which was the nurnberof pe
professing the established religion in Ireland, and where
number of clergymen was only from 1,300 to 1,400,
same expense should be incurred, and nearly the
number was kept up as for the Hierarchy of the wheP'
England, where there was a population of 9,000,1,'
professing the established religion, and from 9 to 10,1:i
clergym n ?—( (-fear hear.) He was sure that En4l
would never be satisfied unless an adjustment of the Cb°
of Ireland was entered into. It had been said, that
Parliament h no right to reduce the number of NO
and,
encroachment it was an interference with the church, "'
eneroachment on the rights of property. AlthouP
(Lord Brougham) knew that nothing came more
quently within tile ordinary jurisdiction of Parliatno
than the interference with property, still he of°, ,
admit, that if this were an undue interference '
property, he would think it a great iroP
ment, though he would not say that it
an insurmountable objection to the passing of this 01
sure. Be denied, however, that such was the case.
Noble and Learned Lord then said, that he regretted
to see the Noble and Learned Earl who opened the de
that evening then in his place, as he was anxious to le
some remarks on a few of the observations which j'fi
fall n from that Noble Earl. The oath cannot be helot
high as not to be liable to the change that evert
human is liable to. The time would come when the ,0
of the people—the will of all—would call for chs.oll
that no oath that could be devised cou:d prevail aalnTiO,
All admitted in the Catholic Church, that the oath of
invested in the Bishop of Rome—in the Pope—and
he had a right to dispense with the obligation Otto
oath. But ma this subject it had been said, that if re
oath originated with certain quarters—with the ele„/
for instance—it might be dispensed with. He should"ot
stop to examine that assertion. But he would call eV
their Lordships to consider in what situation they Pleji
by their doctrines the fame of Princes, the Acts of 1'0.41i
meats, and the consistency of Learned Counsele`i
What would they say to the abolition of a hishopri6O
1745, and a similar abolition in 1752? What would
Notile and Learned Friend (Lord Eldon) say to tbl
Was it not a violation, according to him, of the corone;sr
oath ?It was—and there was not the slightest posu4
difference between the smallest violation of a right, and to;
greatest violation. He who stole a silver penny frogs, ,
rich man, and be who robbed a poor man of his all, °el
equally guilty of the crime of larceny, and conserinesio
the slightest infraction of the rights of the Church, eve°ol
the amount of one small bishopric or prebendary or our ot
' was a violation; and he who should be guilty of it vie,ol
much a violator of a solemn oath as if he abolished Pori
the bench of Bishops, or cut down all the revenues et. 4
fell swoop. Thal was to what those who held the doctrlPno
of the Noble and Learned Earl would be reduced, 1:001
upon that point he would take his stand. If his '(‘‘
Majesty, George the Second--a religious King, andA
whom they all prayed—if he abolished in 1745 and in I
in each year 'latish bishopric,what were they to think 0110,1
But perhaps Noble Lords would make a differences 1/0/
say, as the lady slid of her cake, that it was lost on the ottj
side of the Bristol Channel, or as the other lady, who der,.
having a child because she had twins.—(Laughter.) Bugle
far as the principle of right was concerned, one 3170
Bishop reduced in Ireland was as touch as if ten vi,bi
reduced on this side the Bristol Channel. Who WO
person who had advised George the Second to that steal,;
Why the Chancellor of that day. But perhaps looti
Lords would say, that the Monarch was obliged to i,
to a Prime Minister, who was neglectful of the Prote6t4l
interests. What firould Noble Lords say, if it wag
ham who advised the reduction of the first hishoprit,
aye, who advised those measures on both these reality
tile occasions? Yes, it was Pelham who advised j 1
Majesty to reduce by two the Bishops of the kingdotn 0
Ireland. In regard, then, to the memory of prince'
not these doctrines about the coronation oath be broach o 0
Perhaps Noble Lords might object to this instance Leo
being of too remote a da:e. Well, he could give "'Jr
another of a later date, which a Minister advised•;ol
who was Chancellor in 1817. He said 1817, heqtill
all Noble Lords might not recollect that in 1807.5,
was introduc d by Ministers, which was thought a
infraction of the Protestant institutions, and so much it
violation of the coronation oath, that the same argon1;01
were then used as had been used since, and the Bill
thrown out ; but in 1807—
011
The Duke of CUMBERLAND said there must be '-
0
mistake as to the date. 11'

The LORD CHANCELLOR meant 1817. Tll5
lustr:ous Duke knew all that happened in 1807; bet)
was not so well acquainted with what took place in 1131
because the Illustrious Duke was at:road at the times it
mistook not. He did not mean anything disrespect
the Illustrious Duke, and be fully admitted Isis coo`
tency, for on measures of this description, whether ,"0

or mad, he invariably showed strong opposition. 00
exceedingly regretted—he exceedingly lamented Ott] no
Illustrious Duke should be so consistent. He lamente
account of the benefits the country was deprived of blflt°
Illustrious Duke being so steady in his opposition. )11
Illustrious Duke then knew all that passed in 10/ Of
knew that away went the Bill, and at the same tittle at"
went the authors of it, because it was thought tlitl!`ora'
doing a mischief to the church, and violating the b'ol‘e
nation oath. Put then came 1817—the Illustrioto die°
being abroad, was not perhaps aware of what ill
passed. The same measure as the fir,t—the
feria then passed, and was recommended by a °i;,,tdei
adviser of the Crown, by him who sue seeded his 00'
and Learned Friend now no more. Ilis Noble