The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-28 00:00:00

THE WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.

The Earl of DURHAM, in pursuance of the notice
which he had given, rose to propose that their lord-
ships should adopt some peremptory means of en-
forcing the attendance of certain persons whose evi-
dence was material to the Warwick Borough Bill now
pending before that house. The noble earl accord-
ingly moved a resolution to the effect, " That it ap-
peared to their lordships that Richard Lapworth, Wil-
liam Oram, and Samuel Dingley had absconded, in
order to evade giving evidence on this inquiry."
Lord WYNFORD did not rise to oppose the mo-
tion, but he must at the same time suggest to the
noble earl that the precedent he had chosen was any-
thing but a judicious one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR entirely agreed
with his noble and learned friend that the precedent
was not a good one. He must say that he could not
approve of the course which his noble friend had taken.
He had no objection that they should agree to an ad-
dress to his Majesty with a view to a reward being
offered for the discovery and apprehension of the per-
sons whom his noble friend desired to produce as wit-
nesses; but he certainly had an objection to this pre-
fatory—this, he would say, condemnatory—resolution,
which might turn out to be unfounded, for, non constat,
those persons might be able to satisfy that house that
they had not absconded for the purpose of avoiding
their lordships' summons to give evidence on this in-
quiry. Instead, therefore, of following this precedent,
he thought it would be much better to so far deviate
from it as to pass over the condemnatory resolution al-
together, and what he proposed was that :they should
examine Mr. Butt, their lordships' messenger, as to
whether the parties alluded to were in attendance,
and, if not, then the motion for an address to the
Crown for offering a reward for their apprehension
might be proposed ; but in no case should such a step
be taken until the parties had been called in the usual
way by an officer of that house.
Lord WYNFORD agreed that they ought to be
called in the first instance, and, if they did not answer,
the address proposed by the noble earl might be
agreed to. . _

-The Earl of DURHAM was quite ready to pursue
the course which his noble and learned friend (the
Lord Chancellor) had suggested. The noble lord
then moved that their lordships' messenger, 11r. Butt,
be called to the bar.

Mr. Butt having presented himself at the bar,
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked him if 'he
had been to the residence of Richard Lapworth and
the other parties, for the purpose of summoning them
to attend to give evidence in that house ?
Mr. Butt replied he had. He had left the sum-
monses with their respective housekeepers, but he had
not seen either of the parties themselves.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked whether he
knew if Richard Lapworth was in attendance ?
Mr. Butt replied in the negative.
The LORD CHANCELLOR directed him to
call Mr. Lapworth in the usual way.
Mr. Butt retired for the purpose, and on his re-
turn said he had executed their lordships' order, but
Mr. Lapworth had not answered.
The Earl of DURHAM then moved—" That an
humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying
that he would be graciously pleased to order a procla-
mation to be issued offering such reward as he should
think fit for the discovery, apprehension, and detention
of Richard Lapworth, in order that he might be pro-
duced to give evidence on this inquiry in that house."
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. Butt was then directed to call in the same man-
ner William Oram and Samuel Dingley. He did so,
and having stated that they did not answer,
The Earl of DURHAM moved a similar address
with respect to them, which was also agreed to.
The house then proceeded with the examination of
witnesses.

Mr. TooKE and others from the Commons request-
ed their lordships' concurrence to the Bribery at Elec-
tions Bill, the Chimneysweepers Bill, and a number
of private bills.
The examination of witnesses on the Warwick
Borough Bill was then resumed.
The house adjourned at nine o'clock till Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 27.
The SPEAKER resumed the chair at 25 minutes after
five o'clock.
A messenger from the Lords announced that the

United Kingdom Assurance Bill had been agreed to,
with amendments. .

• Mr. HUME presented four petitions against in-
temperance.
Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from Mid-
dlesex, and two others to the same effect.
Lord GERMAINE presented a petition from Bury
St. Edmonds against drunkenness.
Sir A. AGNEW presented petitions from Edin-
burgh, Tiverton, and other places, against drunkenness.
Mr. WILK S presented four petitions against the
proposed plan on the subject of church rates, two
against drunkenness, and one for an alteration in the
laws affecting friendly societies.
Mr. EWING presented a petition from Glasgow
for a committee to inquire into the cause of drunken-
ness.

Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from
Christchurch, Monmouth, against dissenters.
Mr. G IL L ON presented several petitions from
Linlithgow against drunkenness.
Several other petitions of • a similar nature were
also presented by different hon. members, but in
consequence of the excitement which prevailed in
the house, we were unable to catch the names either
of the members or the places.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND).
Mr. WARD said, in rising. to bring forward the
resolutions of which he had given notice relative to
the established church, he begged to assure the house
that he had not become the centre of the momentous
circle which the discussion was likely to give
rise to, without a deep conviction of its importance.
On these grounds alone he had ventured to claim the
attention of the house, and he would not do hon. mem-
bers the injustice of supposing that any deficiency on
his part would induce them to treat the question with
apathy. He should be obliged to trespass upon their
attention at some length, in order to justify himself to
his conscience and the public in bringing forward so
great an innovation, by showing that there were ample
grounds for such a departure from ancient practice,
and that it would be productive of great practical good.
He would first prove the necessity that existed for this
change, and.then he would show the justice of what he
proposed. For it was upon those bases alone that the
policy or expediency of such important changes, and,
above all, those in which religious principles were
involved, should rest. He entirely concurred in the
observations of the right hon. Secretary for the Colo-
nies, who had said two years ago that the question
as to the maintenance of the connection which, in
Christian countries, had been established by the legis-
lature between the religion and the state, should not
be raised without deliberate consideration, and that it
would require the most imperative necessity to
justify any interference. He (Mr. Ward) entirely
concurred in the whole of those sentiments,; but
the question which he had to put to the house was,
whether, on the most deliberate consideration, so far,
at least, as Ireland was concerned, the case of im-
perative necessity had not already arisen? whether
that house would reject the evidence of necessity
that had accumulated upon it ; and whether, then,
it could refuse justly to apply the remedy
which the constitution had placed within its reach ?
This was a case which, if be failed in establishing,
the house would do no more than its duty in re-
jecting it. Before he proceeded farther, he would
state what it was his intention to do, and the
reason of the change which he had made in the
shape of his resolution as it had originally ap-
peared. He hoped the house would do him the justice
to believe that he had not sought to obtain by that
change any unfair advantage. He had been told that
he must separate the question of principle from
details, and he had felt the necessity of this
the more, because many who would support the ques-
tion on principle might not support the details.
From want of local information a degree of obscurity
would, he feared, necessarily attend those details.
He had to ask the vote of hon. members on the prin-
ciple of deduction ; the details, provided the house
sanctioned the principle of the bill, he was desirous of
leaving for discussion for another occasion altogether.
He was most desirous not to trench on the
rights of others in any respect, and if any more effec-
tual mode could be suggested, of carrying the princi-
ple he had to propose into execution, he would be one
of the first to accede to it. He would come now to
the question of necessity, which was the basis of
his present object and of the whole. (Hear.)
The necessity—the imperious necessity—of making
a great and important change in the law affecting the
Protestant Church in Ireland was evident as the
shining of the sun, if hon. members desired to tran-
quillise that country, heal old wounds, and to identify
the interests of Ireland with the feelings of the
empire at large. (Much cheering.) In entering upon
this, nothing could be further from his wish
than to fatigue the house with details of the fruits of
his own experience, but it might be essential on this
occasion to prove that some of the wisest and greatest
statesmen who ever adorned the British Parlia-
ment had always said the greatest causes that ever
disturbed that unfortunate country were _rather reli-
gious than political. ( Hear, hear.) Indeed the ques -
tion of religion was so blended with our Irish policy
that it was impossible to draw any line of de-
marcation between its religious and political state.
Sir James Mackintosh had said that religion,
the church, and the whole administration of property
in that unhappy country, were so blended together
that any rumour raised in any one of them spread alarm
throughout the whole. In that sentiment he
most cordially concurred. This opinion was not
peculiar to Sir James Mackintosh ; it had been
shared by nine out of ten who had ever been con-
cerned in the management of Irish affairs, or
paid any attention to them. Their opinions
might have been modified as the proscriptions of in-
tolerance had disappeared, but still they could not
fail to be entertained to the present moment. Mr.
Canning, as early as the year 1812, reprobated the
principle of the policy which affected Ireland,
founded, as it appeared to be, on the system of
religion. He asked one of his opponents, while
boasting of the abolition of the penal law, whether he
thought it judicious that an impartial removal of the
chains which bound the Roman Catholic should
take place, and that a part should be left re-
maining, as it were, for the purpose of re-
minding him that he had once been in chains.
The feeling against those laws, by which a compulsory
provision was ground in the shape of tithes from the
pittance of the poor was not of modern date, it was
dated from the period of the relaxation of those penal
laws which gave, if he might be allowed to use the
term, to Catholics a legal existence. Lord Charlemont,
in one of his earliest memorandums, stated that the
cause of the great misery in the south of Ireland must
be ascribed to the exaction of tithes. Mr. Grattan
was of the same opinion ; and Mr. Pitt coincided
in opinion with his great rival Fox. Mr. Pitt said,
that without some great reduction of the Protestant
establishment in Ireland, the union with that country
could never be ' completed. The experience of 31
years had only given additional cause to deplore that
the opinion then expressed by Mr. Pitt had not been
acted upon. ( Hear, hear.) The union had never
been completed ; the interests of the two countries
had never been identified. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
It was one great argument with those who agitated
the question of the Repeal of the Union, that the
claims of the Irish Church pressed most urgently,
and he need not inform the house that half the
repeal petitions were petitions for the aboli-
tion of tithes. If this latter portion were disposed of,
the question of repeal would be disposed of with it.
Sir John Newport, in his motion in 1821, said that
it was impossible to collect tithes except at the
expense of the internal disquiet and misery of the
country. Upon the same occasion the right hon. gen-
tleman opposite (Mr. S. Rice) exclaimed, that if there
was one thing more dangerous than discussion it was
despair, and added, that though tithes were not the
exclusive cause of the disorganization of Ireland, yet
they were so intimately mixed with it that it
would be futile to devise measures of relief
in which they were not concerned. ( Hear, hear.)
What was the grievance most complained of? Tithes.
The revolts since the union had not been less frequent,
and their objects always the same. In 1823 Sir H.
Parnell stated that twenty-six years had been
successively disturbed, and that honourable mem-
ber attributed the whole to religious wrong, and to
, the political excitement arising out of it. All the
vexatious exactions of tithes no one had more ably
described than the right hon. Secretary for the Colo-
nies, who he regretted was not in his place. (Loud
cries of " Hear.") Nothing but an entirely new ap-
propriation of church property in Ireland would satisfy
Ireland. ( Hear.) Everything of a coercive kind had
been carried into effect, but was Ireland more tranquil?
( Hear.) In whatever way tithes were paid the
grievances were still the same, and no commutation
could remedy the evil. When those resolutions were
brought forward to make the crown the receiver-general
' for the church, they were met on all sides by decla-
rations, that however the law might authorise tl.e
exaction of the tithes in Ireland, it was a robbery. The

Solicitor-General, who had no seat in the house now,
said the arm of the Church was weak, but the arm of
the law was strong. But the house purchased a
truce at the expense of one million, but the truce
could not be maintained in such a state of
things at any expense. The military and police force
kept up had cost enormous sums, and for no other
purpose than to collect tithes and keep the country
tranquil, but still they had failed. Was Ireland
tranquil ? Was the property of the church secure ?
Had its ministers any reasonable prospect of col-
lecting tithes, either through the old system or the
medium of commutation, unless they consented to
some change of appropriation ? (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman said it was " a system which
never ought to have existed in any Christian commu-
nity between the pastor and his flock." What the
right hon. gentleman said of the machinery, he said of
the system. Tithes were levied on a Catholic popula-
tion for the support of a Protestant church. This was
the greatest grievance in Ireland. This was an evil
which no commutation could reach. If he wanted
proof of this, he had only to refer to the working of
the right hon. gentleman's celebrated resolution of
1832, by which he constituted the Crown receiver-
general for the church. The right hon. gentleman
thought he, had only to make the Crown the creditor,
and he should settle the question at once. How was
his argument met ? He was told, then, by the hon.
baronet, the Member for Dundee, that "the system of
advances and repayments was impracticable. He was
convinced that the means by which that object was to
be effected would not succeed. They had the most
distinct proof, in the evidence given before the Com-
mittee, that they could not succeed. To his own
knowledge, that evidence was most correct. The plan
had. not the slightest chance of success." In this state-
ment almost every Irish Member agreed. The hon.
gentleman here quoted the opinions. of the hon. mem-
bers for Kildare, Wexford, Tipperary, &c. It should
be recollected that these were the sentiments, not of
those who had been called professional agitators ; not
of men anxious to sever the connexion between the
two countries ; but of men distinguished amongst
themselves for their high and gallant bearing, and
who were considered to speak the sentiments of that
part of the community whose opinions were entitled to
the greatest weight. It was true that there was no
want of prophecy on the other side. Amongst others
who indulged in too fond a dream was the Solicitor-
General for Ireland, who, by the bye, had not now a
seat in that house. (A laugh.) He said, " The mo-.
ment the fiat of the legislature was pronounced, com-
bination against tithes in Ireland would be broken.
The arm of the church was weak, but the arm of the
law was strong, and combination and conspiracy would
melt away before it,
" Like snow before the summer's sun.' "
It was always dangerous for a lawyer to indulge in
poetry. There, perhaps, never was a case in which
the bright visions of the imagination had so withered
away. All that was done was the collection of
12,0001., at an expense of 26,0001., and the legislature
had been compelled to purchase a truce at the end of
last session, by the expenditure of a million more.
( Hear, hear.) That truce expired on the Ist of No-
vember, and the clergy would be driven once more to
the old system, or forced on the resources of the
country. He appealed, then, to the noble lord, with
that deference and respect which he always enter-
tained for him, whether, after the notorious failure of
every experiment of commutation, he could undertake
the responsibility of again recommending to this house
any such plan, of the inevitable failure of which he
must be assured. ( Hear, hear.) In the words of
Curran to the Irish Parliament—" You have the in-
fallible test of fact and experience before you, and
wretched indeed must you be, if false shame, false
pride, false fear, false spirit, can prevent you from
reading that lesson of wisdom which is written in the
blood and in the calamities of your country." By a
return which he held in his hand, he found that the
military force in Ireland, from 1825 to 1832, varied
from 19,000 to 23,000 men, as follows :

Year Infantry and Cavalry.
" 1825 20,364
1826 20,875
1827
1828
1829
1830 ... 19,845
1831
1832
Being as nearly as possible the same amount of force
as is required for the whole of our Indian empire, and
within one-third of the force employed to occupy
colonies in the other three-quarters of the world—
Gibraltar, Malta, the lonian Islands, the Cape of
Good Hope, Sierra Leone, Canada, Nova Scotia,
Bermuda, the West Indies, and new South Wales.
The cost of the army last year was, from the Ist of
April, 1833, to the 31st of March, 1834
Officers, non-commis ioned officers, and pri.
vates—garrisons, &c. £1,623,621
and of an annually increasing police force—
In 1830 256,663

1831 268,119
1830
He supposed that, since 1832, there had been a still
greater increase.
-

Mr. FlNN—Fifty thousand pounds a year more.
Mr. WARD—Was it not, independently of any
question of expense, a great abuse of our gallant
soldiery to convert them into agents for collecting
tithes in every petty village throughout the country ?
(Hear.) They had not only tried force, but they had
tried what law would do to collect the tithes, and that
had equally failed, as would appear by a return which
he would read to the house, of the number of tithe
causes tried in Ireland from 1817 to 1821.
(Return ordered 18th March, 1822.)
.1 In Ecclesiastical Courts • 3,418
" At Quarter Sessions, by civil bill process,
before Assistant.. Barristers 86,487

89,905
" Or annually 17,931
" Magistrates were empowered to decide all cases under
101. by the 54th George 111.
" Number so decided in Armagh, estimated by the
Clerk of the Peace, at 1,000 annually.
" Counties in which the tithe causes are distinctly
specified in the returns by the Clerks of the Peace, seven.
" The calculation as regards the rest depends upon the
accuracy of the estimates of the Clerks of the Peace, who
say that about one-third of the causes tried before the
Assistant-Barrister are tithe causes. All cases in which a
note of hand has been given being brought before him,
and this mode of payment is almost universal."

He would notAventure to read these statements to
the house, without stating the manner in which these
returns were made up. When the returns were first
ordered, the clerks of the peace professed themselves
unable at the time to make a distinction between tithe
cases and other cases. Subsequently they obtained in
seven counties a return of the actual number of cases
tried, and in the remaining counties the clerks of the
peace set down the tithe cases at one-third of the
whole. He stated this, because he was anxious to
avoid anything like exaggeration. He put the paper
into the hands of the hon. and learned Recorder of
Dublin, whose absence he also regretted. That hon.
and learned gentleman said he could not venture to
say anything about the accuracy of the statement, but
that, if the return comprehended all the cases tried
before the assistant barristers on notes of hand given
for tithes (a common mode of payment in Ireland), he
did not think the amount exaggerated. (Hear.) Well
might the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary to the
Board of Control, in the speech to which he had al-
ready had occasion to refer, say that the tithes were a
continued source of irritation in Ireland. Thus force
and law had alike failed in supporting the Irish church.
But they had tried morality also, and what had that
done ? Let them look to the amount granted to schools
having Protestant proselytism as a main object.
REPORT FROM SELECT COM 51 IrrEE ON EDUCATION,
• 1828.—AMOUNT OF GRANTS,
Charter Schools X 1,105,869
Association for Discountenancing Vice 101,991
Kildare-place Society

£1,378,368
Ever since the union they had been labouring hard to
support the Protestant establishment in Ireland, and
every effort had been equally unsuccessful. The people
of Ireland had clung with almost a desperate tenacity
to their religion--a religion which seemed to become
more endeared to them, not more byery attempt to
shake its hold on their affections, than by the flagrant
abuses of the Established Church itself. ( Cheers
from the Irish members.) He was anxious, before he
entered on this part of the subject, to lay before the
house a comparative statement of the scale of remu-
neration adopted by the different churches in Ireland.
In doing so he had been anxious to get better data
than those which hitherto existed. The house was
aware that all religious distinctions had been excluded
from every census of population in Ireland since 1732 ;
and that the return moved for by an hon. member, of
the number of Protestants in all parishes where they
were less than fifty, was not made out. He had the
returns of the Catholic Association, but they only ex-
tended to 278 parishes out of 925. He was, there-
fore, forced to have recourse to the ordinary docu-
ments. By the census of 183 1, the population of
Ireland was stated at 7,767,401. He might, there-
fore, now fairly estimate the population at eight mil-
lions. The hon. gentleman then referred to the evi-
-1

dence of the Rev. Mr. Cook, moderator of the Synod
of Ulster, and to other data, to show the comparative
numbers of Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The
returns made to himself from various quarters of Ire-
land rather tended to confirm the results of these cal-
culations. He took for the basis of his calculations
Wakefield's estimate, that the churchmen in Ireland
constituted one-fourteenth ofthe population. He had re-
turns from ten different counties, which he had taken,
he could assure the house, without the slightest dis-
tinction of party, endeavouring first of all to ascertain
that the parties furnishing it might be relied on for
their accuracy. These returns comprehended seventy
parishes, which comprised a population of 329,000
Catholics, and only 14,057 Protestants. The ave-
rage of Protestants to Catholics in all the parishes was
Ito 23. In some it was Ito 40, Ito 95, and even
Ito 134. The hon. gentleman then went into some
further details to the same effect. He, therefore, felt
justified in taking the episcopal Protestants as one-
fourteenth of the total population ; and it consequently
followed that the whole of the present splendid church
establishment in Ireland was kept up to supply the re-
ligious wants of only 600,000 persons. What was
the annual expense of the establishment ? It cost
yearly nearly a million sterling. ( Hear.) The noble
lord, in his calculations last year, did not take into
account the glebe lands, amounting to 85,000 acres of
good land ; which, together with the bishops' lands,
revenues of ecclesiastical corporations, &c., made the
total annual revenue actually received by the Irish
church 937,496/. The estimate was as follows :

Bishops' lands, number of acres, 669,247.
Rent £45,258
Fines on renewals ...

X 120,650
Ecclesiastical corporations X23,606

Total number of benefices 1,456 Income.
Those from which returns have been received 1,184 £526,136
Add 1-4th for 272 returns, not received 131,534

Total 657,670
Glebes attached to benefices, and not included in re- Acres.
turns ... .... —....-- 85,000
At 30s 135,000
Total.
Bishops' lands
Deans and chapters 28,600
Glebes
Returns of tithes .0.041M1
..... 657,670

X 937,456
Total number of benefices, 1,456
Of which 74 range from £BOO to £l,OOO
75 from 1,000 to 1,500
17 from 1,500 to 2,000
10 from 2,000 to 2,800
which is the maximum. There are 407 livings, vary-
ing from 4001. to 8001. per annum ; and 386 exceeding
2001., which is the maximum of remuneration amongst
the Presbyterians of Munster. Who could wonder,
when such sums as these were expended on the spi-
ritual teachers of a church which, he honestly be-
lieved, did not contain more than 600,000 souls, that
the conduct of the clergymen themselves should lay
them open to those attacks, on the ground of non-
residence, which constituted one of the most crying
charges against them ? In 1819, there was a return
made of residents and non-residents, by which it ap-
peared, that there were in 1814, 664 residents, 543
non-residents ; in 1817, 665 residents, 544 non-resi-
dents; in 1819, 758 residents, and 531 non-residents.
Non-residents were classed rather singularly. There
were no-residents' by exemption—non-residents
,by
dispensation, faculty, and license--non-residents with-
out dispensation, faculty, or license—and miscella-
neous non-residents. (A laugh.) Now really what
these last were he could not understand. ( Hear.)
With regard to the 730 resident clergy, some of them
did the duty for the most trifling remuneration—in
some cases as little as 18/. a-year up to 70/. ; but,
taking the whole of the residents, averaging 70/.
a-year each. What sort of feeling was this calcu-
lated to create in Ireland, when they saw the whole
actual work of that wealthy church done for compa-
ratively so small a sum ? With what grace could the
Irish be expected to submit to the burdens iipposed
on them for the maintenance of such an establishment
as this ? As the honourable member for Tipperary
had said, there was no more reason why there should
be divines without a congregation than boroughs
returning members without constituents. What, then,
it might be asked, did he wish to destroy the
church, or abolish the establishment altogether ?
He did not hesitate to say, that he contemplated
nothing of the kind. What he wished was to do away
with the glaring disparity that existed at present be-
tween the scales of duties and compensation. He did
not see why 8001. or 1,0001. a year should be given to
the rector of a parish which did not contain more than
ten or twelve protestants to benefit by so ample a fund,
these ten or twelve Protestants constituting, as they
did in many cases, only the family of the rector or
vicar brought into the parish for the very purpose.
( Hear.) In cases where there remained only a rem-
nant of a Protestant flock, full provision might be
made for that remnant by securing the services of a
curate, without going to the expense of a rector. Ac-
cording to the evidence to which he had alluded, the
income of a presbyterian minister in Dublin, Armagh,
Newry, Belfast, and that district, varied from 250/. to
500/. a year, and partially averaged throughout the
country 1601. The government allowance was divided
into three classes, allotting to one 1001., another 75/.,
and another 551. a year. If this were not sufficient,
let them look to the clergy of Scotland. In what
country on the face of the globe were the duties of the
Christian minister more faithfully performed than in
Scotland ? and in what country on the face of the
globe were the ministers of religion more loved and
respected ? ( Hear.) And how were they paid? The
minimum payment was, he believed, 150/. a year; but
generally in the country districts 1801. and 2001. a
year. Some few were 2501. per annum, and in no in-
stance exceeding 300/. ( Hear.) This was a stronger
case. He thought he should deal not illiberally with
Episcopacy if he proposed as a fit scale of remunera-
tion as ample compensation as the Presbyterian cler-
gyman of the north of Ireland, and as the whole
Protestant clergy of Scotland received for their
labours and faithful discharge of all the duties of a
Christian minister. If he were asked how he proposed
to effect this, he would reply, by means of commissioners,
giving them the power of assigning certain salaries, in
particular cases, under the control of parliament, which
was to fix the cases, and the amounts of salaries to
be given. A strong proof of the facility with which
this could be carried into execution might be found in
France, where provision was made in the budget of
every year for all ministers without distinction of reli-
gions. All that was required was, a notification to the
Minister of the Interior, under certain forms, on which
he assigned a certain sum out of the taxes. ( Hear.)
In France there was no tithe fund, tithes hating been
abolished by the Assembly in a moment of what was
frequently called revolutionary enthusiasm, but which
he would call revolutionary frenzy; and in. conse-
quence
isoifoothoefnluormgeordouosmacioonsfistchaetions benefitof tohfe
tthime eabda,nrid_
France. This was, therefore, properly a national
fund. Archbishops and bishops there received from
1,500 to 2,00 Q francs, and the salaries of curates,
&c., were small, subject to increase from surplice fees,
which in the metropolis and large towns were conside-
rable. This system
.in France was found to work
well ; it prevented rivalry between different sects, and
secured to the population a full measure of instruction ;
and, under existing circumstances, he thought it might
be a very fair question whether, in the case of Ireland,
it would not be wise to apply some portion of the
church incomes to the decent support of the ministers
of the various religions prevailing in that country.
( Hear.) He should not go into the details of his
plan now, but was perfectly prepared to do so if the
house assented to the principle. But the right to re-
duce the church establishment depended on their
right to deal with church property at all. ( Hear.)
This principle he had most distinctly embodied in this
resolution. (Hear, hear.) He had been blamed by
persons for doing so, as it was raising a new ground of
contention. But he would do no hon. member the
injustice to suppose that he could vote for the
resolution, without believing that he had full right
to regulate the distribution of church property
He knew that he must in the first instance establish
the right, before he proceeded to act on it; nor would
he shrink from the discussion. It had been urged on
them that there were many gentlemen who were in-
clined to vote for reduction, but who did not like to
vote expressly for touching church property. Another
objection had been made to touching church property
in Ireland, on account of the 10th article in the Act
of Union. But it would be found that such argument
did not apply. That article stated " that the doc-
trine, worship, discipline, and government of the said
united church, not a word about temporalities' ( A
laugh from Colonel Perceval, which called forth a very
loud and general cheer), shall be and remain in full
force for ever, as the same are now established for the
church of England." He knew that in 1825 no less
a statesman than Mr. Canning, for whom no.maneer
have more personal respect than himself, said
argument of the union was conclusive,. not Y
T worth, and
a the right hon. baronet the member for
reduction but inquiry. That same line thagatainst
aro:an:aken by

also by the hon. member for Oxford. But he thought
that, without indulging in casuistry or special, pleading,
coupling the declaration of Mr. Pitt,
in his speech before
the union, with the omission of the word .. tempora-
lities" in the Act of Union, he had a right to assume
that it was not the intention of the government of that
day to include the temporalities of the Irish Church.
(Hear.) But even if it were the intention of the
government and of those who framed the Act of Union,
still he would say they had no right to bind future
generations ; they had no right to bind the represen-
tatives of the two countries in Parliament assembled,
from modifying that act in any manner which the mu-
tual interest of the two countries required. He had $
high authority for this. No less an authority than
said,with his, peculiarTakie "Taking
intoability
considerationand energy.
the present Lord Chancellor, who met Mr. Canning
theT
church in Ireland and the state of the population,who,
though obliged to support that church, received no
benefit from it, it was monstrous to assert that such so
system should never undergo legislative revision.
" God forbid that he -should contend that the church
had the same power over its property which indivi-
duals had over theirs. There was no sort of analogy
between them. The church received its prePertl
for the performance of certain services, but
_private,
hsetantoeble lord
property was held unconditionally." (Hear.) Had not
some of the regulations of the union with Scotland
been altered? He must push the argument from that.
He would ask whether the house preferred a union in
name, or a union in reality, whether the name or the
substance ? (Hear.) But, in point of fact it was„r,
of the
longer a question of principle, but of expediency. 1"."
right was conceded last year by the Church Refern3
Bill. (Hear.) The bill dealt with the bishops Pre-
spectively ; he did no more. It abolished half the `'en-
try cess at one blow, and laid an income tax on actual
existing incumbents, which was further than he `'en,
tured to go. Were there any other grounds on which
it would be concluded that we had no right to den
with church property, or was there anything in the
state of Ireland which rendered the assertion of that
right inexpedient or dangerous. Why, almost everJ,
member of the present Government had alreadY*
swered that question. The noble lord, in 1824,,,,,,, 'i_
asserted that a different distribution, or even u:to
nution of the church property, was not calculateuaie
injure the church. The Lord Chancellor also Inf_ur._
use of the expressions to which he had already re 10...;
red; and the hon. member for Essex even hado,Eto
tested against the (doctrine that they had no rile°,
interfere with the church. This was not a mere t 1 in
retical opinion—it was the practice of every nati°,lrhe
Europe. It was the opinion of our old divines. bur-
hon. gentleman then quoted a passage from War,.b%
ton, in which that writer asserted that the aluanc-
between church and state was not irrevocable, but .
depended on the continuance of the usefulness of the
former to the latter. Paley also said—" A religion°
establishment is no part of Christianity ; it is only a
means of inculcating it. Its authority is founded upOo t
its utility. There is nothing in the nature of religion,
as such, which exempts it from the authority of the le-
gislature, when the safety or welfare of the commudig '
requires its interposition." (Hear.) "If the disse n-
the
ters from the establishment become a majority of r
people, the establishment itself ought to be altered
modified ;" and Lord Bacon, no mean authority, h:re
repudiate the absurdity that new regulation* '•'a,.
not to be made for the regulation of the churcho..
well as for the state. Our ancestors made no hen he
support of the reformed church. Surely, elle
fold
what the state gave, the state could resume if 't
%tads
tion in transferring the property of the Catholicrt„tre
it necessary to change the distribution of the ;_‘joe
which it had bestowed. This was the real qu tia,
which they had now to discuss—whether the leg the
ture had not a perfect right, and whether air_ je,
people had not a moral right to call on the "0
gislature to modify, remodel, and refortn.orj
church of Ireland corporation, when they..t_nt
it to be wholly inadequate to the task wnicual
terferie
Tamworth had spoken of the danger of inufiscatrs
with church property, on account of the
cb°aronet, if
undertook to fulfil. The right hon. m.ember I.
estates in Ireland, for, said the right hen. rye the
a prescription of 300 years could not Pr. of 150
church, how could they expect a prescriPti
two TICS'
tions stood on a very different footing. It 1 es
years to preserve those lands ? But these
understood with reference to the church, that salad ,
were not given when there ceased to be work toorti
performed. As Grattan had said; the church prof but
was looked on in Ireland, not as the gift of God, v„,
as a salary for prayer ; and the principle of the alter,'o
tion was obvious. But with regard to lay property, ti:a
hon. and learned member for Dublin himself woe',
tell the right hon. baronet that you could not toin
former acts of settlement without shaking the title
almost every individual who had acquired proPie,ht
since the relaxation of the penal laws. They in_ra,
therefore fairly set the interests of the present ge.ear,
tion against the dormant claims of centuries.
tr: hag
hear.) Sir James Mackintosh, in his last wor 5
one
it we
touched on this very subject : he said that
tion--that
of the most malignant properties of confisca 0 „owl
it was irrevocable. Persons purchased the Conn: chip
property bona fide :- it descended to innocent
an. 'n the
dren ; it became security for creditors, s hl 5
its stahl-
interests of the nation became concerned in
en
_d at
could be
present prevailed in Ireland—a feelutigo Whichfjustice
and
lity. This was the feeling which he. ap ereouid
only be strengthened by that great
from the elk
( Hear, hear, hear.) He had shown,
had
svo
the
nions of the greatest statesmen, that
.., had
shown
tuation of Ireland could not go on. tle
eld vio
that the condition of the Church Of Itself He
identified with the condition of Ireland l_dr, which
had shown the remedy, and the only c
remcalled ilea!!
policy which he now called on the haoeuse to assent ta
the house, most earnestly and solemnly,
most itnr3r.
could be successfully applied i and he now to to
from the discharge of their duty on thi%_ct or the
tant subject. He called upon them to ue
re otherwl'e if
tremendous consequences which might .
country.
any
they result, not only in Ireland, but in tills n , , ask
they looked to Ireland, he would confidetlYruntr
hon. member who was acquainted with that ht indeed
whether its public tranquillity, and he 6
WO
these
sa its domestic peace, did not depend upar ? ( Head,.
tlement of the question in the present Ye
'llitY 0'
tranqui ,
hear.) When he spoke of the public
illity as ov.
Ireland, he did not speak of such tratitt..Le cropirtie,,
enjoyed by this more favourable part 01,1'Lts of 01',.
but he spoke of, at least, a cessation 01 a'
ere lec)/‘1!
rage and blood. Ireland and the empire 'cc. _ and 14
at the conduct of the house on this occasion,
~.,ec
. fullyro
character would depend upon the decision
before•Ait
to it. The question was now fairly andthe rit h
the house. It had been always allowed by .ect whie t
hon. gentleman opposite, that this was a sil„binient,l3:ll.
must come under the consideration of par'la time for
they had hitherto always contended that tit?
_d shoo •
settling it had not arrived. He trusted heairth, ciliv
that the time had arrived. He repeated til_ 'Aecision;
ratter of the house depended upon s
it.
the
whether they would continue to uphold 01, ' wkca,
injustice of the Irish church. (Hear, he:or.!_try, all;
the dissenters made their claims in thisa in' ,
taishmen., diet
urged the abolition of the church e
.thatst the basis of tl!iia,
were answered by the statement,
ity
of the popul .
establishment was the great
nellaoincirged to it. Wile!
tion of England, which b
an establishment cc:,r,
they had granted to Scotaila majority
of the popn:,
respondent with the gre t
them not disgrace then
let
tion of that country,
chains of another nation w.o_,7)s
selves by rivettingotuhe shoal(
1 d for its rights. The meinhe 01J
less justice, than S
land, to which he belonged, he lose
the church of Eng end not to commit the c ire.
recomm
most strenuously not so successfully, yet witn:of
g a y oing min , and
IlicEntganhl nd b d ' ' • stiee 5°- be
church establishment in England „cry
land. Theestablishment in Irelandstood on two
of the
church .Not o
the doctrines,. jou.
different footings. only were .
the rag. _s
hadot struggled,il
e ch,lrc i al t
Church of England in conformity with
lotion, n"ci
opinions of the great majority of the Poe
respect sag
thecontinue
osn churchtmfnous
e .etoa r
bintees itself
a.
n's strengthenedvdasthuetartoi t
iis
by
e,,le . I t
0,,
affection of the great body of thelift it might h)
.!,
pr.ayer tv convinced,
ni 12
he
'llhis country
col
bi;
its stability could be assured even i
demands,
_and that
by not upholding more than its just,o retain ; and to
permitted -t't
conceding what it ought no longer v
continue in possession of_ tlTt w: ropognant_tito #
right, and the holdi:goo_t which :
f Christianity. Upon :_,l,iito
the pure principlheey.
this the ought without fear to aa.;oo ya
question as tils 0
f right. Civil utility was Iliclerre„
the strict path
hthey ought to seek, • If they 0: iill'e
the Church of Ireland ought nooltv.t.ochheitPhe—adinotilli
object whic
the) ILI.
d a rig tto set himself up as or
s he that ha .
bi 4 a $
what would.h be the consequence ' •tidg
The Sacred Volume was open to all ; and ~_,.eir 0.74
`vas
a::as the true faith ? No man in t
1,1 ba
..,
right to interpret it according to the best of v'hatVe
judgment. No one was entitled to assunle 0 men
religious opinions alone were the truth. It ILA...
name of truth that the Spanish Inquisition_ !I: 010111
, founded; and never had the name of truth W."

loudly invoked than when Protestants were sacrificed
to bigotry and superstition. In the name of truth,
also, Ireland had been cursed with penal laws. He
would not dwell on that part of the subject. But
when they saw how the sins of the fathers had been
visited on the children,—when they saw what a crop
of evils had resulted from the attempt, in 1704, to
degrade the whole Catholic population of Ireland, he
trusted they would not again disgrace the statute
hook by the admission or the continuance in it of
such partial and unjust laws. It had been said that
the people of England were not prepared for such a
Proposition, and that if it were to pass in that house,
it would not be agreed to by the other branch of the
legislature. As to the people of England, he was
convinced that they were prepared to adopt the pro-
Position to the fullest extent. And as to the otherdo
branch of the legislature, that house had nothing to
with it. It was the duty of the House of Commons t o
Proceed without fear. or without other consideration
than that of placing itself right in the public opinion.
It was their duty to redeem the pledge which ,they
exhad
given with respect to Ireland—" to extinguish all just
eauses of complaint, without injury to the rights and
Property of any class of his Majesty's subjects, or to
Ray institution in church or state." ( Hear, hear.) Let
them do this, and he would venture to predict that the
time would soon arrive when that vision of conciliation
between the two countries which Mr. Pitt said he saw
eta distance, but which he could not then realize,
would be substantiated. Let that house by its vote of
to-night do justice ; and the people of England, who
were never insensible to the cause of justice, and who
were always willing to maintain right, would give
them that hearty support by which alone great politi-
N ameliorations could be brought to a successful
'sane. He would now move the following resolution :
That the Protestant
.Episcopal Establishment in
Ireland exceeds the spiritual wants of the Protestant
Population ; and that, it being the, right of the state to
regulate the distribute of church prerty'#. such
manner as Parliament may determine, it is the opinion
°I this house that the temporal possessions of the
Church of Ireland, as now established by law, ought
to be reduced." ( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GROTE rose to second the motion of his hon.
friend, and stated that he did so, fully concurring in
all the opinions which he had expressed. He felt that
the proposition was not only an act of justice, but that
it was recommended by every consideration connected
With the peace of Ireland, and connected with the
Peace of the empire at large. It was a proposition,
the adoption of which would be wise at all times, but
Would be especially wise at the present moment, when
the question of tithes in Ireland had become one of so
much importance, and when such extensive alterations
Were made and proposed in the law with respect to that
subject. The eloquent speech of 'his hon. friend, and
the manner in which he had touched upon all the
subjects to which the motion related, not only relieved
1111 (Mr. Grote) from the necessity of entering at
great length upon the question, but imposed upon him
the duty of not doing so. The adoption of the propo-
sition would in no way assail the spiritual efficiency of
the church in Ireland ; its only effect would be to assail
the immoderate endowments of that church. As far
as its spiritual efficiency went it would be left as it
Wks, but it would be stripped of those worldly riches
which, while they added nothing to its weight and in-
fluence, were the cause of the distress and impoverish-
ment of the whole of the Irish population. The view
Which ought to be taken of the Church of Ireland and
the Church of England was not only not the same, but
w4s Oppose bot in sirit and in incile. What
was the argitumenth in defence of the pr
churchp establish-
Ment in England ? That the majority of the people
Were members of the Church of England. The same
Ittgument could not be used in defence of the church
tatablishment in Ireland. He need not remind the
'Louse,or it was a matter of notoriety, that when tithes
were originally set apart, they were intended for the
whole religious community of a country. In those
early days dissent from the establishment was unknown
d Unexpected. In the sixteenth century, however,
the Reformation broke up the uniformity of religion.
What became of the temporalities of the church ?
pinyof them were taken by the Government for se-
tt. purposes, but others were not so. The only case
to Europe in which church property had been so dealt
witildthat it had devolved not to government, but to a
small minority of the people, was the case of the
Church Establishment of Ireland. ( Hear, hear.)
There was no instance in which aehumh establishment
was so richly endowed, with reference to the number
of persons who were members of it. Take the Church
131 France, for instance, even under the priest-ridden
Charles X. In 1828 the religious revenue of France
fas 33,200,000 francs on a population of 32,000,000
_ persons, being something more than a franc a head.
The revenue of the Protestant Church in Ireland was
900,000/. on a population of 600,000 persons, being
no less than thirty shillings per head, or more than
thirty times as much as in France. It was scarcely
Ilecessary to allude to Scotland after the admirable
statement of his hon. friend. If he were to do so, the
contrast would be more glaring, yet the Scotch clergy
Were one of the most efficient religious bodies in ex-
istence. On what ground of right or expediency so
disproportionate a revenue was continued to the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland, he was at a loss to con-
He perfectly agreed with his hon. friend that
ifie house had a right to deal with church property as
• ` Pleased. The Parliament of the present day was
ItLst as competent to regulate church property as the
ia'rillament of former days. No man respected the
pi_ghts ats of individuals more than he did ; and those
. rights he maintained that the right of
ought to be fully protected ; but with respect
prospectiver'n! state to deal with church property as it chose was
ull and undiminished. Those who maintained the con-
Za•rY—those who maintained that it was competent to
Past legislatures to tie up church property for -ever,
Whatever changes might take place in times and in
religion, must, in his opinion, run counter to the
Clearest dictates of justice and policy. He contended
that a stronger case than the present could hardly be
trade out. If he were drawing on his imagination, he
eould not state circumstances more cogent than those
which really existed. The population of Ireland,
miserably poor, and gifted with peculiar vivaciousness
aitd susceptibility of excitement, were peculiarly sub-
th-ets for religious and political disunion. What was
co result ? That the catholic population of that
to„untrY entertained the most uncontrollable hostility
Tfivards the protestant establishment of that country.
at establishment became the object of enmity not
faerely account of wealth, on account of its inv, '-ui
vini„.•on in itself theits maintenancbeut of the protestant
v;emidattey. The adoption of the proposed measure
.._eas necessary, not only as redressing religious griev-
-les, but as tending to prevent 'the perpetuation of
,Political disunion. Let the protestant church be pro-
perly maintained in Ireland, but let it no longer
assume that to which it Tyr s not entitled. The attempt
to maintain that assumption had always been produc-
tive of evil, and had been the fruitful parent of multi-
Plied penalties and multiplied calamities. To diminish
the revenues of the church in Ireland would be to
diminish the distress of the Irish People, and to ro-
'England Pand
'!tote harmony and alliance between
Ireland; for if the protestant church Inls a grievance
11)11 Ireland, it must be recollected that a was upheld
Y the irresistible weight and influence of England ;
te,n(l that the Irish people, therefore, looked upon- us as
,1e authors and perpetuators of that grievance. If,
t'tilierefore, the house wished that the union between
e two countries should be a union not merely in
name,A.s_but. in reality, this evil must be redressed.
eaffection, the result of mutual benefits might
on spring up between the two countries. That
lard
never be the case, while the Irish Catholics were
a„rgely taxed for the purpose of paying,- the members
0°
ft church establishment, supported by the authority
England. We could not expect it—we ought not
t 0 expect it. It was evident, during the recent de-
rte n the legislative union, that such was the case.
'fever
' there was a question essential to the stability
the empire, it was the
highly gratified maintenance of that union ;
and had he been to
see the predpon-
c nee of numbers, and the still greater prepon-
raance of argument, by which it had been confirmed.
here was only one topic on which the advocates for
weal were unanswered. No man could answer them
Aron they pointed out the affluent condition of the
trksteQs,tatnt church in Irecloanndau,ctanwdhiwcilrnn tghleayndciDiand-
pur,u° he magnanimous
land, con-
pursue in respect to religious matters towards Scot-
kit and the conduct which she' had pursued on the
sente tibject towards Ireland. To that repre-
' everatiOn no answer could be made. He trusted, how-
othat the house would deprive the friends of re-
that solitary weapon. He trusted no objection
rol„(1,be made to the motion of his hon. friend on the
hnu-slelu, of vagueness or want of precision. If the
1114 decided upon the principle, the means of relief
st be
qu,sti_ suggested from a higher quarter. The great
the now was the recognition of the principle. If
Y d
tn e to recognise it at the present moment, they
Ight at a future period be unable to find a minister