The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-18 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Lord LONDONDERRY had to complain of great
want of courtesy from the Noble Earl opposite, or else
that tie Noble Earl (Grey) must submit to be charged with
gross ignorance of the acts of his own Administration.—
(Hear, hear.) On the 15th instant he had taken the
opportunity of asking, whether the accounts detailed
in the journals of the day, respecting the proceedings of
the fleet under the command of a British officer,
Captain Napier, were authenticated by official in-
formation, and the Noble Earl, as far as he re-
membered, stated, that with respect to Captain Napier,
the Admiralty would do what was proper, and that as to
i.the engagement reported to have taken place, he (Earl
Grey) knew no more than he did himself from the state-
ments in the papers. Yet what was his surprise
on going home to find in the journals of the
same day, the letter directed to the Committee at Lloyd's,
stating officially that an embargo had been imposed on the
Portuguese ports, which did not acknowledge the supre-
macy of Donna Maria. He appealed to the Noble Earl
whether that communication could be issued from the
Foreign-office without his knowledge? If so, there was
evidently a gross and strange dereliction of public ditty. If
otherwise, there was an extraordinary want of courtesy, for
which he demanded an explanation, as he was not aware
of having merited it.

Earl GREY rose and said,—l should be extremely sorry
if a charge could be brought against me, with any
foundation, of a want of courtesy either to the
Noble Earl who has just eat down, or to any Alember
of this House. As to the charge of ignorance of what is
going on under my administration, I am certainly less
anxious, but I must state to your Lordships shortly how
the facts stand. I stated at the time, as well as I
can now recollect, that I could not say, whether
Admiral Napier was actually in his Majesty's service or
not; but that I bad no doubt the Admiralty bad done
what their duty required. From the moment there was
a report that Admiral Napier had gone to com-
mand the fleet serving under Donna Maria, it was
determined by Government to proceed in this case, pre-
cisely as they had done in the case of Admiral Sartorine.

I really did not know at the moment whether any
authentic information had been received and acted on,
but the determination had been taken, and on the Friday
preceding,—it is to my regret that I state it, because ad-
miring, as I do, and as I think every one must—(Hear,
hear)—the gallantry, the daring, the spirit, the skill,
—(Loud cheers)--with which that person has upon
this occasion distinguished himself—(Renewed cheers)—
and upheld the character of a British sailor—(Loud
cheers)—l say, it is with regret I state it, that on the
receipt of that intelligence, a few days before,
by a steamer that had come from Lisbon, that;
officer had been struck from the lists of his Majesty's
set vice. it was with great regret the Admiralty did sop
hut, consistently with their duty, that step
could nut be avoided, and it had been taken.
With respect to the other part the Noble Lord said he
believed he had said that no official account of the battle
had been received by the Government, and that all they knew
of it was by the letter which was published in the p ipers
written by Capt. Napier, and signed Don Carlos de Ponza.
The Noble Marquis (Londonderry) asserted that he
(Lord Grey) could not but be aware of the notice sent to
Lloyd's, but he did not see how that proved anything.
If the Noble Marquis meant to bring any charge against
Ministers, let him do it, and he (Lord Grey) would be
prepared to meet it; but all he could say, both with
respect to the former and the present notification
was, it had been done merely to put persons engaged
in commerce on their guard, and the notice
would only be acted on when an effective blockade should
be established.

The Duke of BUCKINGHANI said that no one
lamented more than lie (lid that a Gallant Officer like
Captain Napier should, by a breach of regulations,
have made it necessary to dismiss him from his Majesty's
service. Whatever that breach was, it was gratifying to
know that so great an achievement had been accom-
plished by a British officer. It was, however, now esta-
blished as a fact, that although the dismissal of that officer
by his Majesty's Government took place on Friday, it was
not known to the head of that Government until the fol-
lowing Monday.
The Bishop of LONDON begged to notice that the
petitioners in the petition which he had present d were
opposed to the clause relating to churches in which divine
service had not been performed for three years. He had
forgotte❑ to state that point before.
IRISH CHURCH REFORM BILL.

Earl GREY—It now becomes my duty t r address
your Lordships on the subject of the very im-
portant Bill which has already taken up so
considerable a portion of your Lordships' time this
evening. From what has passed even on the present oc-
casion, it is utterly impossible that I should not
be deeply impressed with all the difficulties of the
circumstances in which we are placed. Under these
difficulties, my consolation and support must be,
that the time has at last come, when the feel-
ings, and the motives, and the principles which
have governed the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers,
may be fairly explained ; and when an answer may
be made to imputations of conduct, which are as
far removed from our intention as they would
be at variance with the most sacred obligations,
both of our private and public duty.--(Hear, hear,
hear.) lam well aware of the feelings, the preju-
dices, the sensitive, and, in many respects, laudable
affections which must agitate men's minds on the mere
mention of any interference with the institutions of the
Established Church. I well know the dread with which
many sincere and conscientious men listen to any propo-
sals for changing what they have been accustomed
to regard as sacred. I do not blame those feelings,
or wish to shake them, for I know they arise
from a virtuous principle, and that, when duly controlled
by calm reason and comprehensive charity, they are salu-
tary. God forbid that I should do violence to them, or do
any thing that could shake them, for I would rather, on
the contrary, call them to my aid in the discussion of pro-
positions, which I will contend are propositions brought
forward with a sincere desire not to impair or weaken,
but, by averting the dangers with which it is threatened, to
strengthen, to increase, and to uphold the securities
of the established church. To this discussion I will en-
deavour to address myself in a temper suited to the suhj-ct,
and if any heat has already manifested itself in
the course cif this evening, I trust it will disappear, and
that we shall act under that sense of duty which the
Noble Duke (Newcastle) so emphatically recommended
to our consideration, and shall act firmly, shall hear
patiently, and shall examine calmly all the statements and
grounds on which this measure is proposed. We have beard
two rather singular propositions from two of the Noble
Dukes who sit on the opposite side of the House ; one of
them, addressing the Reverend Bench of Bishops, desires
them to shut their eyes to all consequences.—(Hear, hear.)
He had stated that the object of the Ministry was
to provide that security for the Church of Ireland
which the necessity of the times required. Did that
necessity exist? He would ask their Lordships to look
at the events that had been passing in that country
for the last few years—(Hear, hear, hear)—he
say within the last two months. Could any one look
at the passing events and say that nothing in
order
shape of amendment was necessary in*
" At
to work for ever the salvation of the whole fabricni.en
the beginning of the session the subject..wivaveee,otym,
in recommended
to your Lordships' consideration by bi
toj the English
adverting,
speech from the throne.
retiqieuinrleeaan,,choafngineaoiLflts,yin•-.
Your attention
his Majesty sin—
and Irish Church,
of the Church, more par.
will also be directed to the state .
regards its temporalities and tie maintenance
titularly as
The complaints which have aris,m from
might
e Clergy.
mg the established clergy in respectability and usefulness,
collection
f without tithes
diminishing appear
w
,t( :I_,ft,ent?ownie,

may prevent the collision of interests, and the consequent
disagreements and dissatisfaction which have too fre-
quently prevailed between the ministers of the church
and their parishioners. It may also be necessary for you
to consider what remedies may be applied for the correction
of acknowledged abuses, and whether the revenues of the
Church may not admit of a more equitable and judi-
cious distribution. In your deliberations on these
important subjects, it cannot be necessary for me
to impress upon you the duty of carefully attending
to the security of the Church established by law in
these realms, and to the true interests of religion." I hope
and trust your Lordships will enter into the consideration
of the subject in the spirit and with the salutary caution
recommended by his Majesty. 'With regard to the
Church of Ireland, his Majesty stated—" In relation to
Ireland, with a view of removing the causes of complaint
which had been so generally felt, and which had been at-
tended with such unfortunate consequences, an Act was
passed during the last session of Parliament for carrying
into effect a general composition for tithes. To complete
that salutary work, I recommend to you, in conjunction
with such other amendments of the law as may be found
applicable to that part of my dominions, the adoption
'of a measure by which, upon the principle of a just com-
mutation, the possessors of land may be enabled to free them-
selves from the burden of an annual payment." Now to
thatsubject Iwish to call your attention, because, from some-
thing which has fallen from some of your Lordships to.
night, it would appear as if this was considered a violation
of the Union of the Established Church of England and
Ireland. I acknowledge the union of the Established
Church of England and Ireland, and I consider that union
as sacred and inviolable ; but can it preclude the Legislature
from all interference in the distribution or arrangement of
the temporalities of the Church, or does it form an obstacle
to all improvement, however expedient that improvement
might be, nay, even if it were to be the salvatio❑ of the
Church of Ireland ? I say that the necessity which is
stated by his Majesty in the speech is sufficient to warrant
this interference. I have another authority in favour of
the necessity of something being done, and that the authority
of a person for whom I have the greatest respect, although I
have occasionally the misfortune to differ with him on im-
pot•tant points. [The Noble Lord then quoted a speech
of Sir R. Peel, i❑ which he admitted that the time was
'now come when it was necessary that the state of the
Church of Ireland should be taken into consideration,
not so much for• the purpose of conciliating parties,
as with the view of seeing if anything could be done
to add to the stability and security of the Church
itself. He was, therefore, prepared to enter into the
consideration of the question of pluralities and the other
abuses complained of, and he admitted that such was the
situation of his Majesty's Ministers that they could not
avoid the investigation.] My Lords, this is the authority
of a great politician sin the necessity of interference on the
part of the Government ; and, if necessary, I could cite
the authority of the highest personage in the church itself,
not only to make improvements, but even for sacrifices on
the part i f the Church in order to secure its stability.
Your Lordships will understand that this is the object of
the measure, that these are our views, and that, supported
by these authorities, to these views Ministers intend to
address themselves. The work we undertake is a neces-
sary one—one which cannot longer be delayed—one upon
which so many complaints have been made, and which at
length have assumed the tone of intimidation and menace.
I might add to this necessity, that your Lordships should
consider the divisions which hate lately taken place on the
several stages of the Bill in its prof;ress through the other
House. The first division I shall mention is on the
'econd reading of the Bill.—(Cries of Oh, oh," and
"Go on.") If any Noble Lord objects to my mentioning
these divisions, it would be better for him to get up and
state his objections.
The Earl of GUILFORD rose and said that that
House was not to be governed by the decision of the
House of Commons.

Earl GREY—The Noble Earl says that we should not
be. guided by what the other House has done. True, we
should not, and I am far from pretending that we should
be, hut I wish to mention those divisions in or der tri give
sour Lordships an idea of the general feeling with respect
Zo the present measure. I think cert,inly, however, that
we should respect the proceedings of the other House—
(Hear)—and that your Lordships should not disregard the
sense of that House, though it might be your duty to act
differently. What is done in the other House should make
your Lordships carefully weigh the measures passed and
approved of by that House. On the first division, then,
on the second reading of the Bill in the other House, the
Ayes were 187, the Noes 46, by which it will he seen that
the majority was more than 3 to 1. On the second read-
ing of the new Bill—for your Lordships are aware that the
first Bill was withdrawn on account of informality—the
Ayes were 317, the Noes '7B, being a majority in favour of
the Bill of more than 4 to 1. After the Bill went through
a Committee, the last general division that took place was
on the question that " the Bill do pass," when the Ayes
were 270, the Noes 94, being again a majority of more
than 3 to 1 ; though, on this occasion, many who
voted in favour of the Bill before, now voted against
it, as they did rot consider it went far enough.—
(llear, bear, hear.) Your Lordships will here see, then,
a case almost unexampled, of a Bill having passed
through the other House with, upon no occasion, a majo-
rity of less than 3 to 1 ; and, in one instance, with a ma-
jority of more than 4 to 1. Two other divisions took
place on clauses respecting the property of the Church. In
the first, the majority was S to I—the Ayes being 126,
the Noes 16. Jr. the last division, the Ayes were 177, the
Noes 86. These two divisions relate to clauses on church
property ; and your Lordships, with these facts before
you, will perceive that it is the intention of the other
House to preserve the property of the church inviolate. I
mention these proposals cf his Majesty's Government with
respect to the property of the church, and which have
been adopted by the other House, to show the sincere
spirit with which the other House is actuated towards the
Irish Church. Tile first great object we propose, is the
absolute removal of what presses meat heavily on the peo-
ple of Ireland. I mean the vestry cess—a matter which
has led, more than any other, to a spirit of insubordination
among the people of Ireland, not only against the institu-
tions of the State, but particularly against those of the
Church. Another improvement 1 shall have to state, re-
lates to the application of the vestry cess. We propose,
then, in the first place, abolishing the church cess ; in
the second place, augmenting the small livings ; and in
the third place, providing for the building and repair-
ing of the churches. That all these three are objects of
immense importance, particularly as regards the Irish
Church, I deem that not one of your Lordships will deny.
In the first place, then, it is proposed by the Bill to put
en end to the vestry cuss, the original object of which was,
as your Lordships must be aware, to provide for the
Church according to the provisions of the 47th of Geo.
111. Every person at all acquainted with Ireland must
feel that there was no greater grievance in that country
than the annual levy of church cuss. That it is a griev-
ance I can appeal to considerable authority, and I am also
supported by great authorities as to the necessity of re-
moving that impost, Even in a petition presented to your
Lordships the other night by a Right Rev. Prelate, and
signed by the Primate of Ireland, and otber Dignitaries of
that Church, though the _ petitioners object to certain
principles of the Bill, they do not object to that principle-
of it, which relates to the vestry cess. The petitioners
say, with respect to the vestry cess, that they will not
insist on retaining it, although they contend that it may
be considered as belonging to tt.e Church. However,
they say that if it appears to the wisdom of Parliament that
such an assessment contributes to sow the seeds of discon-
tent in Ireland, they do not object to abandon it. Here,
then, my Lords, I have an important assent to the prin
ciple of the pleasure which takes away church cess, with
the understanding of applying it to the revenues of
the Church. The petitioners go on to say, that
though the amount of the church cess is not great,
still it must he considered as a severe grievance, and
that it would be very difficult to retain it, if the other
provisions of the Bill should be put in practice. With
this sanction, then, I think I may call upon your Lordships,
and ask you if a strong necessity does not exist, to look to
this matter, to remedy a grievance on the people of In el :nd,
a grievance which has been long disputed—which has
been the source of many evils. I think I may ask you
whether it is not absolutely necessary to set it at rest ?
The purposes, let me state, to which the church cess is to
be directed, are purely Church purposes, and by our inten-
tions on this bead, I think we are relieving the Church of
Ireland from a serious danger, and doing justly by
ing part of this fund to the revenues of the Church.
That the levying of the cess has been of late years the
source not only of deep complaint in Ireland, but also of
N iolation of the laws and of various outrages, no one who
Las attended to passing events can for a moment doubts
The only question, then, that remains, is as to the wLy of
removing this church cess, and the way proposed has
been stigmatized by a Noble Duke as a measure of
spoliation for no other reason that 1 can see, except
because it relieves the people of Ireland from a tax
they have long complained of. The next object to
which the Bill applies itself is the augmentation of small
livings ; and I will ask your Lordships if this is riot an
object of immense importance to the Irish Church ? Is it
not a subject of just complaint that the revenues of the
Church should be unequally distributed—th at there should
be ems of it, members living in affluence for scarcely
doing any thing, whilst others, who have very laborious

duties to perform, are in great and trying pecuniary dais\
culties, and can hardly obtain a bare existence? This is
a reason why some of the best friends of the Church have
recommended that the church cess should be in part
applied to the augmentation of small livings. In the
last place, it is to be applied to the building and
repairing of churches, and to other subjects intimately
connected with the Church, which I think it not ne-
cessary for me to detail. My Lords, I shall now
call your attention to that which is more likely than
anything I have yet mentioned to cause con-
tention, and excite opposition—l mean the sale of perpe-
tuities, held by tenants under Bishops' leases. This has
been called an act of spoliation of the Church, but I
contend that it merits no such epithet. It takes nothing
from the Church, but, on the contrary, its revenues are
more fully secured by it. It appears to me quite clear,
that, with the remaining revenues, added to other sources
of profit, the Bishops in Ireland will still be amply pro-
vided for—amply recompensed for the duties they have to
perform—and amply enabled to maintain themselves in
that state of respect to which their rank entitles them.
This part of the measure I consider of vast importance
to the Church of Ireland. The Irish Bishops lose nothing
by it, and the Church will gain a great deal by the
proposed way of applying the funds derivable from the
sale of those leases. There will also be another important
advantage from this part of the measure—it will open a new
source of employment to that portion of the Irish popula-
tion who stand most in need of it. I know that these
leases have been regarded by some as good and as valuable
as absolute perpetuities ; but it seems to me, that the
difference between the two is most apparent. It is abso-
lutely proverbial in Ireland, that you may know, in passing
through that country—that one may know at the first
glance—which are the lands that are held under Bishops'
leases. I think this bad state of cultivation a very strong
proof that those leases are not regarded in the light of
perpetuities, since the tenants do not appear to have the
same inducement to lay out money on such lands, as they
have where they have a freehold interest in them. I
therefore think this part of the measure a boon
for several reasons. It will do good to the Church—
it will soften down its enemies—it will be a great source
of advantage to the community at large, inasmuch
as it will advance agriculture, and give employment to an
active population ; the want of which employment, as it
has been over and over again repeated, is the chief cause
of the manifold evils so long and so loudly complained of.
I know that it will he objected that this is an alienation of
church property. That is true ; hut let it be recollected
that the funds are to be strictly applied to church pur-
poses. I beg to state, while lam on this part of the sub-
ject, that in no alteration that has been made in the Bill
has its original principles been sacrificed. We consented
to the alterations that have been made because they did
not affect principles which never formed part of the mea-
sure. lam not one to assert abstract principles uselessly,
and, therefore, I took care that church property should not
be applied to any other purposes save to those of the church.
The time, however, may come when we shall be called
upon to legislate upon this point ; and when that time
shall come, I do not doubt but both Houses of Parlia-
ment will decide wisely upon the matter ; but until that
time comes, I see no use whatever of introducing a discus-
sion upon it. lam anxious to state this to remove cer-
tain apprehensions. lam anxious to state that no such
principle was ever intended to be introduced into the Bill,
but the very reverse. In fine, the point was clearly re-
served for future consideration. I, therefore, my Lords,
confidently state, that by alienating church property in
this manner, no wrong, no injustice has been done to the
church. I can quote an example of an alienation of this
description sanctioned by your Lordships. Two years aeo a
Bill passed this House, especially sanctioned by the Right
Rev. Bench. It related to the Chapter of Durham, part
of which was sold for the purposes of establishing a
University. The object of that disposal of church
property was great and useful, and I fully subscribe to the
benevolent spirit displayed by the Right Rev. Bench upon
the occasion. I state this to show, that without any vio-
lation of the coronation oath, the property of the Church
may be dealt with, and applied to useful purposes—to a
good system of education, as in the present instance. I
therefore think that we are sanctioned by precedent to
apply the same principle to the property of the Church,
and that we are strictly warranted in applying that pro•
perty to good and beneficial objects. I again repeat, that
this alteration with respect to Church property will be of
great advantage to the Church, and also to the commu-
nity at large. To the next point that I am going to
allude, I am afraid, from what I have heard, that there
will be more objection than to any other part of the Bill—
I mean the reduction of Bishops It is proposed by the
Bill to unite certain sees with other bishoprics ; by which
means the number of Bishops in Ireland, which are now
22, will be reduced to 12. My Lords, I think there is
nothing to prevent this reduction, provided it be found
useful ; and it is with a view to its expediency that we
propose it. I say expediency—that word which a Noble
Duke abominates, and which he says should never on any
occasion be attended to or considered. However, I main.
tain that there is no principle—no usage—to prevent the
adoption of this part of the measure, provided it be found
expedient ; and consequently all we have to consider is,
whether its adoption will be advantageous to the general
good. The number of Bishops in Ireland was never uni-
form ; at times there were so many as 32, and at times
the number was lower than it is at present. My
Lords, I find that the precise number of bishoprics
now is 22, and that these consist of several unions of
sees made at different times. Further, my Lords, I
think that were it not for the Act of Union, these unions
of sees might be done without reference to Parliament. I
find these unions of sees made at different times, under
different circumstances, and in different ways. I find two
sees—those of Cashel and Emly—united by Act of Par-
liament in the 11tb year of Queen Elizabeth. The statute
is a private one, and not upon record. The next union is
that of Meath and Clonmacnoise, which took place in the
11th year of the same reign, also by Parliamentary autho-
rity. The union of Down and Connaught took place
under the authority of Pope Eugene the Fourth. Water-
ford and Lismore were united in 1633 by Pope Urban the
Sixth, and the union was confirmed by King ES ward the
Third. Cork and Ross were united in 1678 ; Limerick
and Ardfert in 1660, and have since held together.
Killala and Achonry were united in 1607, and Tuam and
Ardagh have held together since 174.5. It therefore ap-
pears that Sovereigns possessed the power of uniting by
commendtzm, sees, the duties of which could be conve-
niently discharged by one Bishop—that it was done inde-
pendently of Parliament. Therefore it appears to me that
the present sees proposed to be united may be united in the
same way. I call the attention of your Lordships to this
point, to show tbat we are warranted by precedent for
what we are about to do—that we are doing nothing in-
consistent with the laws—and that if we can prove the
expediency of the measure, we may hope for your Lord-
ships' consent. I said that the Bishops were at one time
thirty-two, and at another period they were lower than
they are at present. In the time of James the First, the
number was eighteen—four Archbishops and fourteen
Bishops ; that is to say, on the whole, four less than the
present number. This, my Lords, is a singular fact,
and when such is the case, it is rather strange that we
should be so gravely accused of reducing the number of
bishoprics. We propose uniting the same sees, or nearly
so, that were formerly united. We mean to unite Kil-
more with Ardagh, which sees held together from 1603
to 1692. It was not until 1745, that the latter held by
Tuam. This is the first union recommended by the pre-
sent Bill. It is further proposed by this measure, that
the dioceses of Cloyne, Cork, and Roes should be united, as
they had been, at a former period, for upwards of forty
years. Derry anti Raphoe, it is also proposed, should in
future be united ; and they, too, for a long time, were ad-
ministered by one Bishop ; as were Down, Connor, and
Dromore, which, under this Bill, it is proposed to unite.
Waterford and Lismore, which at present are, as well as
Cashel and Emly, likewise now administered by one Bi-
shop, are to form for the future but one bishopric. It
appears, then, from the statement laid before your Lord-
ships, that of the ten bishoprics proposed to be dispensed
with, five had, in times past, been united, and that
without any infraction of the rights of property, and with-
out any interference with the privileges of the Church,
beyond those regulations which were required for appoint-
ing the manner in which those several bishoprics should
in future be held. To this part of the subject I confess I
feel no small difficulty in addressing myself, before I bear
what arguments can be advanced against the provision—
before I hear name sound objection to the reduction of the
number of bishoprics, and that consolidation of some of
them which is now proposed. On the question, can ten
Bishops be spared from the Hierarchy of Ireland, in the
manner proposed, without detriment to the interests of
the church, and consistenly with the spiritual welfare of
the persons committed to their charge—on that question I
will now, with your Lordships' perrnision, say a few
words. Let us for a moment institute a comparison be-
tween the state of the Established Church in this part of
the United Kingdom and in that. In England we have
26 Archbishops and Bishops, that is, two Archbishops
and 21, Bishops. What is the total number of benefices
in England ? 10,533.
One of the BlSHOPS—Eleven thousand.

Earl GREY—It has been supplied to me as 10,000;
but I have no doubt that the Right Rev. Prelate is per-
ectly right, and I will take it as 11,533. Now if we look
at the mere superficial extent of the two countries, and

compare them, we shall find that a most marked disparity
prevails—a disparity to which it would be quite needless
for me more particularly to direct the attention of your
Lordships. It must be, then, universally admitted, that
22 Bishops for Ireland and only 26 for England place the
numbers out of all proportion ; but if we look at the po-
pulation of the two countries, how much greater must the
disparity be considered ? The population of England at
the present moment must be considered to be somewhere
about 12,000,000 ; and not long since 1 heard a Right
Rev. Prelate estimate the numbers in communion with the
Established Church as about two thirds of the whole po-
pulation of the country.
The Bishop of LONDON was understood to say, that
the numbers were greater of those in communion with the
Established Church than they had been stated by the
Noble Earl.

Earl GREY—Be it so; but I am well satisfied to
have understated the amount, and I will abide by the
understatement. Well, then, taking the souls under the
care of the English Bishops to amount to two-thirds of
the whole population, we have 8,000,000 for then)
in this country. How stands the matter in Ireland ? We
have there by the last census, that of 1831, a population
of 7,784,000. It is universally admitted that out of that
number there are only 1,000,000 belonging t o the Esta-
blished Church, and thus we have 22 Bishops in the care
of 1,000,000, and 26 to 8,000,000 ; here then is a dis-
parity vastly greater than that which exists between the
superficial extents of the two countries. How stands
the matter, then, as respects the benefices? In Ireland
the number is 1426, and owing to unions, the actual
number is considerably less. To return for a mo-
ment to the proportions subsisting between the
Bishops and the population confided to their charge,
we find that upon an average there are in England
307,000 persons to each Bishop, and in Ireland only
45,556. I never heard it for a moment insinuated that the
duties of the Bishops in England were not well and ef-
fectively discharged. By the new arrangement which
we have proposed, it will happen that only 83,000 per-
sons will in Ireland be confided to the care of one
Bishop, which will not be equal to one-fourth of the
number given in charge to an English Bishop. There
have not been wanting those who contended that the
whole number of the Bishops now placed over sees in
Ireland were absolutely necessary to the security and the
well• being of the Church in that country. To any mind
not biassed by very strong feeling upon the subject, that
must appear the most preposterous argument that ever
was uttered. What would their Lordships say to this
startling fact, that in order to place under the care of
an Irish Bishop, an equal number with those en an
average under the care of the English Bishops, you must
reduce the number of the Irish Bishops to four. I be-
lieve that if they %vete actually reduced to four, the
numbers of the members of the Church establishment
confided to their care, would, upon an average, be even
still smaller. Am I, therefore, to be understood as the
advocate of that further reduction? On the contrary, I
would recommend that the number of Irish Bishops
should still remain considerable; and I regard it as large
indeed, when fixed at the number appointed by the Bill.
Whether we regard this question, then, as relating to the
number of members of the Church in Ireland, or to the
number of benefices, we must still say that the utmost
disparity exists, and that if England be well provided for as
to the number of her Bishops, Ireland must be looked upon
as far better provided in reference to the number of her
Bishops. Upon the grounds, then, that I have stated to your
Lordships, I do not see how it would have been possible for
us to assign to Ireland a larger number under this Bill than
twelve Bishops. Attention has more than once been called
to the exceedingly small number of benefices in Ireland, over
which the Bishops in that country have to preside, and to
the fact that one English Bishop performs the duties of a
see which contains nearly as many benefices as the whole
of that country, which has hitherto had 22 Bishops.
If we subtract from the number of Irish benefices
those which have no cure of souls, we shall find that
the reduced number does not amount to more than
thirty beyond that which might be found in a single
English diocese. The reduced number of Irish benefices
is somewhere about 1,300, the number in the diocese of
Lincoln is 1,273, leaving a difference in favour of the
whole of that country, as compared with a single Eng-
lish diocese, of about thirty. I am far from saying that
the English sees are upon the best possible footing,
though I confess I never heard any complaint of neglect of
duty on the part of the English Bishops, but the contrary ;
will, I cannot help thinking that the labour imposed upon
those Right Reverend Prelates would be more equally
divided, and the utility of that labour more widely ex-
tended, if some unions, and some separations were to take
place amongst the English sees. Upon the several
grounds which I have already laid before your Lordships,
as well as upon abstract principles, I, with the most
perfect confidence, take upon myself to affirm that it is
inexpedient any longer to maintain functionaries, when the
utility of their continued existence is not apparent as con-
ducing to the interests of the church, or promoting the
objects of religion. I should, I can very sincerely assure
your Lordships, be the last man in this House, or in the
country, to recommend any measure tending to impair the
usefulness or diminish the respect of the church in the
eyes of the population of either country ; on the contrary,
it would be my earnest desire, now, and at all times, to
extend the sphere of that usefulness, and to maintain
that respect to its fullest extent. Your Lordships
will see by the Bill now laid before you, that we pro.
pose not to bring down the incomes of the Bishops below
4,000/. a year. I frankly acknowledge I am not of the num-
ber of those who would desire to see those incomes brought
to a lower point ; but, down to that, I am sure the House
will agree with me that they ought to be reduced. I will
now come to the much-disputed question of the tax upon
future incumbents. That is a point which has occasioned
a great sensation ; and upon that particular part of the
measure the charge of spoliation has been chiefly urged.
In the first place, I would desire the House to consider
whether or net it be competent to the Legislature to en-
tertain the question of dealing with church property, and
of applying the revenues to other purposes. No propo-
sition has been more frequently stated than that of maxing
a change in the distribution of the revenues of the church.
I do not say that the property of the church should or
could, with advantage or even with safety, be diverted
from objects unconnected with religion, morals, and edu-
cation ; but a diversion for purposes of that nature has
very often indeed been contemplated by men who cannot
be considered otherwise than amongst the best friends of
the church ; but this rule in all its strictness has not been
understood to apply to the taxes levied on the people fur
the support of certain parts of the church establishment.
In the year 1831, there was a meeting of the clergy of
one of the Irish dioceses, for the purpose of considering
the expediency of petitioning Parliament to abolish vestry
cess, and providing for the charges usually defrayed out
of that cess by means of funds derived from other sources
of church revenue, and there was at the same time a pro-
position very generally entertained amongst the friends of
the Established Church in Ireland, having for its object a
new valuation of the church lands. Here then we have
a direct proposition from the clergy themselves for the im-
position of a tax upon the property of the church ; and
this, be it observed, was a proposition made by persons,
the most remote of all others from any imputation of i
hostility to the church, and still less could they be supposed
capable of sanctioning any scheme of spoliation. Since
the period to which I have been alluding, and long before,
there have been, as must be known to most of your Lord-
ships, several proposals for an improved system of education
in Ireland ; but even at a very remote period, provision
was made for securing the means of promoting that edu-
cation throughout the several parishes of that country.
The 28th of Henry VIII. provides that every clergyman
having a benefice itklreland shall keep, or cause to be kept,
in his parish, a school for the education of the children
of his parish in the English language, and in the prin-
ciples of the Protestant religion, taking the accustomed
stipend for so keeping and maintaing such school. From
that time forward, every clergyman, on his induction to
any benefice, took an oath that he would so maintain
such school as prescribed by the Act of Henry VIII.,
to which I have already referred. Let us now see
how this has been complied with. The regulations
under which the business of education Was carried on
throughout Ireland, or rather, I should say, in
those parishes where there was any education at all
—in those parishes the beneficed clergy allowed 40s.
la year towards the payment of a teacher where the in-
come of the living was under 2001. a year—where it ex-
ceeded that sum, Si., and 6d. in the pound fora beyond
300/. a year. The House cannot have forgotten the
appointment and the labours of the well known Educa-
tion Committee appointed some years ago, which in-
cluded within its numbers the Archbishop of Cashel, the
Bishop of Kildare, Dr. E br!ngton (afterwards Bishop of
Limerick), and Mr. Leslie I.o.ter (now one of the Barons
of the Court of Exehequer in Ireland). That Commis-
sion recommended that the expense of maintaining the
parochial schools should be defrayed from a fund created
out of a per centage of two per cent, payable from the in.
comes of the beneficed clergy. Now if such men
deemed a diversion of the revenues of the Church for the
purposes of education right and fitting, there can be no
pretext for saying that any similar proposition could
amountto spoliation.
to spo l spoliation, i o orw ini ntoht; remotesti
id degree
attention of
ee approach-
ing
your Lordships to a few particulars, tending to show the
way in which the clergy of the Established Church in

Ireland observed the oaths which they took in reference
to the subject of parochial education. From the report
of those Commissioners, it appears that out of 1,120
parishes there were 837 returned as having no schools—
that, in point of fact, there were only 361 schools in that
number of parishes ; at another period, it appears that
there were 549 schools out of 736 ; that 11,000
children a t one time received education, and at another
23,000. Now I will beg the House to remember the
oath that these beneficed clergymen took, and to say
how they have kept it.—(Hear, hear.) The late
Archbishop of Dublin was examined before a Com-
mittee on the subject of the proposed tax upon the
incomes of the clergy, for the purpose of defraying the
expenses of parochial education ; and I now hold in my
hand an extract from his evidence, in which the state-
ment is made to him of the proposed impost of 2 per cent.
for that purpose ; and the question is put to him, " Does
your Grace concur in that ?" when most explicitly he
answers " I do." Fortified by such authorities as these,
I would fearlessly ask, have I proposed a Bill of spolia-
tion? The tax upon induction, payable as it is by instal-
ments, amounts in principle to the same thing—it was a
tax, as your Lordships know, originally impose I upon
the clergy by the Popes of Rome, not for any ecclesiasti-
cal purposes, but to maintain the temporal authority of
the Papacy. Now surely, if it were justifiable to divert
the revenues of the Church for purposes exclusively tem-
poral, those which were every where recognised as con-
nected with religion ought not to be considered as unfit
objects upon which to expend such surplus funds as the
property of the Church could be made capable of supply.
tog. After the Reformation, those first fruits were
transferred to the Crown, and were by Blackstone consi-
dered as forming part of the revenues of the Crown till
the time of Queen Anne, when a special arrangement
was made with respect to them. These revenues, as the
House knows, were used by the Popes for temporal
purposes, and were transferred to the King as bead of the
Church, and by the Crown were used for temporal pur-
poses till the beginning of the last century. Are we then
going too far in proposing that they be continued to pur-
poses closely connected with religion? The Noble Duke,
however, calls this spoliation, and yet he supported
frequently in the House of Commons motions made
by one, for whose integrity and public virtue we all
entertain the highest respect, and for whose services,
as a public man, the country can ❑ever be too grate-
ful—l mean Sir John Newport—motions, which had
this special object in view, namely, the application
of the first fruits. There is another question to
which I would now solicit your Lordships' attention,
namely, that of the expediency of setting on font a
new valuation of the benefices in Ireland. In the reigns
of Henry VIII., James I. and Charles H., valuations
were made of the livings in Ireland, with a view to
the collection of the first fruits, and at the time when my
Noble Friend behind the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was
Attorneys General, and the present Chief Baron of the
Court of Exchequer in Ireland filled the office of Solici-
tor-General, a dispute arose with an individual clergy-
man respecting the right of the board of first fruits to a
new valuation, and the opinion of the two law-officers
of the Crown of that period was decidedly in favour of a
new valuation. Recently the subject has been revived,
and the opinions taken of the present Attorney and So-
licitor-General for Ireland, and of another Learned Gen-
tleman; they gave a decision opposed to the issue of a
Commission for a new valuation. None of the three,
however, stated that there could not be a valuation of
livings not yet valued. Now the number of unvalued
livings was greater than that of the valued livings; and
if this plan were adopted, the effect must be to
produce a great irregularity of taxation of the clergy of
Ireland, for these formerly valued in the reign of Charles
I. would of course pay, upon the old valuation, much less
than those who would be assessed under the new valua-
tion. In England the valuation was not of so recent a
date ; but in Ireland they were continued from the reign
of Henry VIII. to that of James I. and Charles I. Such
high legal authority I do not pretend to controvert; and
it will be enough to say, on the present occasion, that the
point is still in contest, and that it would be highly to
the advantage of the church to have it speedily and finally
settled. One position, I apprehend, no lawyer of this
country or of Ireland will dispute—that though it may
not be in the power of the Crown to issue a Commission
for a new valuation (which, however, I do not concede),
yet that Parliament has an unquestionable right, if it
thinks fit, to pass an Act for a new valuation, and, when
this is done, that the clergy would have no right to
complain ; they might, indeed, consider it a hardship,
but a new valuation by statute could not be looked upon
by them as an act of injustice. Therefore, although
livings have been valued, they may be re-valued, and in
that case the produce would not, perhaps, be much
greater than by a graduated taxation, while the money
would he obtained in a manner much more inconvenient,
inasmuch as it must be paid by instalments within four
years, instead of spreading the amount over the whole
time. Without any violation of the rights on which
property rests, and without danger of establishing an evil
precedent, this tax may be imposed in order to relieve
the church from dangerous discontents, while the addi-
tional burden to be placed upon it will not be greater than
that which Parliament might impose by a revaluation
and an exaction of first fruits. Although I am aware
that I have trespassed on the patience of your Lordships
already, as I am anxious to leave no part of the subject
unexplained, as far as it is in my power to explain it, it
may not be inexpedient for me to state briefly—first, the
objects of the measure, and then the means by which these
objects are to be effected. The objects are—

1. The Abolition of the Church Cess.
2. The Augmentation of Small Livings.
3. The Building of Churches and Glebe-houses.
The means are—

I. The Sale of the Perpetuity of Bishops' Leases.
2. The Revenues of the Consolidated Bishoprics.
3. The tax on future incumbents.
The Church cess is applicable, according to the Act, to the
payment of the salaries of the clerk and sexton—to the
purchase and preservation of Bibles, registers, surplices,
8,., plates and cups for the Communion table, repairs,
bells, and a number of other items, which no man will
deny are strictly church objects. The amount of this
cess is about 63,2411., deducting, however, 13,3261. for
the debt contracted with the Board of First Fruits, we take
it at 60,0001. There will be 465 livings to be augmented,
since it appears by the return that that number are of less
value than 2001. a year, and the average charge for raising
them to that sum will be 46,0001. The building of
churches and glebe-houses has been taken at 30,0001. on
an average of three years. Your Lordships are, doubtless,
aware that there is a great deficiency of glebe-houses in
some parts of Ireland, and upon this head there may be
some exceeding of expense. The account then will stand
thus--
Church Cess £60,000
Augmentation of Livings 46,000
Building of Churches and Glebe-houses 30,000
-X136,0C1)
1 0 this sum is to be added the expense of the commission,
which is not precisely known..—[The Noble Earl then
st ited the mode in which these expenses were to be met,
but in so low a tone, as he read from a paper at the
table, that we could only catch the sums of 50,708/. to be
derived front consolidated bishoprics ; 4,600/. to be paid
as a tax by the remaining bishops ; and 41,000/. to be
obtained by a tax on incumbents.]—l therefore hope that
your Lordships will think that the objects in view will
be eminently conducive to the welfare and interests of the
Church, and that the means of attaining those objects are
as little liable to objection as it was possible to make
them. We hope, too, that the remedy will be quite suffi-
cient to meet the pressing exigency of the case ; but if
more be found necessary, I shall be ready to resort to
Parliament for more. I may farther say, that neither
the objects nor the means can be said to be a violation of
the rights of the property of the Church. Let it be recol-
lected, too, that the tax will not fall on so many as half
the benefices of Ireland, for all those under 3001. a year
are exempted from the payment of it. Only 694 out
456 livings will be subject to it. The tendency of
of
who are,
the l,
perhaps, measure
i stopaid m
reduce ao little
thant tlet the
is necessary,e emoluments
whileof i
those t
gives assistance to the inferior clergy, whose toils are
as unremitted as they are beneficial. On these grounds
Ministers venture to propose the measure on the table
—not invading the rights of the Church, but relieving
it from a tag applicable to church purposes, which
cannot be levied without exciting that discontent which
has so long and so injuriously prevailed. How can it be
otherwise? It is a tax proposed by an exclusively Pro-
testant vestry, upon a population, in most cases, exclu-
sively Catholic.—(Cheers.) It is not a tax to which
from its frequency in the year men are accustomed ; but
it is levied only on Easter Monday, and it is the constant
source of yearly irritation. I ask, then, whether by this
change you will not relieve the Church from a danger of
no light moment, and the extent of which is admitted by
many persons of the highest authority in the Church. I
repeat that I offer it to your Lordships, not as a measure
of spoliation or injustice, but, if I may use the expres-
sion,insinacelorewly
toneand
anxiously intended by Ministers as a remedy for acknow-
as one
.....e.(milineeinr t.)ly c(oTnhseerNvaotbiviee,Eaatnld,
:here s
briefly adverted to a point suggested by
illlenborough across the table: it respected 144
oibLeefdonvrgedoefidicceeEes, in which, according to the return, service had
not been performed during three years, and which, there-
fore, came within the 117th Clause of the Bill. He
contended, that instead of some hundreds, as stated in

petitions, only 66 would be brought under the authority
of the Commissioners, and go to the reneral fund ; and
that it could never be argued for a moment that any of
these ought to be perfect sinecures. His Lordship then
proceeded.) I have heard many complaints against the
constitution of the Board of Commissioners, and among
other things it has been said that there is a majority of
laymen. Now, who are the Commissioners ? The Pri-
mate of Ireland, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord
Chief Justice, the Archbishop of Dublin, four Bishops, and
three persons to be appointed by the Crown. Even these three
persons are not necessarily to be laymen, and those who
must revile us, and who assert that we are recommending
to the King a violation of the coronation oath, would not
impute that we would suggest the appointment of persons
who would abuse the powers intrusted to them. There-
fore, this danger seems merely imaginary; nor are the
Commissioners to have the irresponsible control of the
funds, general or particular, which will be applied to the
payment of the church cess—to the augmentation of small
livings—and to the building of churches and glebe-houses.
I own that it is beyond nay powers of imagination to con•
ceive anything in all this really dangerous to the interests
of the church. When the plan comes to be fairly ex-
amined, I trust that this and other subjects, on which
attempts have been made to raise a clamour against the
present Administration, will not be found to merit the
reproach that has been heaped upon them. Ido not know
whether there are other details necessary to be stated ;
but if I have omitted anything, I trust that the courtesy
of your Lordships will allow me to mention it in reply.
The purpose of the measure is to strengthen and secure
the Established Church ; upon that principle his Ma-
jesty's Government have considered it. It has been
said elsewhere, that the Bill is a violation of the co-
reflation oath. Ido not apprehend that that point will
be urged by any of your Lordships to night ; but if it be, I
shall be prepared to answer it. I shall not, however,
think it necessary, fatigued as I am myself, and fatigued
as your Lordships must be—(Cheers)—to anticipate ob•
jections of this kind. I shall only say, that this measure
has been brought forward upon the principles his Ma-
jesty's present Ministers avowed when they came into
office, and to which they have zealously and conscientiously
adhered.—( Hear.) It was said by a Noble E trl on a
former night, that he saw in this measure the symptom
and consequence of that policy which had been acted
upon on another occasion—alluding, as I presume, to the
question of Parliamentary Reform. The principles on
which that measure was proposed are well known—they
were professed by the present servants of the Crown when
they took the reins of Government. They came into
power under the strong impression, or rather under the
decided conviction, of the necessity of carrying reform
into execution—a necessity which, I believed, was felt
and acknowledged by all, though many might and did
disapprove of the extent to which reform was carried.
The necessity of some reform was felt and acknowledged
by almost everybody in the country, with the excep•
tion of the Noble Duke opposite.—(Cheers.) Looking
to the n tture of the question itself, we thought that,
if carried, it was eminently calculated to promote the
liberties of the country, and to secure the best interests of
the constitution. It was taken up on a deliberate view of
the circumstances of the times, and the necessity of meeting
the opinion which universally prevailed, and of restoring
the confidence of the people to a Legislature which had
become an object of distrust and suspicion.—(Cheers.)
Acting upon the same policy, we did not contemplate that
measure as the limit of of our reform.—(Cheers from
the Opposition benches.) We looked upon it rather as
the means to an end, and we thought that any man must
be mad who considered it in any other light than that
Parliamentary Reform having been carried, it would be
necessary to adopt other reforms, in order to give sa-
tisfaction to the country, and security to the Monarchy.--
(Cheers.) In that spirit we have acted—that has been
our policy, although it has been imputed to us by the No-
ble Duke as dangerous. I do not deny the sincerity of
that opinion, but I deny its soundness and its wisdom.
We had come to a situation in which one of the two
principles of Government must prevail. We must either
take the bold, hazardous, and as I think, fatal determina-
tion of suppressing all desire for reform by severe coercive
measures, or we must comply with the spirit and feeling
of the times, and endeavour to correct those abuses which
had crept into the constitution, and into the various
institutions of the country. The first was a line of policy
which every Government ought to repudiate, and we never
could be parties to a system which must lead in the first
instance to the establishment of another " Holy Alliance,"
to extinguish the spirit of liberty throughout Europe.—
(Cheers.) It would be a vain and futile attempt, ending
in a war of opinion, and perhaps, for a time, the de-
struction of the liberty and independence for the main-
tenance of which this country has made so many
sacrifices.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The other alterna-
tive, therefore, only was left us ; and we have endea-
voured to bring forward those measures of reform which
have been submitted to your Lordships, and to the
other House of Parliament, strictly, I repeat upon Con-
servative principles—wishing to strengthen the executive
against the attacks of its enemies, and to secure the con-
fidence of its friends—to remove what even its friends
deplored, and to oppose those wild and extravagant pro-
jects-which, while they promised peace and freedom,
would end in despotism or anarchy. This is the line of
policy we have adopted ; we have pursued a straight and
steady course, and having only the permanent good of our
country at heart, we have thrown ourselves with confi-
dence on the generosity of our countrymen.—(Much
cheering.) We have reformed, where we thought reform
necessary ; and we have exerted the powers of the law,
and the extraordinary powers of Parliament intrusted to
us, to suppress a spirit of insubordination and violence,
and to protect the constitution from the attacks directed
against it. Upon that principle we rest the measure of
tonight; the Noble Duke has a right to say that it is a
necessary consequence of our policy; it is part and parcel
of our system, for the adoption of which the present
Ministry came into office, and from which, as long as
his Majesty honours them with his confidence, they will
never depart.—(Cheers from all sides.) We feel our-
selves bound in honour, in duty, and in conscience,
from a sincere conviction of its propriety, to persevere
in our course; and on this ground we introduce the
Bill upon the table. But I feel it more strongly in
reference to the immediate question of Ireland, in conse-
quence of the necessity—the unfortunate necessity—
under which we found ourselves at the beginning of this
Session, of proposing a law, which we did not conceal from
ourselves or from the public, was a measure of extreme
severity—a departure from the spirit of the Constitution,
only, to be justified in a case of extremity. Give me leave
to add, that I never would have proposed it, unless I had
intended to remove those causes of complaint and grounds
of d4turbance which rendered the coercive law necessary.
—(glieers.) God forbid, my Lords, that that law should
become permanent, since its continuance can only be ren-
dered expedient by the continuance of evils which ought
to be remedied in the interval of tranquillity which it
affords. I remember that, on a former occasion, a Noble
Lord opposite alluded to the policy formerly pursued with
regard to Ireland ; he complained, and justly, of the alter-
nation of severity and relaxation ; such, lamentably, has
been the fact; while harsh and unconstitutional measures
were adopted, the causes of complaint were allowed to re-
main ; they were suffered to grow to a great height with-
out any attempt at eradication. Under this accumulation
of evil we have been called upon to act. We cannot be
responsible for the rnisconduct_and neglect of former Go-
vernments ; and all we have attempted is the removal of
the causes of disturbance and discontent. It is, therefore,
our imperious and paramount duty, in the interval of peace
afforded by the coercive and protecting measure, to
make use of that tranquillity to remedy existing abuses,
which, if not removed, as certainly as day succeeds
to night, will reproduce the evils under which Ire-
land at present labours.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
We are anxious to avoid the alternation of severe
and lax policy resorted to as occasion seemed to
require, because there was no disposition to resort
to any effectu +I and general reform. We have been sub-
jected to much obloquy—and in Ireland, where the people
have i
been misguided and misinformed, we can hardly be
surprised at t ; but we have been reproached here also for
our measures, though I am conscious that, sooner or later,
justice will be done not only to the intentions of Ministers,
but to their measures of reform, brought forward under
difficulties to which, I believe, no former Government
was ever exposed.—(Cheers from all parts of the House.)
The effect of the coercive law in Ireland has been ironic
diate—it has produced peace and tranquillity there : only
a single proclamation has been issued under it, and not a
single courtmartial has been assembled. We brought it
forward with great reluctance, and only from a sense of
duty arising out of au imperious and inevitable necessity.
I have now only to thank your Lordships for the patience
with which you have heard me.--(Cheers.) I trust I
have explained our motives and objects clearly, and with-
out using any expressions that can provoke a feeling of
hitthoishstaiislcoitby. peoenrtaA o
my
ytuch oppassitn
ii;deledar.nit pisrepard toeemydeuty, zdtiselu
discuss
question with calmness, and I hope to wit-
ness among your Lordships that degree of forbearance
which ought to belong to a deliberative assembly. Havine
said this, I will not trespass farther upon the attention of
the House ; but humbly move that this Biblhe read a se-
cond time.

The Earl of RODEN would ground his objections to
this measure ou the objections which had beep made by so

many individuals, by the medium of the numerous
tions he had presented on the subject. First of all
objectionable points, there was the imposition of a tax
the clergy for the benefit of the laity ; a tax most Unil
most unprincipled, and in support of which no tensb
argument bad been brought forward. The next was d
destruction of the ten Protestant bishoprics ; an outrsl
for which the Noble Earl had only alleged one pretend'
that of expediency. The next and most important featlrt
in this most objectionable measure, was, the appointut
of a Lay Commission, empowered to regulate not only t°
temporal but the spiritual affairs of the church—(Heef'
hear, from the Opposition)—with the arbitrary pose°,
too, of suspending the appointment of any minister is
parish, in which it may appear that service had not bee:
performed for three years. These were the principal poll"
in a measure which he could not but consider as t°
greatest question—the question involving more interest
and more perils than any question, save one, which be
ever come before that House since he had been a Menthe
of it. The consequences of the measure, if allowed to 130
would most fearfully involve the safety and character of tbt
nation ; and he trusted that these direful results would be,
narrowly considered by the House, before they consent
to the motion of the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl, o°,,
former occasions, in stating his grounds for proposing tl°
reduction of the Protestant Establishment, had, for buS'
self and his colleagues, assured the House that Government
would never lose sight of the safety and advancement of tli°,
Protestant Establishment. He (Lord R.) thought it wool'
require something more than the assurance of the No°
Earl, and the logic of his Majesty's Ministers in general'
to convince the moral and religious part of the communio
that they were in any way actuated by any desire to pre'
tect and advance the interests of the Church, when tbel
were seen to bring themselves to propose such a measure,
as this. They called it a measure of Church Reform, boS
it in no way tended to make any beneficial alterations in the
discipline of the Church, or anything of that sort, which',
was the only point to which a reforming hand might wile
propriety he directed. He could not but express his coo'
viction now, as he had done before on several occasion'',
than an atrocious conspiracy bad for some time past bete,
going on against the Protestant Establishment--(Hela::
hear)—he had become more and more convinced that OP
opinion was well-founded, and he would state to the Houle
some of the grounds on which he went. He held in hie
hand a communication from a correspondent of the Noble
Earl's on a former occasion as to the late system of educr
tion in Ireland—whether he had been a correspondent 0
this occasion he (Lord Roden) was not prepared to sat'
This correspondent was the Catholic Bishop of Maronisl
who had been examined before a Committee of tees`'
Lordships in 1828, when the great measure of Catholle'
Emancipation was in progress.—(Hear, hear.) At thal,
time, 1828, th;e Reverend Prelate declared, that ,
the boon of emancipation were given, the Catholle
clergy and people of Ireland would live in perfect
amity with their Protestant clergy and people there'
Yet in the letter alluded to, written in 1831, the same
Rev. Prelate, in his letter to the Noble Earl, says " tb‘i
the people of Ireland, leaving to England her fevouriee
form of worship, would not fail universally to pour ill,
petitions for the total repeal of the Church Establishmeo,
of Ireland." The Rev. Prelate goes on to demand ths/'
tithes and the scriptural education in Ireland should
done away with, " so as altogether to put an end to tbi
last remnants of intolerance and tyranny, for that will's,
they remained, religious freedom was but a name." Tye
letter concludes by heaps of abuse and insult on the Bisbor,
and clergy of the Established Church ; yet this was thil
same Prelate who, in 1828, as he before said, had declared;
that Catholic Emancipation once carried, the Catholics 0
Ireland would look upon the clergy and members of tK
Protestant establishment as brethren. Having obtain'
the boon, however, in 1831 he calls for the downfall 0,.1
the Irish Bishops, and requires " that the money, of while"'
these Bishops bad so long robbed the poor, may now be.'
returned to its legitimate channel." Let their Lordsb'l'
now attend earnestly to the extraordinary coincidence be
was about to lay before them. The first demand of Ole
Catholic Bishop was, that tithes should be extinguished'„
Tithes were extinguished.—(Hear.) The next deroso°l
was, that scriptural education should be done away will''
,1
Scriptural education was done away with. The tbire,,
demand was, the destruction of the Church Establishmeatlrl
and their Lordships must see that the present Bill was
concurrence with this demand. In point of fact, the vel
same means which were pointed out by the Revere'
Prelate for the prosecution of this object, were those,.
adopted by the Noble Earl ; and the measure of the Noble
E rrl would infallibly produce the result desired by thst
Reverend Prelate—the destruction of the Protests!)
Establishment. Their first aim was the abolition of O
Protestant bishoprics; let their Lordships remember ths'.
these Bishops were always watching over the peo#
resident among them, and spent the produce of their 06
among the poor inhabitants. In a country like Irelaal'
absenteeism was the great evil; yet this measurewwold
deprive the country of no less than ten resident Bisboe
who, it was undoubted, were of much service to the peoPig
measure
was every point of view. In point of fact, this
..:
was neither more nor less than a boon--a premium .11'
Catholicism ; it was the expedient of incompetent polite
cians to obviate the very mischiefs which their previotlei
incompetency had caused. The Noble Earl talked of big
great affection for the Protestant Establishmeol
but the way he took to show his affection V
a very suspicious one. The powers given to the
,
Commission to watch over, not only the temporal'
but the spiritual affairs of the church, were sine
as to gall the feelings of every individual who had at heart
to see the tenets, which he felt to be the true tenets Co0:1
veyed to others. The duty of a Protestant GovernmeA:
was to add to the number of Protestants, not diminish
them. In every place a Protestant minister should be
established, even if but one Catholic could be persuaded
to join the true faith. As to the discontinuance io
non-appointment of a minister to any place because tbe'
happened to have been no service previously performedl
there within a limited period, this would operate most lrr
juriously to the interests of religion. He would mentil,
as an instance, that since the year 1807, there be
been no less than sixteen churches, and sixteen (Abet
places of worship erected in the diocese of Cork and Rosef
in places where worship had not previously been pee''
formed. Theproposed measure would entirely put a stop art;
any such great and good works as these. The Noble Lo
also read a passage of a letter from the Bishop of
which tended to support his proposition. The Protests°,
religion should be disseminated, not repressed. It 011
not a principle of that faith that one religion was as goo,
as another. It was the belief of faithful Protestants thti
their creed was the true creed, and it therefore became ea,
such as aspired to the name to spread their faith as enuea
as possible, not to cripple it. He (Lord Roden) felt it tole
his duty to pretest most strenuously against this usprotestat%
measure, tbe provisions of which were most uncalled for, 80
most tyrannical. The Ministers of William the Third made
the most strenuous exertions in support of the Protestaol
faith. The Ministers of William the Fourth seemed eV
erting their utmost efforts in its suppression. While
opposing this measure—which he trusted the House would
never pass—he must declare, that neither himself nor ebe
clergy and other Protestants were opposed to all refor°
of the Church of Ireland: but the reform they desiret
was that which would tend to spiritualise she Churc.,
still more than at present. He trusted that the 1100.
70,
would extend their protection to the Irish clergy, W 1
had been, and still were, suffering the greatest privations;
but who, among all this, laboured at their one great ole
ject, the support and advancement of their Master's faial
No class of men bad shown themselves more worthy t),
admiration and support than the clergy of Ireland. lii°;
though not opposed to reform, he and they were oppose,
to their extinction, to the suppression of truth and rep'
gion, to the tax, as proposed, on the clergy: they Wal'
opposed to the doing away with the ten Protests!,
Bishops, because they knew that the place would be filled
up with ten Catholic Bishops—(Hear, hear)---n
would, of course, lend their best aid to the extinction °
the Protestant faith. He was opposed to it on principle'
and not from any party feeling. He could lay his ban,
on his heart and say, that, as an honest man, be wee
opposed to this measure on conscientious motives, and' lt
as a partisan. He would conclude by moving, as
amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time the
day six months."
The amendment being put,
The Earl of WICKLOW should support the meager's
because he felt, that, in so doing, he should best self,
the true interests of the Protestant faith.—( Hear, hearty
In so doing he was actuated by no feeling that el
measure was called for by any misconduct on the WI °
the clergy of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) On the cootraf;
he must express his firm and conscientious opinion ibg
the clergy of Ireland had acted throughout in a nte°_%,
which entitled them to the highest admiration and rel,.,ni
The uniform good conduct of the clergy in Ireland '
in no point been exceeded by that of the English clel,
notwithstanding the difficulties and dangers with welch
they bad so long been surrounded. Nor did he tbll.lo
there were any grounds for this measure in public clartele
No doubt there had been a strong clamour against
payment of tithes, but this was a subject not touched 01:°0
in the Bill.—(Hear.) The only point introduced la f,
measure, against which there had been any great clamoo
was the payment of church cess. With regard to ter
landed property of the Church, there was no ge Of
clamour against this than against any other clascriPti°l
landed property. But the measure was WWI for or

s
111
efil4rt:tiwilollll.rb
nortte:enis
aarelleteSueb
orhanrhitgs;liusi
tesidetrriEite ehern,ttca
edinubtnih.tunbn'acbathiameehindtgbtemenonto:shlvieeigoetof.otgovrixatiarh..inrorhteoteebbeeb°ll.rtr:
o:r.uYei:cts'iflill
lb It::
tirisii)sefottirbi.iadna, treb itgoh, naeai par too
present occasion
Once, in prefers!
1" doubt
that the
ent distribution
'll!'OPTies —would
Ny that the apply
tench of the clerl
a beneficial ar
'sten of the hisho
Lii44,lte!ill'eePeeiliel;..ibariwatreetellermhifloteuin.:,,,de,iroaiynber'ci,neicotWitillihtbfhtnua:eturstrtePhsnrEoae(l)3ierssersiweaste°ttt.la]ii:
banthe course
n
erefore, that the
een ran I
amens of th
;etc Made to the
a let Y,
it would
the ,but Its s
ate, *lit of the g
,i444l:o'lbil:elo,et:te4l7ol4::kku."elkttlehtlireb:etsA:noofbtuenefhjtfite_eetioUccerfidtunaePiblio:j.sBll
i°g
ii
tole
ihi
lion
1it:40441 t
tiutetp
es
net
Itp
et
:1111:mb:tree.
n?fonreot
o,ou
lt,rrohtoemaeffodheicaeloenootn
idntuhsba
I tto h •
►
ntilsiluti:et::::l;thi 1r:trey:on:::
tte,;t beneficial t
°tO
1 (bah
I I 11
31
41111114444e41111tg.ttil'tleilii%111111",,l1-‘vlaet'll•ljt-::b.:lltel:444°"fill.er:trhilitina.tcelYiihihitthOblenurthej:e.itnneereez vtae-uheffilreYtdßptempoo°:.' objected,
impede
atdba(asdnhnui
7lhLenude :I
I I
t° be be'
I
l
L
zielooo
t:upeeldrfusrho
Irked :eans and
4,, ;it." large, and
re 'mown upon
relisidered this
dotbe recollecte
Rouse. If, i
What became
eat of the nun
'ash certainly ol
to •
114
.„ require
sit,2_"ament.
11‘,!.gg the incoa
referring
of the
bee._ ring the 1
raratoo: agreed tc
t 8, and the,
4 calated to
lutistWish
toret
ettZee general
h of it Which at
'ase t:ait Pike, 1)
ho 441 had b
etht it een
‘4ted Would
itte b
der BYiltere, the
elit' on all
he ra 4
tali r•A %iter"'
lati the h
,iotiett for —Aatio
toti
0f e the ado!
64101444:er 13t1
:41 t 0 that
v the clef
overn Mei
le4 he ii eor
iititted to wishd
liaer,e the the p
the
44.
taitte4 °lbinati,
Co that t
mmissio
tiee era
t.
byught sit
t ""ieh h hebent
eat4t"ed Pe begge`
of lite rePriet(
11 rr
sees 4.louey
507 a :!' ref
ttgo Nut 4 fence
rhi_e,ACeedPr:eedei
"3,001
heP
tensW:retha:
nay --
tkeot, , Pro
°Priet4 Would
Ippor.__la of /re
un7 the 13i
you
p it Iv 1°
Ited it " a
llity• Would be
,1 ha:ll,f thus eta
mon,
tih,H's duty to"d
Itty 4.Wit6 refer
tkie4cling to iennt
t.g"ti• lie
relittic,-rtained at
14t Was much ,
'1.110"4t ry were
°liticeim of party fl
tiitht, question
Ilteieu I°4 also of
,t„e:4 oPpost •
'4--tt7l, h
at it r
'boltat e With re
The 13.41clueive
g• lahe o
of
t!'et'illieut te
te:11041e
;be etiPb,keedi,°
he cop fr-ot
th ccitfesied
e elern.
'laity He ex
4 of this
pomed ecei
ebt,O. clerg,
tfider,..stiti aft;
4mi:et° the ea:
'Posta_ ee of th
etlii;,eticd had
feral), h. Thi
laaink,„A° ‘h°clY fo
land —h44wbee tl
tith
tedent existed
14 the ma 121,,0t
ov7strated in
3tl of
it hi
'toe,
o,Would h
ket_, the Bin
rty°l enight at itetio another d
that the rev
tlibtulti ought ,
hel 14 intY, if
otat
teY d?h h. re
It,tY the Ile eoi
u
Ineallurt
itwt;
eption .Prof
vtusestantist

eroug
of all the
of a tax us
3St unjust,
no tenable
xt was titt

„th,
in r grounds. After the mention made of this subject
rtiesthe speech from the Throne—after the immense ma-
in the House of Commons, it would be impossible
rites
any man, let him he on which side of the House
ia',‘ might,
.or let the Government be in what
th'ss it might—to say that some alteration in
Ive Church establishment was not absolutely called for. It
eat said that every measure proposed by the present Ad-
•z4siatration partook of a revolutionary character. How-
t,4: this might be, he was determined to support them on
48 Present occasion. He would buy the Sybilline leaves
ti, °nee, in preference to being obliged hereafter to buy a
t'rse bargain at a higher price. In point of fact, he had
fsdoubt that the two great points of the Bill—the
Cl,rent distribution of Church party,pr and the union of
tieshoprics —would
produce beneficial results. No onecould
reY that the applying the o,erplus of the revenues of one
°oda of the clergy to the necessities of another branch
48 a beneficial arrangement. He also thought that the
6'ieu of the bishoprics would be useful. It very clearly
PPeared, that Parliament had full power to incorporate
reral bishoprics into one, from the fact stated of a
:toler reduction of 10 bishoprics—or rather their being
4'ehedied into other sees. The same power might, then,
lb,. °1,41.6e, be exercised now. It had been suggested that
ill; "et
,ter course would be, rather to diminish the incomes
be -6' the number of Bishops; but he thought this would
e a much more mischievous plan, because. in the one
While4gethere was neither novelty nor violation of pri.nciple,
in the other there would be both. He considered,
eeei4fbre, that the course thus recommended would have
pen framers
more injurious than the Bourse adopted by
7- of the measure. Several objections had
,4 made to the Bill, which objections in his opinion
t ~,-e untenable. In the first place, it was said that
ioe'b°llld be a violation of the articles of the Union. Un-
tie itedlY, if those articles were to be taken strictly to
ofir.,Otter, it would be so. But it was not the mere words
If thl act, but its spirit by which he ought to be governed.
inter' °Pirit of the articles of Union was to maintain the
he tve'l 01 the Established Church in Ireland, he felt that
trlopta° acting in conformity to
.that. spirit when he
he lbed a course which he believed in his conscience would
01 ti,,,Qot beneficial to that Church. Nor were the articles
any ` Act of Union more binding than the provisions of
the ~Oth,er Act of Parliament. Whatever was beneficial to
If ar'ulio it was the duty of the Legislature to adopt.
coo,-,4),1ne future period the articles of Union should be-
app,”, the subject of legislative consideration, and it should
.aRt ~,4 that the dissolution of the Union would be advan-
be h.,41,,' to both countries, the articles of Union ought. to
ce 1;;•4 4 mere cobwebs in that consideration. The Union
Iseci -„t,° be maintained while its maintenance was con-
-114- `" the good of the United Empire, and no longer.
Ivora,-Wti one subject on which he begged to say a few
Itited;, ee meant the coronation oath. It had been
Ustio,), 6 Will you force the Sovereign to violate the coro-
uitio -Ptil ?" In the first place, it was his decided opi-
could`;"St there was nothing in the coronation oath which
teel iijultlY impede his Majesty in giving his assent to any
ras:rebeneficial to the Church. But if that were not the
'
e_
to,tlit
a„W08 not he who forced the Sovereign to violate his
ecoliti'en oath: It was his Majesty who forced on him the
by hi,tZtion of a subject which came to him recommended,
with thlaiesty, and supported by his Majesty s Ministers.
nation e question, therefore, of the violation of the coro-
that 4°,.ath, he (Lord Wicklow) had nothing to do. All
4,s eto do was, to take care and perform his duty
but ,norther,l of that House. It had been said, not there,
ought`t4where, that the number of Bishops in Ireland
°,l' pooh° be kept up in a greater proportion to the number
.Tctl to in Ireland than the number of Bishops in Eng-
nties t," number of people in England ; because the
°title,
~°e` the Bishops in Ireland were greater than the
tinesco :`, the Bishops in England, the latter having arch-
l'iOion,.e Perform many of those duties which the Irish
valid " Performed themselves. If this objection were a
bc the e' it would be very easy to meet it by imposing
fettled deans and archdeacons in Ireland the duties per-
tiBo b by the deans and archdeacons in England. It had
;,, e.„cti objected, that the proportion of Irish Bishops to
ti,a;" varliament under the reduced number of Bishops
IN tao large, and that thereby too great a weight of duty
he thrown upon the Bishops who remained in Ireland.
iilleotsidered this rather an imprudent argument for it
$O4l be recollected that all the English Bishops, sat in
toe` House. If, therefore, the argument were a good
N: What became of the duties of English Bishops ?
ea of the number of twelve Irish Bishops, he
bath certainly of opinion that it was not too
It porn :° require that four should attend their duties
tedo"atuent. With regard to the suggestions for
ill, elng the income of the Bishops, rather than reducing
fitt'utober of the Bishops, one strong reason with him
, preferrin
°ad been g the latter course to the former was, that it
C,,,,n_0 agreed to by a large majority of the House of
L tu os, and that
'' calenzat any alteration upon
ill 1:;(1 to renew the agitation of a question which
„I gave 1,..,,311 t° see finally arranged. While, however,
rsrt„,
of .-- general approbation to this Bill, there were
the firtitlt Which he certainly desired to see altered. In
tqati Place) he was sorry that a graduated system of
tho on had been d eght it n adopted with respect to the clergy. He
este,' would be more just if, instead of such a gra-
it NI! It
‘sn2,
allYe clerical income. Five per cen.t. on the
4 first 4 clergyman would be precisely equivalent to
441 e i fruits of his living. By establishing a graduated
4ionilfote taxation of the clergy, they would lay a foun-
tion
,)f r
the adoption of a graduated scale in the taxa-
t'6)4‘4 everY
hatch description of income ; and he was
"re
4"4'er •h d 'di re-
i tlee to if it were establis e with .
'elstY's o the clergy, it would be forced on his Ma-
'" of i'vernment with reference to every other
‘viii h th
ie, e he
,e community. There was another change
Itted t wished to see made in the Bill. He 0)-
11:e the% the provision that the Government should
th:e,`lrriitt„-°,,tntuation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
4.loiay et;,...4 bat. they ought to have the appointment of
pi "erg en7tssioners ; but the Eeclesiastical.. Commis-
toee,t!d by tghet either to be taken in rotation, or to be
a I4oicli h c bench. There was still one other subject
pa4eded : begged to call their Lordships' attention. As
rt of the rePrietor he strongly objected to allow any
alto tees 61,1oney resulting from the suppression. of the
ti,°'v a Six `0 remain in the pockets of the laity. . To
kegeroet Pence so to remain, would be to establish a
It:, exeeeoPrecedent. It was not the sum, which did
,i, 'ell he 63,000/. a-year ; but it was the principle
cat ,t, considered highly objectionable. He knew
°i tii.e Reii? I.
ebre the consequence if this objectionable part
ra.11505,
naw.., e adopted. In the course of two or threep
htnerd, it wY Probably early in the next Session of ar-
°Pri t "Id be
i, e ont of thrown in the teeth of the
,landed
kiPorted the Ireland, and they would be told, You
kpia.UPoli yotl . 'I for your own interest, and, we not.:
laoi•gorge your acquisitions.' In the
krieiti it w0..8 a highly impolitic arrangement, and
.he
p i_uid be altered in the Committee on the Bill.
li:t had inj
tn us stated his oinions on the present measure,
IIC one that which, in his conscience, he believed it
°tali " dUty t
a. Y Ivi,, 0 do• n any occasion—and more espe-
t"rty fe '..0 reference to Irish subjects—he never allowed
qli ehug to interfere with what he considered to be the
I,t :11°1)1. He did not deny that, on general subjects,
ittlatizttained strong party feelings; but the state of
hat ' Was much too critical, and the interests at stake in
ki, 'eCitint slue
ry were much too important, to justify the ad-
o!
)f party feeling in the consideration of any great
- qUestion connected with them. He had the
4 .ctin
ithlo' h 4 also of knowing that, while on the present oc-
t°Y a,, ' oPposed those with whom he generally acted,
'esti,7ll'44l With him in opinion that this was not a party
lit do thZthat it rested on its own merits—and they ought
roost :411 respect to it, which appeared to them to
14 The tiolucive to the general interests.
tke Nl, whip °f DURHANI objected to the preamble of
IttPedient tozed" merely stated, in broad terms, that it was
to bths Proceed? 50 and so, without assigning any cause
0 iti e derived flag, or pointing out any benefit which was
,f L'u. be conie:°!' it. Adverting to the subject of tax-
' the the clergy :le' he could not see why it should be borne
ti Ittilaity. He e°,tne' sod why it should sot be shared by
,g oh of this _
erc.BBed strong objections to the consti-
,o thl:Posed of
cicec esiastical commission ; which, although
0 litoti,4l.4fietil, 86paiitoint :40,1
cJYr . Andot laity, was to have the control of
it to, "ed to the 41rs of the Church which ought to be
the clergy exclusively. All former
ti,tP,cses, sod
hthis nature were confined to inquisitorial
measurer ote,‘'hUreb. ~.sad no reference to the spiritual affairs of
te tt rerabie boti ihe Board of First Fruits would be a much
best or.) itquainted witt for the Purpose. He was not sufficiently
ar, hear,„ Leittrol had b"is""c subject to know how the dioceses in
that Poi 'kill cedent existed ‘ltalited ; but he did not believe that any
be part or, tied
in the meaner taking away the sees from the Bi-
ro, b 0
ions of it ha:dr
contra,' ot originated in proposed. If the present measure
inioU 4" seis
covocation of the clergy, and if the
a ma° et, tlt°ll, it Would h been describer! by them as advanta-
td re•Phesti th%a of
the
ave been a different thing. The decla-
eland 'vt ihtt., 25 Bill, with res ect to the g.
e t of the
ish clerg'l, Nty of might. at some future period be propiredy to ro-
ith
04).illai, I,4ttti azto.ther description For instancea,pipt applied to pro.
itli oie ttd tll5 th cription For instance, it was merely
i he tb'
1,, ttltP andt be revenue of the bishopric of Derr was too
a alanloa tt:tlahips !light to be reduced. What could aY of their
gainat the0 qtiely th°aY,sif at some future period he should be told
t„eel ? At
,r_bie revenue was too large, and ought to be
~che'lirillot:bre, t4tty the
tr.it-e1 could not conceive on what principle of
a'aciantoti
the
ttk,hquerri, asure proceeded ; for it bad always been held
ird t° ter Ptt,,: !f, Property was as sacia.d as property of any
10
greo
01 pro,r4maion. If the object of the Bill were to sup
:riptioo 0 " t utiato, and to raise Po
per
Or OP Per no better means

:form, but
ons in the
ort, which:
light With!
ni his cos'
occasion')
past bets
t—(Hear,
d that 015
the House
eld in
the Noble
of edusr
)ondent 00
NI to so'. 1

Alaroniot
".! of their
f Catholic
At tbsr,

1, that
Catholic
in feel
per
1e
there:

the safe
aye« tbol
• favourite
o pour i°
tblishcseo
nand 01
should be
end to the

a to the
tempor,ll
?ere so°,
id at best'
tenets
overnroeti,!
) diminish
should
persuaded
lance in
ause there
performed
e most in'

Would have been adopted for the purpose.— (Hear, hear.)
It appeared, in truth, to be yielding to the clamours
of Popery ; and, considering the rapid strides to
power which, of late years, Popery had made in Ire-
land, he confessed that he thought it highly in-
expedient to assist its efforts at dominion.—(Hear.)—
The whole of this measure proceeded, and was founded on
assumptions, not one of which hid undergone any inves-
tigation or discussion. For instance, the first great as-
sumption was, that the property of the Church was
not similar to the private property of individuals, but
belonged to the public.—(Hear.) This was an assump-
tion : he was not going to discuss it, but it was a
debateable point, and a point which had not yet been
debated ; and yet this formed one of the main features
of the Bill. The second assumption was (as we un-
derstood the Right Rev. Prelate), the right of Parlia-
ment to distribute the property of the Church. He
denied that the Church could be considered in the light
of a sole corporation, or that its funds ought to be con-
sidered as a common fund, to be distributed amongst the
ministers of the church as Parliament might deem fit.
The Church, so far from being a corporation sole, was an
aggregate corporation, consisting of many corporations
sole, each constituent corporation having its distinct rights,
and distinct property.—(Hear, hear.) There were many
more assumptions in the Bill, with which he would not
detain the House at present. He objected strongly to the
interference of this Bill with the Church. It was termed
the Irish Church Temporalities Bill ; but it affected its
spiritualities as much as its temporalities.—(Hear, hear.)
After the fullest consideration which he was able to be-
stow on the subject, he felt himself bound to vote for the
amendment. He did so with the purest and most
unbiassed motives, and he trusted the Noble Earl would
believe him when he said that he did not oppose the Bill
through any wish to oppose his Majesty's Govern-
ment, but because he could not honestly and conscien-
tiously pursue any other course. What must be the
consequences of carrying such a measure no man could
presume to say ; for if this step were once conceded, it
might not be in the power of Government to prevent it
from being c irried further. The result of former concessions
proved this : for concession obtained by intimidation
invariably led to fresh demands. And with regard to
any difficulty respecting the violation of principles, there
certainly could not be a much greater violation of princi-
ples than that contained in this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He
regarded this as a measure not only deeply affecting the
interest of the Irish Church, but of England herself, and
as tending to the immediate diminution ef Protestantism
and the increase of Popery.—(Hear, hear.) He should
therefore vote for the amendment. Whether it would be
posidble to cut down the objectionable part in Committee,
had it been deemed advisable to suffer the Bill to proceed to
that stage, he thought very doubtful. For his own part,
he should be unable to attend any Committee, as he was
compelled to leave town very shortly; and he, therefore,
embraced that early opportunity of expressing his senti-
ments upon so momentous a question.—(Hear.)
The Earl of LIMERICK complained of the inattention
of the Government to the interests of the Protestant cause
in Ireland. To that cause he, for one, was most sin-
cerely devoted. He remembered that whilst in the Irish
House of Lords, prior to the Union, he had the misfor-
tune to be called a Theologian ; but he would now main-
tain the principles, which he declared deserving of the
utmost support. He remembered the objection made to
the Union at that time was, that Ireland would sacrifice
her independence to England, and place her religion, her
property, and her interests entirely at the mercy of a
foreign people. They were told to trust to the honour
and the generosity of England. They did trust to it ; but
he regretted to say, their expectations were disappointed.
Their property had been shaken, their religion subvert-
ed—all confidence between landlord and tenant destroyed,
and the prosperity of the country put an end to.—(Hear.)
The Protestants of Ireland were told, as one great in-
ducement fir them to support the Union, that wherever
they were before in the minority, they would then be-
come incorporated with and part of the majority. But
in what manner had they been treated as the majority?
Certainly not. Almost all the defences of Protestantism
were swept away, and the Protestant boroughs, once the
great bulwark of the church, were now almost all in the
hands of Catholics?—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that
the House would uphold and defend the church.—
(Hear.) It seems they were now told that the church
of Ireland had too many Bishops. Why not at once say
that no Bishop was wanted at all, and that the Catholics
were ready to take care of the souls of the people of Ire-
land? The stipulations made at the time of the Union
had not been observed, nor had those at the period of
granting Catholic Emancipation been complied with. The
Catholics were exalted at the expense of the Protestants.
In short, Ministers bad thrown Ireland into a state of
great irritation, and now they were compelled to bring
forward sweeping measures in order to satisfy the clamour
which they had raised..—(Hear, hear.) This Bill, he
supposed, was one of the sops to be given to Cerberus,
but he doubted much whether it would be successful in
stopping the monster's mouth. This he would say,
that never was a measure of this kind less required, for
the Church of Ireland was never in a more improved
state than at present. He hoped that in the observations
lie bad made he had said nothing to produce irritation.
To do so was far from his wish, and he could not conclude
without bearing testimony to the very proper and forbear-
ing manner in which the Noble Earl had introduced the
Bill to their Lordships' notice.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of CONYNGHAM said that no man was
more firmly attached to the Protestant Church than hims
self ; but he considered the best mode of evincing that
attachment was by endeavouring to remove those abuses
which at present endangered its prosperity, and even its
security.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord had called this Bill an
act of injustice and spoliation—in his opinion it was an
act of strict justice.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord bad
objected to the abolition of a certain number of Bishops.
Now he thought if any reasonable man would only take
into consideration !se extent of services required of the
Irish Bishops, he would admit that the Bill left quite
enough to attend to the spiritual welfare of a Church
mustering only 800,000 members.—(Loud cries of
" Hear.") Their labours would he very light when corn.
pared with those of the English Prelates, and their
resources would be sufficient for the maintenance of even
splendid establishments.—(Hear.) As to one provision
of the Bill—that for the abolition of Church cess,
and also that for reducing the revenues of the See
of Derry—he believed even the bitterest antago-
nist would agree in their justice. Nothing could
be more impolitic or unjust—nothing could tend more to
exasperate the already irritated people of Ireland—than
to tax the Catholic population for the maintenance of
places of worship which they never visited; or to wring
from the hard hands of the industrious peasant a portion
of his earnings, to swell the pomp and splendour of a
Church from whose doctrines he dissents, and with whose
professors he has not one religious sympathy.—(Cheers.)
It was singular that the extremes of both parties opposed
this measure ; a circumstance which alone ought strongly
to recommend it to all moderate men.—(Hear.) Some
time since, that House had passed a Bill called the
Coercion Bill, and certainly it was one of the strongest
measures ever passed through that House. Surely,
therefore, when the people of Ireland now came before
their Lordships, with a Bill of relief from abuses which
had provoked many of those disorders which rendered
coercion necessary—a Bill which proposed to lop a few
branches of the Church Temporalities, without injury,
nay, even with advantage to the tree itself—surely the
House would not now turn round and say, " No, we
have given you coercion, but we refuse to give you conci-
liation."—(Hear, hear.) As an Irishman, he most
earnestly implored their Lordships to weigh well the
consequences of refusing their assent to a Bill which had
passed the other House by a great majority, and of which
at least nine-tenths of the people of Leland were in favour.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said, that after the very
violent and unconstitutional mode adopted by his Alajesty'a
Government to force through that House a most revolu-
tionary measure, by which the independence of the House
was virtually destroyed, and its utility as a deliberative
assembly put an end to, he had almost determined upon
withdrawing himself from his place there. It was with
the greatest reluctance that he had been induced to forego
his resolution, and take his seat before the period arrived
—as arrive, he doubted not, it shortly would—when their
Lordships, by the justice and unanimous voice of their de.
luded countrymen, who were now beginning to awake to
a sense of their delusion, would be replaced in that
station, and in the full exercise of those powers which
legally and constitutionally belonged to them.—(Hear.)
Nevertheless, so important did he feel this question
to he, that no inducement could prevail on him to absent
himself from that House to night, or refrain from taking
that line of conduct which justice imperatively demanded.
They were called on by the Noble Earl at the head of the
Government to give their rash and hasty consideration to
this Bill, without any arguments being adduced to show
the necessity of it, or to show that, if adopted, it would be
for the ben, fit of the country. The Noble Earl wished
them to consent to affect, by this measure, that property
of the Church of Ireland which had hitherto been deemed
inviolable. That would be the result of the first branch
of it. The consequence of the other would be to affect the
interests of that religion which the Sovereign of this coun-
try had taken an oath to preserve. He should take the
liberty of calling their attention to the words of that oath
which their gracious Sovereign had taken. First, it was

that he would, to the utmost of his power, maintain the
law of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the
Protestant Church as established by law; and, secondly, to
maintain the Church of this realm and the Clergy of the
said Church in possession of all the rights and privileges
which should and did by law appertain to them. With respect
to the first part of this oath, the maintenance of the laws
of God and the true profession of the Gospel, he should
not occupy their Lordships' time with an attempt to prove
that which no honest man would attempt to deny__
namely, that if this measure was in any degree opposed
to the maintenance of those things which the Sovereign
had sworn to support, it would be a direct violation of
that oath to consent to it; and he would not insult his
gracious Sovereign by supposing, that if it were proved
to him to have any such effect, his Majesty would not
hesitate to reject it at once, and to spurn from him those
rash and daring men who had had the temerity to advise
the adoption of such a measure.—(Hear, le.ar, from the
Opposition.) With respect to the second part of the
oath, he maintained that those words which he had quoted
went expressly to declare that the King would protect the
Protestant Church established by law from any such
attack as might be made on its property or privileges, part
of which privileges consisted in the having a voice in the
government of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) Having
made this declaration of the view he took of the coronation
oath, be was ready to admit that there was nothing in
that oath which went to deprive the Crown of the
power, with the consent of the Upper House of Convo-
cation, to submit to Parliament such measures as
would render that Church more efficient, or tend more
widely to extend its spiritual influence.—(Hear, hear.)
He should like to challenge the Noble Earl at the head
of the Government—(A slight laugh)—to show which
of these principles the measure now before them did not
violate, or to show the consent of the Upper House of
Convocation to its introduction. The Noble Earl had
quoted many cases of the changes of church property, but
he had not shown that any of these had taken place with-
out the consent of the Bishops and clergy being first ob-
tained. There had been no instance of the kind since
the Revolution. Even if their Lordships looked to the
despotic times of Henry the Eighth, they would find that
before he ventured upon committing the wholesale spolia-
tion of the church, which he commenced first on the smaller
religious houses, he had thought it necessary to have the
consent of the Archbishops, Priors, and Bishops, then
forming the Upper House of Convocation ; and that till
he obtained that consent, he had not touched one particle
of the church property. That consent was obtained
through giving to the clergy of that House promises and
hopes that the interests of the church would be preserved,
and that the remaining property of the church would not be
touched. In corroboration of what he had advanced, he
should read a few extracts from a history of the proceed-
ings of the church of that day. The Noble Earl then read
in extract, in which it was stated that the monasteries
could not he plausibly dissolved without the consent of the
28 mitered abbots, and the other clergy forming the Upper
Howe of Convocation. The inferior bouseswere branded with
the guilt of various offences that might serve as an excuse
for their punishment. It was strange that the Members
of the Upper House of Convocation did not see that this
proceeding would but be the precedent for the destruction
of their own houses. They learnt that when it was too
late. They resembled the trees, in the tale of the " Wood-
man," who, having lost the handle of his axe, requested,
most piteously, that the trees would have the generosity
to give him a small bit of wood. They were foolish enough
to consent : he converted it into a handle for his axe, and
in a short time the noblest trees of the forest felt the effects
of their folly, for he left neither larger nor smaller trees
standing.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He left the application of
that fable to those Noble Lords who were disposed to give
credit to the strong professions of attachment to the Church
on the part of those who proposed this measure, which
went to the destruction of the ten Bishops, many Pro-
testant livings, and considerable church property. The
Bill was entitled a Bill to alter and amend the law re-
lating to the Temporalities of the Church of Ireland. He
only wished briefly to direct their attention to that clause
by which the ten Bishops were to be abolished; and when
they had looked at that, he wished them to say whether
they could honestly and conscientiously answer, that that
clause did not directly affect the spiritual interest of
that part of our Established Church. The 117th
clause went to the extinction of livings where service had
not been performed for three years previously. Now, con-
sidering the state of persecution under which the clergy
had been suffering during that period—(Hear, hear).—
persecutions directed not merely against the property, but
often attended with a melancholy and fatal loss of human
life—it was clear that many livings must necessarily he
extinguished. if the Ministers wished to devise a course
which should operate as an encouragement to such things,
could they have produced a measure more likely to pro-
duce the effect of the destruction of our fellow-country-
men in that part of the kingdom? The first consequence
of this measure would be to excite the people to violence,
that the clergy might be prevented from performing their
duties ; and then the next consequence would follow, that
the beings would he extinguished.—(Hear, hear.) He
had little more to say. Of all the questions which bad
come before their Lordships, this was by far the most
important—none could, in that respect, be compared with
it, whether as affecting the Protestant interests in one
country, or the very Establishment itself in the other.
He implored them, if they valued their Church—if, from
hitter and past experience, they were convinced how
fruitless it was to attempt to conciliate those who wished
to destroy that Church—he implored them, by the duty
which they owed their country, and, above all, by the
sacred duty they owed their God, to resist this measure,
which tended directly to weaken that Protestant religion,
which, he boldly maintained, was the groundwork of that
character that distinguished this country above all others;
which was the foundation of those blessings that flowed upon
us from our God ; and which was the only link of connection
between the two countries.—(Hear.) If they weakened
and destroyed that link, Ireland would be no longer
united with this country. He repeated that this was a
question of the deepest importance, and though they might
have once lost what was deeply valuable to them, their
own independence, but which, he was sure, would soon
dawn on them again, still the brightest gem of their
character would be maintained if they did their duty
honestly and fearlessly. If a fear of the consequences
prevented them from a conscientious discharge of the
duties they were called on to fulfil, they would lose
that
respect which they now obtained, and they would sink in
the estimation of men whose good opinion was worth
having, and, what was still worse, they would sink in
their own esteem. The principles of this measure were
opposed to the principles of the Constitution of this coun-
try, and were a direct violation of that sacred oath which
their Sovereign bad taken. He trusted—he hoped in
God—that on this night they would preserve at once
their Constitution, and the sanctity of the oath of their
Sovereign.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
The Alarquis of CLANRICARDE felt so much the im-
portance of the subject, that he should endeavour to treat it
in a tone of temperance and moderation, and should not
follow the Noble Earl who had just sat down, either in
the tone he had adopted or the discussion in which he had
indulged respecting the coronation oath ; the only object
of which seemed to be to divert their attention from the
real question for discussion.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Rev. Prelate who had spoken third had called this a Bill
of spoliation, and had denied the right of the Legislature
to interfere with church property. Yet such an inter-
ference was by no means new in the history of this country.
In the time of Edward I. a tax had been laid upon the
property of the clergy, and paid without resistance or ob-
jection.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed the alterations made re-
specting the mode of enjoying their property were too
numerous for him to observe upon.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Earl opposite, who took up the same line of argu-
ment, had spoken in the terms which it deserved ; but it
should be at the same time remembered by the Noble Earl,
that if Henry VIII. had not given the reformed religion to
this country, it would probably not now have been in
existence here, and the Noble Earl would not have had to
stand forward as the champion of the inviolability of the
property of the reformed church. It was needless, how-
ever, to go back to those times. He should, however,
notice the Act of Uniformity, which stated, that if by a
certain day the clergy did not adopt that Act, they should
all be driven forth from their livings. Was not that an
interference with the church and its property ?—(Hear,
hear, hear.) And that Act, too, was passed without the
consent of the Bishops. Yet, when they now talked of
effecting a more fit and proper distribution of the church
property, they were told that they had no right whatever
in any manner to interfere with it. Were they to be told
that no circumstances could justify any alteration in the
distribution of church property ? If they were, the prin-
ciple went to this—that if there was not one Protestant
in Ireland, the laws relating to the church, like the laws
of the Medes and Persians, were unchangeable, and the
church establishment must still be kept up there.—
(Cheers,) Would they say that to the people of Ireland ?
Would they tell the people of Ireland that the property of
the church was beyond the power of the Imperial Parlia-
ment ? Such was the effect of the argument of the Noble
Earl, who said that the church could not be taxed but
by the church, and not for the support of the church.
Why, the clergy alone were not the church.—(Hear,
bar.) The Right Reverend the Bench of Bishops would
,urely support him in that. He asserted that the whole
of England was the church ; and we (the people) were

to have the advantage of it. If it performed its duty,
and the people received benefit from it, then it fulfilled
the object of the establishment ; if not, it should be
made to do so. As to the time for the reform of the
church, they had the authority of the Right Hon.
Baronet, quoted by the Noble Earl, for saying that
the time had now come to give the church stabi-
lity a that some alteration was necessary, so as to
(such was his term) "spiritualise the Church." The
Right Hon. Baronet and the Right Reverend Prelate were
on the same side, yet one said that the spiritualities, the
other, that the temporalities of the Church were not to
he meddled with. The great point now was, to consider
how the pressure of the temporalities might be diminished.
The people complained of them, and the Bill proposed to
remedy that evil. There were Noble Lords who would
not touch those temporalities now, because they had long
been established. Yet, would any man say, that if he
had now to propose, for the first time, the establishment
of a Church in Ireland, he should propose an establish-
of twenty-two Bishops?--(Hear, hear.) The number of
Bishops required for the country was a matter of detail,
depending on toed kaowledv, and if it was proved
that the present number was too large, it ought to be re-
duced. Another great grievance was the church and
vestry cess. On that subject, the Noble Earl at the head
of the Government had spoken so warmly and truly, that
he should not say more than that a rate to build and
support churches never entered by the people who paid
it, must be felt by them as oppressive. Then first fruits
were alluded to. He thought that it was a most im-
portant part of the subject, and if nothing had been done
with it in this Bill, he should have made it the subject of
a motion. The Board of First Fruits in Ireland had not
latterly done its duty. That was much felt in Ireland,
and there were persons who were inclined to bring that
matter before Parliament, independently of any general
and Government measure. He asserted that the mea-
sure was for the furtherance of the interests of the
Protestant religion. A reference had been made to the
former policy of the English Government. What was
the condition to which that former policy had reduced
us ? Why were we to adhere to it unless it could be
distinctly shown to have been productive of advantage?
A Noble Lord had called the Pope, Cerberus—he had
before called the lawyer so, hut now he gave the name
to the Pope, imagining, perhaps, that as the Pope had
three Crowns, he must have three beads.—(Hear.)
But it was not shown that Popery had decreased.
Indeed, notwithstanding all our Bishops, it was said
that Popery had increased in Ireland. He was not
prepared to admit that. The Quakers had increased ;
the Dissenters from the Church of England had in-
creased most enormously. He was glad they had. Some
of them had lately come into that part of the country
where his property lay, and he found them such good
men to deal with, that he wished there were many more
with them. But he did not believe that Popery had in-
creased; it had nor, however, diminished. All the ex-
pensive and immense establishment had failed of its effect.
They had tried to gain their point by the bribery of the
people,but it had failed. Theyhad offered the bribe to the son,
who, for his religious tenets, might dispossess his father of
his property ; but the day for that was gone by. They must
now give religion fair play, which they had not hitherto
done. If they had, it would have increased. Let them
look at all the rest of Europe, where such had been the
effect, except, indeed, in Spain and Portugal. All the
cumbrous and expensive machinery of the English Church
had not done that in Ireland for the Protestant religion,
which the religion had done for itself in the rest of Europe.
The clergy of Ireland were meritorious men, but the sys-
tem was odious ; and, as the effect of the system attached
itself to individuals, it made them odious. If they agreed
to this measure, they would not diminish the utility of the
clergy by diminishing the oppression of the Church ; and,
looking to past experience, lie should say that the Church
would then gain more support than it now had. The cha-
racter of the ministers of the Church was such as to give
them authority and respect in tLe eyes of the people. If
that advantage were extended to the system, and if the
ministers of the Church had a fair chance, the Church
would reap the advantage of it; and of this be was sure
that this would be the case if their Lordships redressed
the grievances and conferred on the people the boon which
it was the object of this Bill to do. He should only add,
that the landlords of Ireland had been ill treated in the
attempt to confound tithes with rent; but the attempt
was as vain as it was injuri,us—the people would not
confound them. If this Bill were granted, the affections
of the people would be conciliated—they would be disap-
pointed if it were not.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY felt some impa-
tience to rise after what bad been stated by the Noble
Marquis who spoke last, and as an Irish landlord, and an
Irishman, he must protest against the Noble Marquis's
sentiments. The Noble Marquis had represented the
people of Ireland as suitors for this Bill. Did he mean
the Protestant gentry and landholders? Who, then, were
the suitors for this Bill ? Why the Catholics.—(Hear,
hear.) It was in vain to deny that ever since the pass-
ing of the Catholic Bill, which was to be the panacea of
the country, matters had become worse. It was equally
in vain to deny that the effect of this measure must be to
make things even worse than before; and if their Lord-
ships passed this Bill, who would say what the Catholics
might require next ? He felt it impossible, when he ob-
served all that had happened since the passing of the Re•
form Bill, to give his support to the present Bill. The
Bill had been considerably altered since it was first brought
before the other House, and the Noble Earl had given
their Lordships a reason for the withdrawal of one of the
most obnoxious clauses; but the true reason for the
withdrawal of that clause was, his Majesty's Ministers
were aware that they could never hope to carry the Bill
through their Lordships' House, as long as that clause re.
mined a part of it. In this the cloven foot was shown, and
the Noble Earl had by his own words that evening con-
firmed him in that opinion, especially by the'remarks which
he made on the disparity between the value of the Irish bi-
shoprics. The Irish bishoprics were now decimated, and
he would tell the Bench of Bishops, that if there were
any argument on which it were possible that he would
vote for their expulsion from that House, it would be if
they allowed themselves to be influenced either by the
King or by his Ministers. He would tell their Lordships
that the country looked to the conduct of the House of
Lords at this crisis. They had been told not to attempt
to reject this Bill, because it would displace the Ministry,
and no other Government could carry on the affairs of the
country at present. :Vas that an argument which would
induce their Lordships to accede to this measure con-
trary to their judgments ? Good God ! Was it to be
supposed that no other Government could be found to
carry on the affairs of the country?—(Hear, hear.)
What had the present Government done for the country ?
Did not every one see that they had tampered with or
destroyed every one of its institutions? Did not every
one see that they had so complicated the business of the
country, that it would take years to recover ? But the
most glaring part of the subject was that their friends
were the most hostile to them upon this occasion.—
(A laugh.) That was the true picture of the state of
affairs. As the Noble Em-I had brought in the pre-
sent Bill be (the Marquis of Londonderry) would beg
leave to ask him the same question which be had
asked him when the Reform Bill was brought in—
would the Noble Earl insure him (Lord Londonderry)
from further concessions? Would be insure him from
vote by ballot, annu ii Parliaments, end universal suf-
frage? Would the Noble Earl say that those demands
should not follow from this measure ?—(A laugh.) Let
Noble Lords look to what had happened in another place,
and they would find that motions had been made for the
introduction of those demands; and he did not know but
this measure ;night be the preliminary for such motions
in their Lordships' House. If, however, the Noble Earl
would state that the English Church should not follow
the Irish Church in the measures proposed, that declara-
tion would go far to obtain his (Lord Londonderry's)
consent to the present Bill. The Bill was, however, in
his opinion, contrary to the coronation oath, and to the
Act of Union. The Noble Marquis concluded by saying
that he would give the Bill his decided opposition.
The Earl of GOSFORD was well acquainted with the
north of Ireland, and he could affirm that there was not
one Protestant in that part of the country who was un-
biassed by political feeling, but was favourable to a reform
in the Established Church of Ireland. He could say that
the most influential and respectable men in that country
were inclined to think the Established Church, upheld as
it was, as little better than a farce. He firmly believed
that, if the Protestants of Ireland—he did not mean
the political Protestants—(Hear, hear)—were allowed to
use their judicoent, they would declare in favour of this
measure. He knew that in the part of the country with
which he was connected, every means were taken to rouse
the passions of the Protestants, and to incapacitate them
from judging for themselves, and to degrade the character
of every person opposed to them. He lived much in that
country, and he was fully aware of the seductive artifices
the people over ; and he believed that
odisturbances in Ireland, were it not that
made a political engine, by which to
therealmadeiga m inflame rtes
would ui nael dsf
mtrboai he ghdiinr s
of the people, than a means for reli-
gious instruction,—
(Cheers.) These were the reasons
which induced him to support the present measure, and
he regretted that an opportunity was not afforded to give the
h aayt;ihiconsideration,nee
would
oeurled piauoratsnuodebdj to
object to
andtiv fairo e
ft
ohlel
ogwepnit aheyreatglo the
eonpei
opi-
nion ue
went
st
diion.
.1
ti Eh; ealria
wtte

rat opinion so drawn forth ; but when he saw religion mixed
up with politics to influence the passions of the people,
he could not respect the opinions of those who made use
of such means to gain their object, however much he
might respect the individuals. With respect to the mea-
sures now proposed by his Maj style Government, they
had his (the Earl of G.'s) cordial support ; and if they
were carried into a law in the same spirit in which they
were laid before the House, they would bring about that
unanimity and cordiality between the two religions in Ire-
-1 end which had been so mach wanted. He perfectly
a treed with the Noble Lords who had spoken en his side
of the House, that nothing would secure tranquillity in
Ireland but such a measure as this.—(Hear.) There
[night be some few of the details in which improvement
might be made, but he hoped that the principle would
not be departed from.—(Hear.) Indeed, he thought
that the principle had been rather too much departed from
;already; and he was sure that the Protestants would find
their interests better secured after the passing of this
measure than they did at present.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that if this Bil
was so much desired by the Protestants of Ireland, it
seemed rather strange that there had not been one petition
i lid upon their Lordships' table from Irish Protestants
praying, for the passing of this measure, with one single
exception.—(Hear, hear.) He did not deny the compe-
tence of Parliament to deal with the property of the
church ; but when this was a measure which might in-
volve the safety of the church itself—(Hear, hear)—he
considered this measure as opening the door to the most
extravagant propositions. If the present measure were
passed, why should they not likewise admit the claims of
the Repeaters ?—(Cheers.) The Noble Earl had admitted
that great discontent did exist, but he said it proceeded
entirely from political excitement. He (the Marquis of
Westmeath) did not understand how the present measure
would allay the discontent. He should like indeed to know
how the measure was to affect the Roman Catholics at
all, except so far as it tended to pull down that which
they did not like.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble
Marquis then quoted a long passage from "Jacob's Travels
in Spain," to show that tithes were more strictly
exacted in Andalusia than in Ireland, which (eaid Ire)
shows that the Catholics of Ireland had an innate preju-
dice against the tithe system. He (the Marquis of West-
meath) had no prejudice to Catholics, but he confessed he
was alarmed when he heard it said by a Noble and Learned
Lord, on the discussion on the Irish Jury Bill, that the
Irish Church and Irish laws had been imposed upon the
Irish people. It looked as if there was some intention to
make the Irish an exclusively Catholic people when such I
a declaration was made ; and that this was part of the
means by which that change was to be effected. To that
extent he had felt alarmed at the expressions used.—
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the details of the measure,
he would merely remark that he observed that the
bishoprics of Elpbin and Kilmore were to be joined.
Now, he would beg to ask how the Bishop of Kilmore,
who was ❑ow an old mm, if he happened to succeed to
the conjoined bishoprics, could attend to the affairs of both
dioceses, since they were at the distance of thirty miles
from each other, and the Solway divided them ?--(A
laugh.) How was the Right Rev. Bishop, who, as he
had said, was an old man, to get across the Solway ?--
(Laughter.) And where was he to put up at night?—
(Loud laughter.) This was a specimen of the working
of the Bill. If the old Bishop could not get across the
Shannon, how the deuce could he become acquainted
with his flock?—(Loud laughter.) If the rest of the
Bill was like that part of it, he had no expectation that it
would be found to work well. The Noble Marquis con-
eluded by saying, that there was an evident conspiracy to
chase the poorer class of Protestants out of Ireland ; and
that the consequence was, that they were emigrating to
America, and would continue to repair to that country in
still greater numbers.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER was understood to oh.
ject to the Bill, and to say, that the part of it which
imposed a tax on the clergy for the building and repairing
of churches was unjust. As well might the clergy be
called upon to contribute to the repairs of Westminster
Hall. The principle of the Bill that went to reduce the
number of Bishops was most dangerous. Many be knew
would hail the adoption of 'that principle with joy ; but
he cautioned their Lordships not to sanction it, lest it
should be turned against themselves, and lead to a call for
a reductio❑ of the numbers of that House. He eulogised
the conduct of the Irish clergy, and said they were hardly
dealt by, since they were always the foremost in appeasing
disturbances in Ireland.

The Bishop of EXETER moved the adjournment of
the debate.

Earl GREY acceded to the motion, on condition (as
we understood) that, if the debate should conclude on the
following evening, and the second reading pass, the Bill
should be allowed to be committed on Friday.
The House then adjourned at a quarter to one this
morning.