The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-31 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 314Rca 30.

In consequence of the Motion of Lord JOHN Russell. with
respect to the Irish Church being appointed to come on as
early as 12 o'clock to-day, the passages to the gallery, and
every avenue to the House was crowded to excess at an early
hour by persons anxious to hear the debate. The anxiety indoors
was more than equalled outside, for in Parliament-street, and
in the neighbourhood of the Abbey the crowds were immense.
TIIE IRISH CHURCH.
At Fie o'clock precisely, the doors of the House were opened
for the admission of the public ; immediately upon which—
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, and addressed the House as
follows :—Sir, I rise with feelings of apprehension of
the arduous and difficult task I have 'undertaken, and
although I am perfectly sensible of the difficulty of the
task, and the responsibility I have incurred, I feel confidence
in the question which I am now about to bring forward
for the consideration of the House. 1 have no doubt that
the clearness of the proposition which I have to put for-
ward, will excuse any deficiency in the arguments which
I may use to enforce them, and the justice of the case to
which I am about to advert will prevail over the weakness
of the person who appears to advocate them. Sir, I am
about to enter into the consideration of a subject that mate-
rially affects the rights of the people of Ireland. In doing so, I
must advert to the statements that were made in the last session.
Sir, in the last Session of Parliament Mr. O'Connell brought
forward a motion for a Committee of the entire House, to
consider the expediency of repealing the Legislative Union. He
was met by an Amendment which was carried by so large a
majority of this House, that in that minority there appeared
only one Member for England, and not one for Scotland.
In the address that was moved as an amendment, and which
was agreed to by the Representatives of England and Scotland,
and a great portion of the Representatives of Ireland—in that
amendment it was proposed that an humble address be
presented to his Majesty, declaring that it was the fixed
determination of that House to maintain unimpaired the
Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland. In
another portion of that address it was represented to his
Majesty that the Imperial Parliament had taken the
affairs of Ireland into its most serious consideration, with a
view to the advancement of the most important interests of
that country. They had also expressed to his Majesty
their resolution to maintain unimpaired that legislative Union,
and that they should persevere in applying remedies for
any just causes of complaint, and for the promotion of all
measures of general advantage. The House of Lords had
concurred in that aeldress—it had been carried up
to the foot of the Throne, and his Majesty was pleased
to return an answer that lie should be at all times anxious to
afford his assistance in removing all just causes of
complaint, and of promoting well-considered measures-- -
measure of improvement. That proceeding had taken place
in consequence of the resolution which had been brought forward
in deference to the wishes of a great portion of the people of Ire-
land, and forced by a Member of this House, in whom that
portion of the people had the greatest confidence.--( Hear. )
It is in pursuance of this answer of his Majesty which
was assented to by Houses of Lords and Commons,
and which becomes, as it were, a solemn compact between
the Lords, Commons, and the Crown, on the one hand,
and the people of Ireland on the other----it is in
pursuance of this resolution and this answer of his
Majesty, that I come before you to-day to represent to you
what I consider just causes of complaint on the part of Ireland,
and to assist you to take some steps by which we may
hope to obtain well-considered measures of improvement for
that country.—( Hear.) Sir, it is not only on account of its
connection with the motion I intend to make, but I think that
the answer to my motion will be founded on some supposed
and distant apprehension that what we may do to remove
well-founded causes of complaint, and to promote well consi-
dered measures of Reform, may have some injurious effect,
at some indefinite and distant period, to some of the institu-
tions of that country, that I now allude to this resolution.
Sir, I say that you are not at liberty to put in that answer
as a bar to the remedy which is sought.—( Cries of " Hear.")
I say that that portion of the people of Ireland who
have petitioned for a Repeal of the Union have a right to
one or the other. If you are prepared to do justice to Ireland
--to consider her grievances, and to redress her wrongs—you
are then at liberty to refuse the repeal, but if you tell us
that your position is such, that any measure of that kind
would be injurious to England—that your apprehensions with
regard to the Church of England prevent your addressing
what arc abuses in the church of Ireland, you surely then have
no right to say that you must still keep in force the Legislative
Union. You tell us at once that you cannot listen to
well founded grievances, and that you are not able to do
justice to Ireland—( Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, I hold that
such an answer would be most impolitic towards Ireland,
that it would be most dangerous to the United Kingdom.
I am one of those who think that with perfect safety to the
Church of England you may remedy what is defective in the
Church of Ireland—( Cheers )—and, therefore, at the same time
preserve the Legislative Union ; but I own that I do
not understand that any Member of this House will
be ready to confess his inability to consider those
grievances on account of such remote apprehensions,
and yet that he should be able to maintain as resolutely as I
do that the Legislative Union ought not to be disturbed. Sir,
with respect to the state of Ireland, it has long been the
source of embarrassment to every Minister and every
Statesman at the head of the nation.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
With repect to her physical condition, with respect to the po-
verty and distress, if I were bringing forward a motion on that
subject, I should be fatigued with the grounds on which to prove
some measures were necessary to relieve the country from a por-
tion of those calamities. But that is not the question we are now
met to discuss.—That, Sir, is a question for another time, and
another day. The question I have now to consider is the
moral condition of the people, and the extent to which
the Church of England, as established in Ireland, bears
upon that subject. We unfortunately knew too well
whether the act of temporary coercion was necessary,
or whether the administration of the law was properly
conducted in that country. We, unfortunately, • know
that there is a propensity to violence and outrage which
arises from a laxity of morals and habits. We have to
lament that as it often happens that persons endeavouring,
to preserve their personal safety, have more to fear from the
combinations which are set up against the law itself
than the Ministers which execute the law.—(Hear.) We
have to lament too frequently that often when justice
wishes to exercise her prerogative, there is a stronger power,
the force of the multitude, which arises to overact her balance,
and turn aside her sword from executing due and deserved punish-
ment on the offender. Every act for the benefit of Ireland is, as
Lord Melbourne expressed himself in the other House, liable
to be subverted by lawlessness and combination. The set.
tlement of rents—the settlement of wages between the labourers

and his employer—the settlement, in fact, of any bargain
whatever, is frequently impeded by threats, and every ap-
proaeh to an amicable arrangement frustrated in the attempt. I
Sir, we cannot conceal from ourselves that in the history of
Ireland there has been no time when there have not been most
dreadful conflicts some species of civil war which
has induced the people of that country to consider themselves
as martyrs to tyranny than as subjects of this realm.—
(Loud cheers.) The first time that distinctions were drawn
between the people of Ireland was during the reign
of the Edwardses when the distinction of place was made, and
they asked in vain for redress. During the reign of
Elizabeth, when the Reformation gave to "this country a
new standing, and the jewels of the Crown shone resplendent
against the doctrines of the Pope—at that period there was
introduced a new distinction, the distinction of changing
the whole body of the clergy without the body of the
people going along with it.—( Great cheering.) After that
period, new events arose—passing over the period of the
Commonwealth—at the great period of the Revolution,
the Irish people suffered a new distinction, not only of
being abused in religion, but of being even suspected of an
attachment to a Church of which they were professed
Members—they were at once proscribed as enemies of the
Throne and the altar. At the same time we took pains
to restrict the commerce of Ireland, and to prevent
their trading to the Colonies.—( Loud cries of " Hear.") But,
Sir, were these events events of glory? At the close of the
last century, and the beginning of this, a better era
seemed to arise for Ireland, and she threw off many of
those difficulties under which she had suffered.—( Hear.)
When the power of legislation was removed from that country,
we came to a period when we began to remove the
civil disabilities arising from religious opinions—( Hear)—
and this impressed the minds of the people of Ireland with
a sense that a dawn of better days had arisen, and
induced them, therefore, to depend on this country for
proper and reasonable relief.—( Hear, hear.) Under the
Government of Lord Grenville we were furnished with
18,000 volunteers for the American war. Such was the case in
1792, after refusing the elective franchise, which I
am sorry to say has been done since, and other mea-
sures of liberality were so refused—l allude to the Catholic
Emancipation Bill, which was subsequently carried, but
it was conceded avowedly by all, that these concessions were
not given in a spirit of justice, but were wrested from Govern-
ment by menaces and force. It cannot be that when all
concessions were made in this way, the people of Ireland
would be induced to change their minds, and become recon-
ciled to the system they always detested. They continued in
the same hatred, and in their former enmity, to what
they considered to be unjustly imposed upon them—
and thought, as they often thought before, that force
was the only means to be adopted to procure relief. I now
come to ask this House to begin to legislate for Ireland in
a different and a better spirit —( Hear, hear, hear.) I come
to ask you, now—since all these changes I have re-
ferred to—the revolution, the reform in the representation,
and Catholic Emancipation were made under the influence of
force—l now come to ask you, representires as you do the
opinion of the United people of England and Ireland, to legislate
for Ireland in a spirit of justice and liberality, and inspire
the people of that country with better hopes, and lay the
foundations of a lasting settlement. In considering the state
of the Church of Ireland, I am obliged to look back and con-
sider the question so often before discussed—namely, as to
the utility and objects of a Church Establishment. lam
one of those who follow and admire the defence which has
been made by the Prelates of the Church of England in
favour of a Church Establishment.--( Hear, hear, hear.)
I concur in their views of the question, and I do sin-
cerely believe that the Church Establishment of England tends
to the promotion of religion, and to the maintenance of good
order and the prosperity of the people. It is as a friend of the
Church Establishment of England that I now ask this House
in the case of the Church of Ireland to consider whether it
can be upheld for the same purposes in that country,
or be sustained by the same defence 7—( Hear, hear.)
I will now take the liberty of reading one or two statements in
which the object of a Church Establishment was stated by
persons acquainted with it. The Noble Lord then read the opi-
nion of Archdeacon Paley upon the utility of a Church Estab-
lishment, and also the charge of a Right Reverend Pre-
late last year, in which charge the question was stated
very shortly and very clearly ; and in which after enumerating
the purposes for which the Church was established, proceeded
to say,, that unless those purposes were accomplished an esta-
blishment was neither Scriptural nor useful, and that
religious instruction was most effectually carried on
by means of a Church Establishment. The question I mean
to propose to the House relates to the state of Ireland,
and I would ask the House whether those great objects
In- which a Church Establishment is founded, are advanced
by the way in which Church property is appropriated in Ireland,
and whether the religious instruction of the people is most
effectually provided for ? For this purpose, it is neces-
sary- to consider what are the revenues of the Church
of Ireland at present, and what they were in former times, and
upon this subject I must beg leave to refer to a letter of Arch-
bishop King to another Prelate of the Established Church, in
which the number ofbenefices in Ireland were stated. Archbishop
King stated that there were 600 beneficed clergymen in Ireland
of whom only 200 received 100/. per annum—thus making
the total revenue at that time about 60,0001. At present the
number of benefices in Ireland was 1,456, of which 74 were
worth from 8001. to 1,000/. per annum ; 75 were worth from
1,000/. to 1,500/.; 17 from 1,5001. to 2,000/. per annum ;
10 from 2,000/. to 2,500/. ; there are 407 varying from 4001.
to 800/. per annum, and 380 exceeding 2001. per annum.
In witness of what I have stated, the revenue of the Church of
Ireland might be calculated in 1831 at 40,0001., and the tithe
composition at 500,340/. ; the principal revenue due from
tithes is 534,000/. ; the whole sum, therefore, may be calcu-
lated to amount to little less than 800,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
I therefore think it right to ask whether the large
sum of 800,000/., is really appropriated to the instruction
of the people whose doctrines it ought to support, and
whether, during the time those applications have been going
on during the last century, a similar conversion has taken place
in the Catholic faith ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam afraid to say
that in too many instances the case has been the other way,
and that persons haVe not become attached in that proportion,
to the Protestant faith.—( Loud cheers.)—They have not
given up that faith, I am afraid, to which they have adhered.
It is mentioned, that more than one instance has occurred
where the clergy have been accused of a total neglect
of duty, and up to late time many of them seem
to have considered , Jiemselves rather as forming a
part of a political body, than set apart for the sacred office
of instructing the people.—_( Hear.) Sir, it is stated in a
pamphlet written by a Gentleman who has done me the
honour to address it to me, that he considered when first
he went to Ireland, that the clergy of the Church were
different from the clergy of the Church of England, and
many of them seem so engaged in other pursuits, and to
find such a difficulty in collecting their tithes, that their attention
was absorbed more in collecting means of provision, and thus
did not attend to the duties of the sacred character with
which they were invested.—( Hear.) This was written
by a respectable gentleman, who held a benefice in Ire-
land for some years. I have heard, it is true, of but few
instances where clergymen have been deprived of their benefices
for such a cause, but I must admit that there was a case
where one was dismissed for persevering in retaining a com-
mission in the Yeomanry corps. Several authors have writ-
ten to the same purpose, all tending to show the truth of
the position I lay down. ( Hear, hear.) In Kilkenny
it is stated that the number of Protestant families in 1731 was
1055; in 1800, 941, making a decrease in the number of Pro-
testants whilethe population enormously extended. In 1731 the
Roman Catholics were 42,108, and in 1800, 108,000. In a
particular parish of Armagh, it is stated that the Pro-
testants in 1731 were as two to one to the Ro-
man Catholics, and in 1800 they were only as
Ito 3. In the county of Kerry, it is stated in " Mason's Paro-
chial Survey," the Protestants were, in 1731, 64; the Catholics
were, (as we understood the Noble Lord), 1,400. In 1834, the
Protestants were reduced to 5, while the Roman Catholics
increased to 2,455. On the best computation that I
can make I find that the Protestants have not extended
themselves in one place or other, and that the total
number of Protestants belonging to the Established
Church of thlreland may be hardly stated at 750,000.
Aud of these 400,000 are in the ecclesiastical district of
Armagh. I have not been able to go through the entire
of the report; but it appears that in the province
of Armagh, the members of the Established Church, are in
the proportion of eight to one—( Hear, hear)—while in
the other parts of Ireland, the Roman Catholics are by
by much the largest portion of the population. The total
population of Armagh is 750,000. In the diocese of Ardfert
the members of the Established Church are 7,529, while
thetotal population is 304,687. In the county of Down the mem-
bers of the Established Church amounted to 3,583, while the
total population was 197,233. In the diocese of Kilmore the
number of members of the establishment was 8,002, while
the total population was 216,236. In the diocese of Wa-
terford the members of the establishment were 5,084, while
the total popolation was 490,225. In the diocese of Killaloe
the members of the establishment were 2,091, and the total
population 380,000.—( Hear.) In Kilmore the members of
the establishment were 2,067, and the total population 204,209,
so that from these statements you may perceive that while in
some parts of Ireland the members of the Established Church
formed a considerable portion of the population—so considera-
ble as to require a large number of beneficed clergymen, in
other parts they formed so small a portion that it could be nei-
ther necessary nor right to have so large an establishment for
their religious wants.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Sir, when 1 have stated that these are the general results with
respect to the proportions of the population, and when in
no case, by any mode of computation, can the members
of the Established Church be made to form more than
one-ninth of the whole of the population, I venture
with tholes(' reluctance to bring forward a proposition for ap-
propriating some portion of the revenues of the Church to the
general instruction of the population of that country. Sir, I have
before. me several memoranda taken from documents furnished by
a Rht Hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Littleton) who is not now
in office, illustrative of the disproportion between the amount
of revenue paid to the Established Church in various parishes,
and the number of Members of that Church resident in
each parish. It appears in the parish of Kilrush the value of
the tithe composition is 694/., and the number of the
members of the Established Church 349, while that of
the Roman Catholic population is 2,371. In the parish of
Tullamore the amount _ of tithe composition is 436/., the

number of Members of the Established Church 103, while
ni ft • e total population amounts to 252,000.—( Hear, hear. )
--(Thts'Npble Lord then showed from a written document he
hand, the disproportion between the amount of tithes
t4eircifti the various parishes and the number of members of
._r•JA ished Church in Ireland.) Now, Sir, take any
c\A • '1- -these, and I believe instances without end might
„ert-\\'‘,J, )---e-4).1.1- • from the knowledge and personal acquaint-
,_
",

ance of individuals residing in Ireland, and they show
the tendency of all these is, that there is an enor-
mous and very large part of this income of eight hundred
thousand pounds, which is given for the spiritual instruction
of a very small class of people ; well, all the rest of the peo-
ple derive no benefit whatever from that income.—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, I believe it has happened that more care
and more attention have been given in late years, I may say
for the last twenty years, to the spiritual care of the mem-
bers of the Established Church than was done heretofore.

I feel that there are persons belonging to that Church, who
have endeavoured to do their utmost towards the spiri-
tual care of its members, but there was, perhaps, a time
when the English Church might have obtained a 'larger foot-
ing than it does at present ; and that with men attached as
they are to their own faith, attached to the faith of
their ancestors, you cannot hope, by merely placing a
clergyman in a glebe. house and allowing him to preach
every Sunday—you cannot hope that any .real instruction,
or any real advance in religion, or in the conversion of souls
will take place. Sir, every thing contradicts this, and even if
it were not contradicted by the present state of things, I am sorry
to say that what has occurred of late years would tend to dimi-
nish very much the hope which might otherwise be entertained.
It was thought fit some years ago to draw together a public
meeting, endeavouring to find if controversy would be the means
of making converts. I must say that those who made these
attempts, did act in defiance of all Christian precepts. I can
well conceive that with a rich Church existing in a country
enjoying large sinecures without a cure of souls, that if they
were to come into a country of men, who if they were in error,
we endeavoured to win over to the truth--I entertain no
doubt that there might be a hope of gaining many con-
verts.—( Hear.) But that persons belonging to a Church
such as the Church of England, which has a large revenue,
with very small flocks—paid by the people of that country—
, that they should attempt a crusade against those who
' were the voluntary teachers of men—( Hear, hear, hear)—
also voluntarily supported it—that they should hope the
rich Church should overcome the habits and prejudices of
these people by violence, does, I think, show greater zeal
and greater rashness than ought to have been displayed.
What was the consequence? It might have happened that things
would go on in their usual course, but being provoked in this
way, the Catholic clergy did commence a spirit of resistance,
and did advise a spirit of resistance against that clergy by
whom they were opposed.—( Hear.) lam far from thinking
that that resistance, or that encouragement, was justifiable ;
but taking the state of the country, I place it before you to
show things naturally, and as they resulted from the course
then pursued—l place it before you to prove the obstacle against
the success of the Church of England in the progress of its
spiritual doctrines. What have we since seen? In the in-
stance of Gurtroc, it is said that a Roman Catholic priest did
advise the people not to pay tithe ; the Protestant curate, on
the other hand, seized the horse of the Catholic clergyman.
I think equal blame ought to be given to both for this
course.—( Hear.) I do think it most lamentable that
instead of having a Clergy recommending the spirit of the Gos-
pel by the mildness of their characters, the dispute should have
begun by those who ought to have been the ministers of peace.
Sir, in consequence of that, there has prevailed through-
out Ireland a spirit of resistance so inveterate that no exertion
on the part of the clergy—that no attempt on the part of the
Government has succeeded, in enforcing the collection of tithes,
and even when laws were passed by the late Government for
the better and more easily collecting of them, the Secretary for
Ireland was obliged to come down and deprecate the use of
the military in the collection of Tithes—( Hear.) Then Sir,
in the first place you are unable to diffuse spiritual instruction
among the people, while in the second, by the present system
of tithes, you are brought into collision with the people
which is equally as unscriptural as it is against the
best interests of the State—(cheers)—for let me put
it to the House, that those great authorities vvhcm I have
already quoted, explicitly state that the Church Esta-
blishments were considered as a means of spiritual
instruction, and as far as they followed the object proposed by
the Scriptures, they were useful—but looking at what took place
at Gurtroc and Rathcormac—it appears such is not now the case,
and that the funds of the Church are to be used for maintaining the
Church of Ireland, and for no other purpose. Then, Sir, what
. .

is it I propose ? I propose that there should be instituted such
a reform of the Church of Ireland as would enable us to
adapt the establishment to the Scriptural instruction of the
people. Then, if the House is willing to adopt that principle
the Establishment might be very much reduced.—( Great
cheering.) I propose, therefore, that you should introduce
that principle, and that all the money which should be saved,
should be applied to some objects of religious improvement,
whereby the people of Ireland might be advanced in knowledge,
and their religious interests be placed on a better foundation,
and the funds raised nominally for their benefit, would then be
so applied. It is with that view that I mean to propose the
resolution of which I gave notice—" That this House resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the
present state of the Church in Ireland, with a view
to applying any surplus not required for the spiritual
instruction of the people, to the purposes of national educa-
tion, without distinction of religious persuasion."—Cheers.)
Sir, in proposing this, I follow a course which I think
not dissimilar to that course which was adopted in the
year 1828 with respect to the Catholic Emancipation
Bill, by, I think, the Right Honourable Member for West-
minster. A Right Honourable Gentleman asked me the
other night, what plan I intended to propose. On that
occasion the House resoired itself into a Committee to
inquire into the state of the Roman Catholic population
of Ireland by a majority of six—a Committee to consider the

state of the laws in reference to the Roman Catholic subjects
of Ireland, with a view to find some measures for their relief,
and it was then moved that the House of Lords be acquainted
with the nature of the motion. The Lords, after a conference,
discussed the question, and I think the course then adopted
prescribes my course. I shall propose that the House do
go into Committee, and if the House resolves upon that,
I shall produce a resolution containing the spirit and ob.
ject of my present motion, and I shall then muve an address
to the Crown to present that resolution to the King, with a
humble entreaty to his Majesty to enable the House to
carry the object of my motion into effect.--( Loud cheers.)
Sir, I think that this is the course which is necessary for me
to take upon this subject. I remember that upon the
question of Church Temporalities, after the Bill had been
read a first time, the question was started whether the
House could dispose of the ecclesiastical patronage of
the Crown without a special message to the King. Sir, your
predecessor decided himself, that though that Bill had been
proposed by Ministers, and though it had been recommended
to the consideration of Parliament in the King's Speech,
it would be competent for the House to go into Committee,
but that we should send a special message to the King. Sir, I
call the attention of the House to that question, and I call the
attention of the House, not only because I think it necessary
in form, but because it is the only manner in which this question
should be disposed of. The only mannerit can be satisfactorily
proposed to this House is with the concurrence of the Crown
—that is the way in which other measures are introduced and
recommended to Parliament. In proposing this, I know not
whether the Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite will think it
right to follow up what they did in the year 1829. After
the resolution had been carried by a majority of six,
—( Hear)—the Right Honourable Baronet came down and
stated to the House of Commons that as the House had divided
and given a majority in favour of the Roman Catholic ,flaims, the
state of Ireland was such as to induce a well-founded alarm, and
make it his duty to change his course uporithe proposed measure.
Whether the Right lion. Gentleman will now borrow that
precedent or not, I do not know, but I think it is as competent
for him to adopt it as the course he then pursued. The
Right Honourable Gentleman, I know, has stated an opinion
which I shall read to the House, and which is against the
principle I propose, but which is not more against it, than were
his opinions against Catholic Emancipation previous to his
proposing that measure.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
gentleman, in his address to his constituents, and which he
intended as an explanation of his political opinions for the
empire at large, stated, on the question of Church Reform he
had no new professions to make ; that he would not consent to the
alienation of Church properly to any but strictly ecclesias-
tical purposes.—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial side, re-
echoed from the Opposition.) He professed himself friendly
to an improved distribution of the Church revenues, but
solely for the benefit of the Church of England. The Right
Hon. Gentleman stated this his opinion in a very emphatic
manner. Soon after his accession to office, on being asked the
question as to what he proposed to do in reference to the report
of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland, he answered that
he would not advise a new distribution of the revenues of the
Church for any purpose than the promotion of the interests,
and the extension and maintenance of the religion of the
Established Church.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Since
that time the Right Hon. Baronet has introduced a measure
in relation to tithes in Ireland, in which he proposes that the
property of the Established Church shall be confined to
purposes strictly ecclesiastical, and by which measure, if
it be passed, church property is to remain devoted
to ecclesiastical purposes alone. I do say that the
Right Hon. Gentleman having stated his opinion thus broadly
on the question, it becomes quite necessary (whatever may be
the result of the ecclesiastical Commissioners' inquiry)
that the House of Commons should decide upon
this point—( Hear, hear)—either to adopt or reject the
principle of the Right Hon. Baronet. If the House is deter-
mined that the Church revenues shall be confined to eccle-
siastical purposes alone, it is better that that doctrine should
be at once declared ; but if such is not the opinion
of the House, there was not the slightest use in passing
this Tithe Bill through its different stages. Let the question
be first decided, and let it be known whether Ministers
and the House of Commons coincide in their opinions
before proceeding a step further with the new Tithe Bill.
I think that this is a full justification of the course I am now
taking in proposing this resolution. Had the late Ministry,
or a similar Ministry, adopting their views, remained
in power when the report of the Commissioners was known,
that Ministry, or a similar Ministry, would have been disposed
to act in the spirit of that report--( Cheering)—and, if
necessary, would have reduced the Church Establishment—
( Loud cries from the Opposition.) But the Right Hon.
Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) said on assuming office, and in pro-
posing his Tithe Bill, that collision might go on, but
that he would not otherwise look to that result, except
so far as it enabled him to make a better distribution of
Church revenues among the members of the Establishment ;
but that whatever might be the report—whatever the
surplus
revenue—whatever the extent of reduction which the Protes-
tant Church might bear with stability, and the extension
of its real influence, he had made up his mind not to con-
sent to forego the principle of maintaining the property of the
Church Establishment for its present purposes.—( Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) Such being the case, it is
quite necessary to come to some distinct resolution upon this
question.—( Great cheering from the Opposition.) It is for
the advantage of every one—it is for the advantage of this

aX "~

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1535.

.
country--itis for the advantage of Ireland—it is for the general
advantage of the empire that we should upon this great and
vital question, have a Ministry in harmony with the House of
Commons—( Cheers--acting in unison with the sentiments of
the House.—( Renewed cheering.) If the Right Hon.
Baronet has the confidence of the House—( Loud cheers
from the Ministerial benches) —if he has the opinion
of this House with him upon this question, or if that
opinion is against him, and he is prepared to take the course
which he took on a former question ; in either case it is
far better that we should come to a decision, and not go on
night after night, and week after week, without knowing
whether the Ministers of the Crown enjoy the confidence
of the House of Commons upon this great and vital question.
I think I have said sufficient to set aside any argument that
may be drawn from the fact of the report of the Commissioners
not being upon the table of the House. Gentlemen on the
other side of the House are welcome to say that it is in-
consistent to bring forward a motion on this subject with-
out waiting for the report--( Hear, hear, hear.) Those
gentlemen are welcome to throw such taunts upon us;
but I think it sufficien state that the question has essentially
changed—that iftis no . ein abeyance, and that a decided
opinion has been pronattnek on the other side of the House,
and that decided-optgois,haiilebeen pronounced it is neces-
ary—it is esientudiwy—whether or no the prin-
ciple I am about to *OW of appropriating the revenues of the
Church of Ireland to such Use, as may tend to the gene-
ral benefit of Ireland, will be adopted— by this House.
Sir, I come now to the question with respect to the
purposes to which I propose that the surplus revenues
should be applied ; and in stating that, I will take the
opportunity of answerini, the question put to me the other
night by an Hon. Member opposite, whether I meant to apply
any part of these sums to the education of the children of those
who professed the Roman Catholic religion. In answer to
that question, I will say that I mean that it should be applied
to the general education of all classes, according to the prin-
ciple adopted by the General Board f Education in Ireland,
established by my Noble Friend the Member for Lancaster.—
( Great cheering.) According to which, all creeds, and chil-
dren of all persuasions, were to receive religious and moral in-
struction.—(Great cheering.) Sir, I consider, in the present
state of Ireland, there is so measure which would tend so much
to its future prosperity as the expenditure of those large funds for
the purpose of promoting education ; I think the House will
find, even from the earliest times, that Parliament wished to
promote the Protestant religion in Ireland by means of educa-
tion.—( Cheering.) That that was the wish of the Legislature
in former times is apparent from the Acts of Parliament. In
future times—in much later times, there were those who con-
sidered it was of the utmost importance that instruction should
be given to the people of Ireland, without interfering with their
religious creed. I refer to the letter of the Bishop of Clonfert,
where he says, " What I have done since I came into the diocese
is this—l have found there are 20 Catholics to one Protestant.
To attempt, therefore to make them converts to the Es-
tablished Church by making them read Protestant books would
be a useless task, and when I see that we are unable
to make them Protestants, I wish to make them good sub-
jects, good citizens, and good men. I have established a
Sunday school open alike to Protestants and Roman Catholics,
and have recommended my clergy to follow the example."
Now, Sir, I think this is an example we should follow ; it is
well we should adopt the recommendation and example of this
excellent Bishop, and we should establish schools to be pro-
vided for out of the funds of the Church, in which instruction
would be given that would make the people good Catholics,
good citizens, and good men. —( Cheers.) Sir, I cannot conceive
that the funds which were intended for the religious instruction
of the people, can be misapplied when voted for the purpose
of making men good subjects of the State, and religious and
moral citizens. Sir, the object of the resolution, is one which
we know has been frequently recognized. Different Com-
missions of Education have issued. In 1806 an Act passed
appointing a Commission of education of which the Arch-
bishop of Armagh, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Edgeworth were
Members, and, after several years, they agreed to a report
in which it was laid down that a new system of education
ought to be adopted—such as would not interfere with
the religious tendencies of the people, and that it would
add much to the advantage of the country that schools
on this principle should be established.—( Hear, hear. )
They stated that it was not a question whether the people of
Ireland should be educated or not, but whether they should
receive a sound system of education ? In the appendix to that
report there was a letter from Mr. Grattan, in which he re-
commends the establishment of parochial schools, and in which
the principles of the Christian religion should be taught,
but without inculcating the doctrines of any particular sect.

The Education Commissioners in 1825, recommended that a
large number of schools should be established, where all inter-
ference with religious opinions should be prohibited. I should
have mentioned that in 1812 it had been recommended by Mr.

Edgeworth that 1,300 schools should be established, with 16
large ones, and that a sum of 80,000/. should be devoted by
thee State to that purpose. The late Education Commis-
missioners, consisting of the Archbishop of Dublin, Doctor
Murray, the Duke of Leinster, and Mr. Carlisle, all, although
comprizing men of different religious opinions, recognised th s
principle, and acted in the most perfect harmony ; and from all
I have beard wherever schools of this kind have been esta-
blished they have been attended with the best results—a bet-
ter kind of education has been introduced, and moral, religious
instruction has been conveyed generally to the people, with-

out interfering with the opinions of any particular sects. Rav-
in.- stated these facts, I come now to meet one or two objections
of great importance, but which I think are not well-founded. The
first is the assertion of the principle that the propertyof the Church
ought not to be diverted to other than ecclesiastical purposes.
Sir, with respect to that question I will not now go at
large into its details, or argue as to whether that property
should be held sacred as private property, or whether it is
entirely at the disposal of the State ; and were I disposed to con-
sider that question, as Mr. Burke considered the question of
the right of taxing our colonies when he brought forward his
motion for that purpose, I fear that I should lose myself " in
the vast and miry bog," and that I should sink in the
details of a question of such maenitude.—(Laughter, and
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.) But
then, Sir, I will say that if there is a proposition tenable
on that subject, it is not the proposition which is maintained
by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. One doctrine upon this
subject is that it is private property. Mr. Burke, in his
" Reflections on the French Revolution," says that it enters
into the mass of private property.---( Hear, from the Ministe-
rial Benches.) Now, is that the doctrine to lie maintained?
I say with great respect that it is a doctrine which I cannot
accede to. But, Sir, that is not the doctrine which is held by
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.—( Hear from the Op-
position.) They hold you may distribute Church property
otherwise.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, has this any re-
semblance to any private property ? Did Parliament
ever say, or could it ever be expected to say, there are a
hundred or two hundred large proprietors in this country
whose incomes must be distributed among the smaller pro-
prietors of property ?—( Hear, and laughter.) Sir, on what prin-
ciple can you distribute it. I ask, where do you come ?
You say you will diminish the number of Bishops; but I say
the number of Bishops is too great. Where will you then dis-
tribute them ? You say amongst the Deans and Chapters ;
but the numbers of these is too great also; then you say among
the Rectors and Churches. But if the Deans and Chapters,
and the Bishops, are too numerous, may this not also apply to
the Rectors and Churches.—( Cheers.) How is it possible to
say that you will here distribute them, and.that you will do it
in a manner which shall be advantageous to the country? You
may have too many Bishops. On what principle do you do it
then? You say because it is useful—bemuse it isifor the pur-
pose of religious instruction. But then comes the thing that
you regulate—the distribution in direct variance with every
rule which applies to
.private property, 74 Cheers.) I sly
again, that you can do it on the ground of public expedie
and public right—but, I ask, where is the distinction that you
can draw between the cases, or how can you pretend to call
that property sacred? It does seem to me to be quite incom-
patible. You may say that Parliament has a right to interfere
between these positions, part of which you describe as public,
and part as private property—but how can you under this form
deal with it, does appearito me to be most absurd and most ineffi-
cient.—( Cheers.) Can any man tell me that it is useful to apply
them as now, because one-fifteenth of the landed proprietors are
Protestants ?—( Loud and continued cheers.) I would give in to
that proposition if I heard it gravely stated, and could be-
lieve that no one who was not possessed of a freehold
had any right to Scriptural consolation.---( Loud cheers. )
but when I have shown—clearly shown by the authorities
I have already quoted that Church Establishments are
instituted for the benefit of all ; and when you are, day by
day, collecting sums of 6d., 4d., and even a penny from Ca-
tholics, who are deriving no benefit, then, I do say, that my
proposition is necessary. I say, then, that the argument, that
merely because the original proprietors of the land are members
of the Church of England, cannot be an objection to my pro-
position. Upon these grounds, I shall make the motion which
I shall presently put into your hands. I think, without doubt,
you must adopt something of this kind. If you pass the Tithe
Bill as it now stands, appropriating the Church revenues of
Ireland to its present purposes, you will not maintain peace,
and by no possibility can you produce harmony in that country.
I Lifjieve that the people of Ireland are as warm hearted as the
people of England, and are as deeply attached to their bene-
factors as the people of any country.—(lmmense cheering.)
It is most singular, that whilst those acts of violence of which we
have heard so much, no traveller who goes to Ireland but says
he is received by the peasantry, as well as by the middle classes,
not only with hospitality, but with the most open kindness.
Those who were not natives of Ireland, but had lived
in that country have told me how much gratitude
the people evinced towards those who interested themselves
in their behalf.—( Hear, hear.) When such is the conduct
of that nation to individuals, I say you have now
an opportunity of earning that gratitude which, as an
Imperial Parliament, you ought to do. You have now the
power of acting free from any danger or compulsion—you
have not the fear of a foreign war, nor the dread of civil dis-
cords. It is in your power to gain advantages that have been
too long delayed ; when the Repeal of the Union shall cease to
agitate that people ; when that nation, so proverbial for being
fine-hearted, so panting to be loyal, will give to you the full
tribute of their homage and allegiance ; when they will acknow-
ledge that you have done justice to Ireland; while you will
also have the satisfaction of confessing the same, and to con-
gratulate yourselves upon this more than upon any other mea-
sure ; and you will find that you have added to the strength
and promoted the prosperity of this empire, by making your-
selves unconquerable by your enemies, and an example to the
world of religious toleration and freedom. The Noble Lord
concluded by submitting the following motion :

" That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, in order to
consider the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, with
a view of app!ying any surplus of its revenues, not required for the
spiritual care of its members, to the general education of all classes of
the people, without distinction of religious persuasion."
The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud cheers.

Mr. WARD seconded the resolution.
Sir E. K NAVC HBIT LL said that in a debate of such
great importance! involving so great a principle, he would not
presume to detain, the House by occupying its time one moment
in prefacing what he had to say by an apology, but rather
would anticipatethat he should receive that kind and conside-
rate attention which the subject demanded. If the Noble
Lord opposite had expressed diffidence in encountering a ques-
tion of such magnitude the more so should he. At once then
he would come to the question, and state to that Noble Lord
and to the House the reasons why he could not accede, and
the grounds that compelled him to oppose, the resolution.
This he could not do to the extent he should have desired, for
he had to compain that the Noble Lord until after his en-
trance into the House had not thought proper to make the
Government acquainted with, or to give the House any account
of, the details of his proposed resolution and consequently,
he, in common with others, laboured under a great disadvan-
tage from having remained in such a state of ignorance with
regard to the intentions of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord,
in answer to a question put to him by his friend the Right
Honourable Baronet on Friday last had given a general no-
tion of his intention, but had added that he would not (so
we understood the Right Hon. Gentleman) be bound by his
word. Now he thought it exceedingly convenient, and most
men found it so, that people in general should be bound by
their word.----( Cheers.) He thought that such course was
more manly and bespoke more of statesmanship, although it
had not been difficult to discover from first to last that the
precise object of the motion was not such as was expressed.—
( Hear.) In opposing the motion of the Noble Lord it was
open to him to adopt one of two courses. He might move
the previous question, and thus get rid of the resolution ; or
he might do as it was his intention to do, meet it with a direct
negative, so that it might be understood not only in the walls
of that House. but from one end of the country to the other,
that the Government would be no party to such a principle
as the one propounded. He would not, therefore, move the
previous question, but would come to the resolution, which, if
agreed to, would place the House in the same predicament in
which the Noble Lord stood, of making a premature affirma-
tion. That Noble Lord, be it remembered, had been placed
in the same dilemma last year as that in which he now at-
tempted to place the Government. The same arguments
which advanced his views previously, of not dealing with a
subject before they had matter to deal with, was, in his opi-
nion, such as he could concur in. And here he would ask the
Noble Lord and the House what was the precise object of the
motion? Was it, as the motion would lead them to infer,
solely, distinctly, and openly a means of arriving at a settle-
ment of the question it involved, or was it brought forward for
the purpose of trying the great and important question of the
relative strength and situation of parties?—( Cheers.) In
listening to the early part of the speech of the Noble Lord,
and marking the attention that he met with from Honourable
Gentlemen opposite, he might have been inclined to entertain
a doubt ; but the expression contained in the latter
.part too
unequivocally displayed the real object.—( Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord had referred to the declarations in the address
put forward by his Right Honourable Friend to the electors
of Tamworth, which he had said, and no doubt it was so,
had been done for the purposes of making known to the
whole nation the principles of his Right Hon. Friend. But
to return to the motion of the Noble Lord. Supposing the
present resolution was agreed to, what practical course was it
proposed to pursue? Why, that they should present an ad-
dress to the Crown expressive of the opinion of the House of
Commons? And for what purpose? Why, for no other pur-
pose than the hope of involving the Crown in a direct opposi-
tion to the wishes of that House. This would indeed be an
illegitimate method of proceeding, and he should have
thought it more considerate and manly, more worthy of the sta-
tion of the Noble Lord, and of that place to which he aspired,
if he had boldly come forward with a motion expressing that
the House had no confidence in the present Ministers. But
no; a resolution had been artfully and wilfully drawn up,
which was to produce the effect its framers desired, but which
they had not sufficient confidence and boldness to avow.—
( Cheers.) To the principle of the Noble Lord he withheld
his consent, on this distinct ground, that he was not at all pre-
pared to allow of the alienation of Church property from Church
purposes. It was his decided conviction and firm opinion—
and he would join issue with the Noble Lord on that point—
and the Noble Lord might talk as long as he would, and tell
them of proceedings had and proceedings anticipated—but he
was not prepared to alter his opinion that to alienate the pro-
perty of the Protestant Church was to deprive the Pro-
testant to give to the Catholic.—( Loud cheers.) The
property of the Established Church being differently dis-
tributed among its own members was not a case in any way
analogous to the one now before them. The argument of
the Noble Lord was not a valid argument; and he would
ask the House if there were no difference between altering
the amount of the revenues and differently applying their dis-
tribution from our Protestant Church to another, and taking
from that Church, and applying its property to Catholic
purposes ?—( Hear, hear.) He very much regretted, what-
ever might be the issue of the present motion, that the Noble
Lord had thought proper to introduce any religious question
for their discussion, to try thereby the merits of a party ques-
tion. He never liked the discussion of such questions in that
House. He would concede to others what he claimed for
himself, and allow, for he knew the principle of religious tole-
ration was nothing unless exercisedin that manner, the fullest
indulgence to opinions that were contrary to his own. There-
fore, he was sorry that a point of so much delicacy had been
introduced for the purpose of a trial of strength, feeling that
it would leave so much bitterness of feeling behind it. He
knew it had been cautiously avoided to arouse such feelings ;
but he knew what must follow, and he should repeat it again
and again, when an attempt was made to take from one
Church to give to another. It would be in the recollection
of the Noble Lord and of the House that the Member for St.
Alban's (Mr. Ward) had last session introduced a motion on
the present subject ; and the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin had done the same, and with the same effect. The
Noble Lord on those occasions had thought proper to pursue a
course very different from what he now considered proper. He
not only dissented, but he then declared that to allow the re-
solutions he alluded to to pass would not only be highly in-
convenient in practice, but decidedly wrong in principle. But
although the Noble Lord objected to the introduction of the
motion by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, yet in spite of
those objections he now introduced a similar motion him-
self. The Noble Lord had said on that occasion, that in con-
junction with his colleagues it had been determined to issue a
Commission. And here he would ask the Noble Lord, where
he had obtained the information with which he had that night
favoured the House ? He did not wish to impugn his veracity
or deny his correctness; but if he obtained that information
from the labours of the Commissioners, he was in possession
of facts with which the Government were not acquainted ; and
as that Commission had been issued by the Crown, he could
not conceive how the Noble Lord was possessed of its results
before any of the members of the Government. Be that as
it might, and he know not how the case stood, he thought
that the course now proposed to be adopted was a very bad
one, and exceedingly imprudent in the present state of the
information, namely, founding a general resolution on an
abstract principle. The Right Hon. Gentleman then alluded
to a speech delivered on the same subject by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Cambridge, who had designated such a course as
"one of the greatest absurdities that could be perpetrated."
He then said that the Noble Lord, when in office, had enter-
tained and acted upon similar principles as be ( Sir E. Knatch -
bull) then advocated, and he trusted 'hat he would yet consent
to the rejection of the resolution. If it were the desire of the
Noble Lord, in the event of his success, to see the formation
of a new Government, of whom, he would ask, could it be
composed ?—( Laughter from the Opposition.) Was it to be
composed of " all the talents" on the Opposition side of the
House, and headed by the Noble Lord? Did the Noble Lord
propose to form his Government from these materials, and
look for support for it from those Hon. Gentlemen of the
Sister Island who, when he was in office, were so unsparing in
their attacks on hint and his party ?—( Hear.) If that was
what the Noble Lord proposed to himself, he would be bit-
terly disappointed. Supposing, and it looked likely, that
the most prominent of the Noble Lord's present supporters
were included in the Administration he should fok m—the
Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin for instance—
how did the Noble Lord mean to deal with him ? The
Honourable and Learned Member had temporarily foregone
the repeal of the Union until he should see whether justice
would be done to Ireland.—( Hear.) What did the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman mean by " justice ?" Was the Noble
Lord prepared to gise the term in reference to the condition
of Ireland the same acceptation as the Hon. and Learned
Member ? Would the Noble Lord concede_ to the Hon. and
Learned Member the full extent of what he should choose to
term " justice ?" If he did, what would England say ? If he
did not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would agitate again
the question of Repeal.—( Hear.) He (Sir E. Knatchbull)
confessed that he saw with dismay and regret the close union
of the Noble Lord and the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. And he could not help saying, that to see the leader
'of the Whig party—a party which always prided itself upon
its observanee of the Constitution—coalescing with the Hon.
and Learned Member, the avowed champion of opinions dan-
gerous to the integrity of the State, was in his mind a state of
things most astounding to contemplate. —( Hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin discharged, no doubt, what
he conscientiously believed to be his duty to his constituents ;
but that course appeared to lie so directly opposite to the course
which the people of England looked on as the right one, and
the way in which he discharged it was so diametrically opposed
to the interests of this country, that he ( Sir E. Knatchbull)
could not again avoid expressing his fear of the extraordinary
coalition which had taken place between that Honourable and
Learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord the leader of the
Whigs._( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin, he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) well remembered had said,
on the occasion of a debate in which the national faith was in-
directly the question—" Strike off one half the interest of the
National Debt, and if that be not found sufficient strike off the
other." That was the Hon. Colleague with whom the Noble
Lord had allied himself, and with whom he had identified his
party.—( Hear.) That was the Hon. Gentleman with whom
he had coalesced. " Strike off half the interest of the Na_
tional Debt, and it that does not do strike off the other half."
He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) wished to know whether the Governor
of the Bank of England was one of the party which included
the Hon. Member who made that memorable declaration ?
( Hear, hear.) If that Hon. Member (Mr. Pattison) had
been in his place, he ( Sir E. Knatchbull) would have asked
him how he could justify or join such a coalition ? As be-
tween the present Government and the past Government,
how did the great national question, the settlement of which
was admitted on all hands to be necessary, stand ? When
any specific measure was proposed by the former was it not
always better, and of a more practical and generally popu-
lar nature, than any similar one of the latter? Was not
their Irish Tithe Bill incomparably a better Bill than the
Bill of the preceding Government ?-,--( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Did it not embrace a wider scope, and give more decided

satisfaction to a larger portion of the community ? Was not
the Dissenters' Marriage Bill of a more comprehensive na-
ture than the similar measure of the last Administration ? And
did it not, moreover, go farther? Were any objections urged
against either of these measures? Not one. The only op-
position to them was on the ground that they had been in the
contemplation of the late Administration, and his Right Hon.
Friend Sir Robert Peel was attacked solely, not because his
measures were inferior, not because they were superior, but
because they were analagous to those which had been intro-
duced on former occasions by Hon. Gentlemen on the oppo-
site side of the House ; the only difference between them being
in point of fact, that the measures of the Right Hon. Baronet
were of a practical and satisfactory nature, while those of his
opponents were vague, general, and incapable of being use-
fully applied to the purposes for which they were intended. He
( Sir E. Knatchbull) might allude again to the English Tithe
Bill, but he should refrain from doing so, and keep solely to
the question of Irish Church Reform. The Noble Lord the
Member for Devonshire, had spoken generally of the deplo-
rable condition of Ireland. He had lamented the scenes
of daily occurrence in that unhappy country, the murder,
the rapine, the violence, the resistance to the law, and the
constant and unceasing state of fearful agitation in which it
was kept. Did the Noble Lord suppose that he alone lamented
these occurrences? Did he suppose that these accounts of
the violation of property, the loss of life, and the infraction
of law; were received by the members of his Majesty's Go-
vernment with less of sorrow and regret than by him and his
party, or that the) were less willing and ready to put an end
to them by all the means in their power ? Of one thing he
( Sir E. Knatchbull) was quite certain. If some of the Hon.
supporters of the Noble Lord, on the present occasion, were
only half as anxious to suppress these lamentable occurrences,
as they were to abet and encourage agitation, the scenes of
blood and violence so common in that country would have no
existence.--( Hear, hear.) On that subject he would trouble
the House no further. He would oppose the measure of the
Noble Lord, because he believed it to be revolutionary in its
effect. He should also oppose it, because he most sincerely
believed that the adoption of the principle of appropriation of
Church property, to other than purely religious purposes con-
nected with the tenets of that Church, would lead eventually
and immediately to an end which would be most injurious, and
perhaps destructive, to the country—the separation of Church
from State—( Hear, hear)—a state of things which he was
willing to suppose the Noble Lord would deprecate as much
as he or any other Hon. Member in the House. The Pro-
testants of Ireland should have justice done them, as well as
the Catholics ; but the measure of the Noble Lord was not
one of a character which would have that effect. If adopted,
it would place that country in a position infinitely worse than
that in which it now existed, and England would be no gainer
by the result. The Hon. Baronet spoke so low towards the
conclusion of his speech, that we could with difficulty hear him
in the Gallery.

Mr. WA IfD said that he should not follow the example of
the Right Hon. Baronet, who had just addressed the House,
by converting one of the greatest—if not the greatest consi-
dering all the varied and complicated interests which it in-
volved—of all the questions which could possibly come under
the consideration of the Legislature into a tissue of mere petty
personalities—( Cries of " Oh, oh," from the Ministerial
Benches, and loud cheers from the Opposition, in the midst of
which Sir E. Knatchbull rose, but sat down again imme-
diately.) It was with feelings of deep concern, that he had
used an expression which might be offensive to the Right Hon.
Baronet; but really, when he saw a Minister of the Crown
rising in that House at the commencement of such a discussion
as the present—a discussion which he himself stated to in-
volve a vital question, and yet not touching upon that ques-
tion—negativing at once a proposition, but negativing it
without discussing it—giving them a sort of manifesto
in favour of his Majesty's present Government—talking
to them of the Dissenters' Marriage Bill—of the Irish
Tithe Bill—of the Church Reform Bill—of which he ( Mr.
Ward) believed that they literally knew nothing, except
that a paper,' considered to be the organ of the Church,
had pronounced it to be one of the worst possible Bills—a cir-
cumstance, he must confess, rather in favour of the Right
Honourable Gentle man opposite. When he heard the Right
Hon. Baronet talking on all these subjects, and not touching
once on the real question, he felt, certainly, that it was neces-
sary to express strongly his sense of such a course of proceed-
ing. He should address himself at once to that question. He
admitted that the Right Honourable Baronet had fairly stated
the case.—( Hear, hear, and laughter trom the Ministerial
side.) He had stated it fairly on this one point—that this was
a trial of confidence or no confidence in his Majesty's Govern-
ment. It was a trial of confidence or no confidence, resting on
the greatest principle that could possibly come under discus-
sion in that assembly. On that point the Right Hon. Baronet
had indeed stated the case fairly—on every other point he had
made no statement at all. If he (Mr. Ward) could have felt
anything like regret in yielding to the wishes of his friends,
and to his own desire of promoting the settlement of this great
question, by placing it in the hands of the Noble Lord who
acted as leader of the party with which he was connected, he
could assure the Noble Lord that that feeling would have been
changed into one of sincere gratification by the Speech which
he had delivered that night—a speech which identified the
principle which it had been his (Mr. Ward's) lot to advo-
cate under less auspicious circumstances—(cries of " Hear,
hear, hear," from the Ministerial side)—with the interest
with the existence, he might say, of a great and enlightened
party in this country. Honourable Gentlemen opposite might
smile, when he said that he had advocated that principle under
less auspicious circumstances. The fault was partly his own,
and he owed an apology to those Hon. Gentlemen who differ-
ed from him, not in point of principle, but in point of time,
for having forestalled a discussion which they had weighty
reasons for considering premature.—( Hear, hear.) He had
always held that though minor differences might he compro-
mise-d, the same course could not be pursued when the ques-
tion regarded a fundamental principle—one of those princi-
ples which ought to characterize the policy of a Government,
and give the tone to its whole system ; he felt, also, that
nothing could be more fallacious than to suppose that
great differences of opinion could exist between the Mem-
bers of a Cabinet without striking at the root of all confi-
dence in the Government. It was to that state of uncer-
tainty that he wished to put an end by his resolutions of
last year; the speech of the Noble Lord that night proved
that he had effected his object. The House and the
country should mark well the difference between the prin-
ciple laid down by his Noble Friend, and that advocated
by the Right Honourable Baronet opposite. The prin-
ciple of the Right Honourable Baronet was, the total in-
alienability of Church property to other than ecclesiastical
purposes ; the principle laid down by the Noble Lord was,
that Church property was applicable to all such purposes
of genapl utility as Parliament in its wisdom might deter-
mine. That principle the Noble Lord did not state as an ab-
stract proposition ; he not state, in the terms of his ( Mr.
Ward's) resolution of last year, " that it was right the State
should regulate the distribution of Church property in such a
manner as Parliament might determine ;" but he assumed
that right, and called upon the House, in the exercise of it,
at once to proceed to a diffeient appropriation of Church pro-
perty, and divert a portion of that property from the purposes
to which it was at present devoted—supposing that by the re-
port of the Commission a surplus should appear to exist—to
purposes of general utility, and from which every class of his
Majesty's subjects in Ireland might derive advantage without
distinction of sect or creed. He was no stickler for abstract
propositions ; he cared not in what shape the resolution might
be put, provided that principle were clearly and distinctly
avowed. They might take as the object of the new ap-
propriation what they pleased—education or charity—or
whatever a British Legislature, acting, as he hoped they
al-vays would act, on the principles of strict morality and
justice, could determine to be a desirable object. He
looked simply to the right of interference on the part of
the Legislature—( Hear, hear)—and he thought that in
whatever shape the Noble Lord's proposition might be put,
there was no one who could vote for it who did not
distinctly recognize a right inherent in the State to deal
with all corporate property, whether ecclesiastical or civil,
in such manner as the welfare of the community might require
—( Hear, hear)—and thus to accommodate our institutions in
Church and State to those changes which time and the pro-
gress of society must inevitably render necessary. For that
principle he held that every man must vote who voted for the
Irish Church Commission last year, for it was on that princi-
ple that the Commission rested ' • no man could vote for that
Commission who had not agreed in the right to purge and re-
store the State by rood and wholesome laws, and in the right
eqully to amend the ecclesiastical establishments. He should
be told, perhaps, that those who asserted that doctrine ought
not to proceed to exercise the principle involved in it without
any report of the Commission before them. He admitted that
there would be some force in that objection if the Noble Lord
the Member for Devonshire had asked the House to proceed
to any specific appropriation of any specific portion of the
Church revenues ; there would be an inconsistency in those
who thought a preliminary inquiry indispensable last year, con-
curring in any such vote now. It was on the ground of
the necessity of inquiry alone that difference had arisen
between himself and a number of gentlemen who con-
curred in that general principle which he entertained re-
specting the Irish Church—who concurred in thinking
that the revenues of that establishment were exorbitant ;
and in thinking that if they continued undiminished the
Establishment would remain a constant source of irritation
and agitation—just agitation he would say—and disturb-
ance—yet who refused to concur with him in affirming that
proposition without a previous Commission of inquiry. For this
they must wait before they could determine the details of the
measure which they would ultimately adopt ; but they were not
bound to wait for it in order to determine the principle of the
measure.—( Hear, hear.) That was all the Noble Lord asked.
He asked the House only to assert that they would not perpe-
tuate these evils which the Commission of last year was in•
tended to remove, but would, by announcing the principle on
which they intended to proceed henceforward in legislating for
Ireland, hold out to the people of that country that promise of
approaching relief, which he believed in his conscience to be
the only means of putting a stop to a state of things in Ireland,
not more injurious to the welfare of that country than to the
character and stability of the empire at large. If this principle
were not laid down distinctly, it would be cast at their feet as
a bar to all subsequent proceedings—as a bar to all those
practical reforms which they desired in the Universities, in
the Municipalities, and in other Institutions. They all rested
on the same ground—namely, that property in mortmain
is the property of the State, and that the State may ex-
ercise a Legislative jurisdiction over it whenever a case of ne-
cessary interference occurred.—( Hear.) He admitted that
the propriety or the impropriety, the justice or the in-
justice, of the interference, depended on the circumstances
of the case ; he admitted that when our religious establish-
ments were concerned, they should be particularly cautious
in the mode of interference. He admitted that hundreds of
considerations of mere political expediency might justify deal-
ing with Corporations which would not justify tampering with

Grants (Liberality) to Charter Schools ........... .... £1'39,34,41‘
For Glebes, &c.
.......... ..• -darins
The number of resident and non-resident niergot,
an
certain years was as follows :—ln 1814, 644 r5e4543 -!.on;
543 non-resident ; in 1817, 765 resident, and
sident ; and in 1819, 758 resident, and 531 non-reside; Lord
had referred, during the last year, to the name Sir jaineli
Charlemont, Grattan, Pitt, Burke, Fox, and Ithe VC%
Macintosh, as authorities in favour of his view 0' hich
tion. A constellation of the brightest names a Vi

' ,

the Church ; but he asserted just as distinctly that the 11111;
was the same in the one case as in the other. Te thir
double question, of the existence of the right in the fillies
possible extent, and the circumstances which called on theT
to exercise it in Ireland, he should address himself : ar:d
.
first, as to the existence of the right. If there was no rigorinterference was nothing but spoliation—( Hear, hear, fro!
the Ministerial side)—and of that he never had been, an°ll
never would be, the advocate. The Noble Lord had quoted
a passage from Burke, which recorded, he (Mr. Ward) be-
lieved, the doctrine contained in his opinions on this qu.e-
tion in the strongest possible terms ; it was that in which be
stated that we had by our law so incorporated and identifien
the Church with the mass of private property in this kingdol
that one was at least as inviolable as the other—if Churie
property did not possess a character of superiority and invio
biiity. These opinions, backed by the authority of Burke, he
by the follies which were perpetrated in every country in t'
name of liberty and reform, long passed current among al.;
the man who ventured to doubt them at the close of t"'
last century was denounced as a Jacobin and little better thae
an Atheist. He was denounced by Burke, in his own eg"
phatic language, as " A man of a cold heart, and a muddy
understanding ! One of the New-light and Reason Phi,,
phers ! A wretch whose sophistry not the syllogism a tHe
logician but the lash of the executioner should refute.
(Mr. Ward) thanked Heaven that the time was gone by wben
any man could venture to denounce another in terms like tho!.,
for differing on one of the most difficult questions which •o 01u.
come under the attention of the Legislature, namely, the clth
cumstances which justify the interference of the State w t
property of any kind ; and the point at which the line niFesh
be drawn, which represents that species of property with whir.
the State may interfere, from that with which it cannot inter"
fere, unless in one of those peculiar emergencies in which 9'll
very existence of the commonwealth is at stake, and in wine,
every other consideration gives way to the instinct of selfsr,e
servation. He bel eyed that this constituted, exclusivf,'..r.
the difference
stonersbetee corporate and private property.
con'exclusive`,
vate property wa of those fundamental acts which
stituted society—it ,was the hand of society itself.—(11e111::.
" But the acts which form and endow Corporations,•
subsequent and subordinate. The property of indlyni,
duals is established as a general principle, which Seci'
coeval with society itself ; but bodies, whether ecclesiastic a
or civil—are instruments fabricated by the Legislature for
specific purpose, which ought to be preserved while they t;
beneficial, amended when they are impaired, and rejected Wile,
they become useless or injurious." These are the words 4.1),
great authority—they are the words of Mackintosh, who "he
heat Burke in the field of argument on this point, and was , 9
first to recal the attention of his countrymen to the princilley
of common sense. His opinions about the clergy were eclualle
well known ; they were sound and explicitly expressed.
said, " No other class of public servants are propriete .0
They are salaried by the State for the performance a ce.rtal.d
duties. Judges, kings, soldiers, are all paid by the State ,
so are the clergy, where there is an Established Chnreir
They are paid for public instruction. The mode of tken
payment is indifferent to the question. A territorial Pen the
is no more property than a pecuniary pension. Because 'of
State has entrusted its ecclesiastical servants with a 1)0'1°a-a
land, as the source and security of their pensions, they
not more the proprietors of it than the other servants of.rh
State are of that portion of the revenue out of WILI
they are paid." He proceeded to draw a differencerge
la
tween the rights of private and Church property, ~,h1
lands of the Church are not even pretended to be. Ho
for the benefit of those who enjoy them. This is no,
criterion between private property and a public Polio
The happiness of the individual proprietor is the object
P
first, and he possesses, consequently, as the best judge otiie,
own happiness, the most unlimited powers of enjoyments °a
ee
nation, and even abuse. The lands of the Church have o,e or
of these attributes. They cannot be alienated, or abused, d,
bequeathed. The Clergy are merely entrusted with the .3,1.0
ministration of those lands from which their salaries are pa' 0a
In their opinions both Warburton and Paley concurred % lb°
Bishop Watson expressed himself similarly, savingalwaYo.
rights of existing incumbents. He said—" There is no AIA of
tice in altering either the value of the benefice, or them as
raising that value, when the property of that benefice revert:ere
it were to the State upon the death of an incumbent ; but 04
would be injustice in compelling the present incumbent of
Church to accede to a change of property which he dislik
Mr. Hallam stated the same principle. Lord Brouglgi
in 1825, argued that " There was no sort of 811Zic11
between church property and private property, to
ssed
should lead to the conclusion that the former P°,ssheu-reb
the same sort of inviolability as the latter. The "1-ees/
received its property for the performance of certain sero
,ed
but private property was held unconditionally." He illustra,
this by saying, with reference to the Irish Church. BY of
of
ing away the property of an individual, he was dePll ,it ,211 f
the means of providing for his family and children. .'"-cOO.
the Legislature were to say to the priest of some parish, je,a
taining 500 Catholics and one Protestant, ' after you are ould
there shall be no longer any parson in this parish,' who lO,
be injured by this ? A person who never enjoyed it 1"
con held the same doctrine, 200 years before, when he °lap
" As the realm once gave tithes to the Church, so the re tile
since again, hath given tithes away from the Church, neratell
King. " The same line of argument had been taken to
in two works, both entitled to some consideration. °De, ea
which he alluded was a pamphlet entitled, "An Esssiee le
National Property by Senior." The other was an %jrk
upon Church Property in The Edinburgh Review—the '
of a most comprehensive intellect. The other names he %lead
bring forward—inferior certainly to none in political lustre jo
moral worth. The first was the name of Lord Grey, W"(d'ear
a discussion which arose on this very Irish Church pi,
mission in the House of Lords last year, stated his °the
nion in regard to the rights of the State as affecting
property of the Church in the strongest possible te'.
He said—" The Commission is issued with a view to the Zenogo of
lation,—with a view, if you will, to a different appropria"goe
the revenues of the Church."—" The rights of the P1.'."0
possessors I will hold sacred ; but I maintain that the Pr°,ll, 0
of the Church is a subject for the exercise of the discretleniple
Parliament."—" If there is a surplus, I avow the ZriefieW
that the State has a right to deal with that surplus, with a Obi!
to the exigencies of the State, and the general interests,b°o of
country."—The other name to which he alluded vrasi,„,aeri
the Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exe`7lo°
who certainly was high authority to the principle, tl.ei the
somewhat modified snape, by becoming the advocate ofen
doctrine of distribution. He said—" The time was code "
we must consider whether we could not facilitate the Pr°,.gPrifs,
tion of divine truth, and extend the means of divine wisel'isbea
by a different distribution of the funds of the Estalichont
Church." It was utterly impossible to re-distribute wtega,
o o
a great change in the appropriation • and the w
ment on which that re-distribution depended, tilers
perfectly sound and convincing if the Church foas,
one great Corporation, holding property as common pot
was not so when it was considered that the Church 'A' ith
one corporation, but a series—a bundle of corporations, wits,
distinct funds. He knew not what was the nature of the es'
tended plan of Church Reform ; if it were to go to the_siv
petted length—to the e.,ualization of bishoprics, and thefowds,
ing provision for the working clergy out of the surplusof sfr
there was such a great, such an extraordinary, change -ht the
propriation effected by that distribution, that he tholie for
Right Hon. Baronet himself must recognise the princir were
which he (Mr. Ward) contended—namely, that there are
no bounds to the right of interfering, except those null{ the
imposed by a consideration for the public welfare. lac! is
Right Hon. Baronet admitted this, he would be invo"l,,ark
the dilemma which had been so forcibly pictured in theither
which lie had referred to, the Edinburgh Review „rive!
there is an essential difference between corporate and tare
property, or there is not. If there be this difference, °at Ow
the injustice or the danger of interference ? If there be„11-tribtr
difference, how can interference, in the shape of re-wsnoalli
tion, be justified, since, as a precedent, it would be el pro'
dangerous ? If this precedent were applied to privatae eon'
perty, where could the line between re-distribution an either
fiscation be di awn ? Re-distribution would, in fact, be,l: WO'
more nor less than an Agrarian law." If the Rig.; /ini,
Baronet were prepared to carry out these extensl et'
ciples of Church reform, he could only do so by a nl.pd- not
tensive system of re-distribution. He (Mr. Ward) did that
object to that ; but if the Right Hon. Baronet adoPtens
principle, the opinion expressed by Burke must weigh ke be'
thing in the scale with the Right Hon. Baronet. Our be 01.
said, " When once the Commonwealth has established tar so-
tates of the Church as property, it can, consistently, bele, sre
thing of the more or the less. Too much and too littnighs,
treason against property." He had said, on a former
that although re-distribution might, and he had no doubt we be..
be effectual in England—although it might satisfy elle dirt
nest Church reformer in this country, still he thought ths"
tinction between Ireland and England to consist in thie--;
in Ireland re-distribution would not be of the slightest usreessed
would not remove one fraction of the burden whieb,„,PisritY,„
now on the people ; it would not allay in any degree t"" gram
tion then subsisting. He did, therefore, hope that the ,:east,
would look to the situation of Ireland in a calm and niv
sionate manner, and consider whether it was not in their Prhoee
by asserting the right of interference, to put an end tee
evils which their own obstinate adherence to ancient Pt one
1
in regard to Church property, had entailed on it. "e.O the
now to the question of what were the circumstances 011.
case of Ireland which called for that interference °P olio'
part, and in what manner her situation could be,rheo sind
rated by a reduction of the Established Church. eh sti
a wide question, and one on which he had
...entered.... to sni.ini to
extent last year, that he hoped the House would allow, shim
allude to some statements which he had then made Teat at'
gument from a more advanced stage. Many of
to give himself the advantage of commencing the pre' state'
ments had been alluded to by the Noble Lord, antle!h°e bey
he should not refer. He stated then, as the result 0.
information which he could acquire,the following faets6o° w
,401
Population of Ireland
Episcopalian Protestants, lin 14, or about . .... 7,76%00
Population Abstract, 1831
Revenues of Protestant Establishment—Tithes .£957'466
...... 600,
Army (Force) from 1825 to 1832 from 19,000
2t
Tithe
000 men
Processes,
Glebes--Bishops' Land &
s, c .............. ...
Arm • to
from 1817 to 1821. x3OO,00°
Police Force .. ........... ................................
,1,419
In Ecclesiastical Courts
By Civil Bill Process .. ......... 90,50
Annual Average those
those
...... 71,3743'.0