The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-01 00:00:00

it could be only regarded as a misconception on the part of a
gentleman of the strong religious feelings of the Right Hon.
Baronet. By-the-by these religious people, these gentlemen
who are in the odour of sanctity, become at times formidably
zealous ; if they are in reality as meek as doves, they bear
some resemblance to that animal whose wisdom we are en-
joined to imitate--( Cheers.) If you differ from them they
at once exhibit the proverbial spirit of theological animosity ;
their former associates become little better than a convocation
of thimble-riggers, and they see nothing but a mere legisla-
tive shoplifter in Earl Grey—( Cheers.) But of motives
of an impure character I entirely acquit the Right Hon.
Gentleman ; he acts a disinterested part, and thinks that the
Church question is fatal to him—( Cheers.) What ! would
the Right Hon. Baronet cut off thirty per cent. from the
honest creditor—would he efface the lines of distinction between
meum and tuum to that extent ? Would he relieve the great
mortgagors of their incumbrances—( Hear)—but refuse to take
off the enormous lood with which Ireland was weighed down
and overwhelmed ?—( Cheers.) But was he really serious in
talking of the immutability of Church property ? If his doc-
trines were sound the Protestant Church would not be entitled
to a single rood of ground. The assignment to her of the
property left for purposes utterly different would be wholly void.
You talk of vested rights. How did your good ancestors, those
pious shoplifters, deal with the Catholic Church ? The Right
Hon. Baronet raised a question as to what arc the uses of the
property of the Church. He ( Mr. Shiel) should not go into
the old learning on the subject, but refer him to comparatively
modern authority. So close was the vicinage of the Right
Honourable Borderer to Scotland that he begged him to
pass the boundary, and to accompany him there. The au-
thority of the Scotch Church on this subject was unequivocal.
In Spottiswood's history of that Church, matter would be
found which ought to set the controversy at rest. (Mr. Shell
then proceeded to quote a variety of extracts from this work.)
The efforts made to force upon Scotland an establishment at
variance with the feelings of the people were too familiar for
expatiation. They terminated as we all know ; and in 1689
that famous Act was passed which in a few words does such
great things. The Act is this—mark it, Englishmen, mark
it ; it is full of wisdom, and in the briefest compass includes
the largest policy,—" Act abolishing Prelacy, July 22, 1689.
Whereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right,
declared that prelacy ( I leave out mere verbiage) is and hath
been a gnat and insupportable grivance to the nation, and
contrary to the inclinations of the majority of the people—
( Cheers)—&c., and the King and Queen's Majesties do de-
clare that they will settle that Church government in this
kingdom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the
people."—( Cheers.) You will ask me, do I want such a
change ? I answer emphatically, No. If you will be Oust we
will be moderate ; wherever there is really and bone
fide a Protestant congregation let there be a clergy-
man well paid, and where there is no flock let there be
no pastor. Regard must be had to the circumstances of the
country; it must be remembered that there is a large mass of
property in Protestant lands; a just mean may be struck, and
the entire matter may be equitably adjusted. What a lesson
Scotland—happy, well-governed Scotland—affords. What
precious and abundant fruits have been gathered by a wise
system of Government. Let those who conceive that there is
nothing unnatural, nothing monstrous, nothing prejudicial in
the Church policy of Ireland make an hypothetical applica-
tion of that policy to Scotland. The Right Hon. Baronet,
the Cumberland Conservative, told us last night that a great
advantage was to be derived from the residence of Mark
Beresford—( Cheers)—hoc genus omne in Catholic districts,
and that to a gorgeous Protestant hierarchy in Ireland there
could be no objection. Well, let us suppose that in Scotland
an Episcopalian clergyman were to be located in every parish,
to be supported (for that is the point) by a cumpulsory im-
post on the followers of Knox, and that a wealthy sinecure
Episcopacy were to be settled in that country (above all let
there be a successor to Sharpe,the Archbishop of St Andrew's)
do you not know that Scotland would endure martyrdom rather
than endure it ? And if such.a measure would be deemed atro-
cious and frantic in Scotland how does it come to pass that the
very self-same system in Ireland is regarded as reasonable,
wise, and just? When the repeal of the Union was
discussed, you triumphantly bade us look to Scotland ; it is to
Scotland, in discussing the Irish Church question, that I bid
you loOk. In that country, the ecclesiastical institutions have
been adapted to the character, manners, and feelings of the
people, and accordingly the country has been conspicuously
fortunate. Turn then to Ireland. The heart grows sick at
the thought of what she might be and what she is—of what
she was made by nature and what she was made by you. She
is yours—she belongs to you—you have had the care of her—
her faults are yours—her follies are yours—you are answerable
for her errors—for her transgressions you are responsible; for
her crimes, her atrocities, her bloodshed, her horrors, her mad-
ness—all, all are yours; and if I tell you this it is not for the
purposes of unavailing crimination. Sir, I pass from these
general considerations to the proposition before us. It is full,
ample, unequivocal ; it renders an official compromise, by
which the public interests should be pacified, and it puts an
end to every surmise respecting the pure intentions of those
from whom it has proceeded. We are asked for a plan. Those
have no right to ask for a plan who would object to every
plan, because they object to the principle on which any
plan could be founded. Neither are they entitled to
demand the Commissioners' report, because the report
cannot affect the principle ; and, therefore, by the report
their measures cannot be swayed. But what stand we in
need of to report ? The Member for Cumberland has
superseded that necessity, because he admits that the Ca-
tholics are an immense majority. But I will convict him
and his associates on this question by a reference to the Church
Temporalities Bill. That Bill was passed without the report
of a Commistion. One section of it provides that in any pa-
rish in which divine (which is a name ,for Protestant) service
has not been performed for three years, the vacancy may not
be filled up. Does not this establish all that we require? Is
not this evidence of a surplus ? What are you to do with such
revenues ? The Member for Lancashire will answer, " Dis-
tribute them anew." Indeed ! How does it come to pass
that you never dreamed of a new distribution until we insisted
(for insist we do) upon a new operation ? You never showed
the least compassion for the poor curates with 73/. a-year and
their starving families, until from the more wealthy sinecu-
rists a substraction was to be made—a sacrifice ; but even for
its own relief a necessary operation was to be performed on the
swollen, bloated, and hydropsied Church Establishment.
Again, I press you on your Irish Church Temporalities Bill.
That Bill struck off ten bishoprics—ten mitres went off the
heads of the hierarchy at a single puff.--( Laughter.) Did
the Right Honourable Baronet, when he acquiesced in that
sweeping measure feel any religious compunction? He
(Mr. Sheil) should only take a single bishopric, that of
Armagh) to prove the bloated wealth of the Church of
Ireland. The gross value of that see was 17,000/. per an-
num, the net value was 14,000/. How did the bishops make
out the net? They charged agency of 1,000/. per annum
and other items. He (Mr. Sheil) was, however, prepared to
show that the true net of the see was 19,000/. The report
recommended the reduction of this income and its distribu-
tion. Was it fair to refuse the appropriation of the residue ?
Was the report of a Commission necessary to determine whe-
ther a Bishop should have no more than a Judge of the land,
or whether an Archbishop should be better paid than the Lord
High Chancellor of the kingdom ? Were episcopalian ser-
vices worth more than legal ? Were not the Archbishop of
Armagh, with his 19,000/. a-year, and the Bishops, with their
8,000/. and 9,000/. each, too well paid? Was it not too
much for them ? What were they paid for ? To keep up and
extend the Protestant religion in Ireland. Did they fulfil the
object of their original appointment ? He had no occasion to
ask the question ; every one who knew Ireland knew they di I
not. The fact was, the Protestant Church in Ireland was ut-
terly repugnant to the feelings of the people ; it was linked
in their mind with oppression and cruelty ; it was an ex-
pensive monument of national disaster and degradation.—
( Hear, hear.) It was anti-national in its principle, anti-
popular in its practice. It required reformation. He
wished for its own sake that reformation should take place.
The Right Hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should support the Irish Church ; and in almost the
same breath he said he should carry on the Government of the
country in the spirit of the Reform which had taken place in the
Constitution ; as if Reform could be Reform unless it first
touched the monstrosities of that enormous Establishment.
Were not the people of Ireland, he would ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, strengthened by the Reform Act ? Did not Reform
with them mean only a means to the correction of the evils of
the Church ? Were not sixty-three of the Representatives of
that country in favour of the present motion ? Was not that
a sufficient evidence of the national feeling on the subject to
which it related ? Was the national feeling nothing with the
Right Hon. Baronet? He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet
and the House, whether he who conceded Catholic Emanci-
pation to the cry of the people, should stick at all concession
on this question, and stake the final existence of his Admini-
stration on its issue ?—( Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet
had declared his intention to do so. He had answered him by
anticipation. He should tell the Right Honourable Baronet
that he was not a man of the present, but of the past. He let
events go beyond him. He lagged behind, while they passed
rapidly and won the race. He toiled in vain after them. His
conduct on the Catholic question and his conduct on the agi-
tation of Reform, were cases in point. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was now on the Irish Church question. That question
which had been the burial place of so many Administrations,
would also prove the grave of his, if he persisted in his determi-
nation.—( Hear. )
Mr. LEFRO Y (who spoke in a low voice, and was inaudi-
ble in the first few sentences) said that the cause he advo-
cated was the cause of truth and justice, and he could enter-
tain no doubt on the subject. The Hon. and Learned Member
had stated to the House in the latter part of his speech that
he wished Reform of the Church of Ireland for the sake of the
Church itself. But did the Hon. Gentleman explain what
was the meaning he attached to the word Reform ? Did he
suggest in his plan any project which had for its end the be-
nefit of the Church itself ? What did he suggest ? He sug-
gested that the Church should be deprived of a fourth, at
least, of its revenue. Did the Hon. and Learned Member
attempt to show that by crippling its efficiency he was confer-
ring on it a benefit. Or did he attempt to establish that there
were no objects connected with the Church Establishment
itself to which the fourth of its revenues, of which he would
so readily deprive it, could be usefully applied ? The Hon.
and Learned Member had said that it was essential to the
safety of the Church itself as well as the interests of the coun-
try, that " the bloated and dropsical Establishment," as he was
pleased to term it, should be deprived of a portion of its reve-
nues ; but the Hon. and Learned Member had attempted to offer
no proofs, except in one single instance, of excessive endowment
in any one of its Ministerial offices. The Hon. and Learned
Member had referred to the case of the Church of Scotland to
show that one-fourth of its revenues were applied to the sup-
port of schools and the maintenance of :teachers ; but the Hon.
and Learned Member had neglected to state that these were

strictly purposes connected with that Church, inasmuch as
theyjwere established for disseminating; its doctrines, and were,

moreover, superintended by its pastors.—( Hear.) The Hon.
and Learned Member had spoken of the religion of the Church
of Scotland being declared the religion of that country by a
Legislature essentially Protestant and of the Church of Eng-
land ; and he (Mr. Lefroy) supposed he did so with a view to
support his argument. But he would refer to an Act of the
Irish Legislature of 250 years since quite analagous to the
subject, in which the religion of the Established Church was
declared by law the religion of Ireland."' But by whom was
that declaration made? By Protestants? No. It was made
by Catholics; and the Act which affirmed it was passed by a
Parliament the great majority of which, if not almost the entire,
were of that creed. Thus was a reform in the religion of Ire-
land, from the Catholic to the Protestant Communion, effected
by a Parliament of Roman Catholics.—.(Laughter on the Op-
position side of the House.) Hon. Members might laugh, but he
thought they should rather be ashamed to do so, if by their
mirth they meant either to confess their own:ignorance of the
matter, or, knowing it, deny such a notorious fact. This Act
was repealed in the reign of James 11., re-enacted in that of
William and Mary, and repeatedly confirmed in the subse-
quent reigns. The last confirmation which it received was at
the time of the Union between England and Ireland, in which
Act it was distinctly laid down as an introvertible proposition.
" It was one of the acts of slavery," said the Hon. Member
for St. Alban's, " that a liturgy in a foreign language should
be imposed on the people of Ireland." But he (Mr. Lefroy)
would beg to inquire whether that Hon. Hember knew that up
to the present period, as well as prior to that to which he had
alluded, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had never had a li-
turgy in their native language—had never heard a single reli-
gious service in their own tongue ?—( Hear, hear.) Was that
the description of knowledge which the Hon. Member should
bring to hear upon such a subject as the one at issue ?
Was that the enlightment he shed upon his followers ?
( Laughter.) The great ground of attack taken by the op-
ponents of the Church was its excessive wealth, and that was
the ground which the Hon. and Learned Member for Tippe-
rary especially selected. The Hon. and Learned Member
imputed to the Church the character of being bloated and
dropsical with excess of property ; but 'how stood the actual
facts, divested of all exaggeration, accidental or designed ?
When the real condition of the Church and the exact amount
of its revenues were ascertained, how unfounded would the
charge of the Hon. and Learned Member appear to the House.
The Hon. Member for St. Alban's had stated that the Church
of Ireland had a revenue of a million, or thereabouts, per
annum, on that occasion ; and he (Mr. Lefroy) on that occa-
sion had ventured to question the accuracy of the statement.
He (Mr. Lefroy), the more effectually to impugn :it, had
laid before the House a statement of the actual and exact
revenues of the Church of Ireland. By this statement, it
appeared that, in place of close on a million, the Church of
Ireland had not more than half a million for its support—in
point of fact that it bad not half a million. The Noble Lord
had stated that the income of the Bishops was 141,986/.,
whereas the real income of that body was 120,6701., giving in
that particular item a reduction in the stated amount of
21,2161. There might be reduced from Lord John's charge—
let. Off the Bishops as per Parliamentary returns £21,216
Ditto for ten cancelled Bishopricks
2d. Off Deans and Chapters, as per returns, their actual
income, deducting repairs, being only 2,206/ 14,936
3d. The Tithes are subject to the deduction of one-fourth,
to be made by the pending Bill 133,608
4th. Perpetuity Fund,!as being the interest of a fund pro-
duced by sale of fines, and consequently charged
already in the Bishop's income 30,000

Total deduction, to be made from income as stated by Lord
John Russell
Leaving a balance of
The real income of the Church subject to the tax for
vestry cess, varying from 21 to 15 per cent., which
will average at least 41,.88

Giving the real net income
Instead of an income of nearly a million, as was stated last
year by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, or of near 800,0001.
as was stated last night by the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.)
There were 1,456 incumbents, for whom the provision was
400,8251. per annum, making an average of 278/. per annum,
subject to the tax for vestry cess, and to the payment of about
700 curates amongst all the rectors. So much for the accu-
racy of the Noble Lord in that respect. He (Mr. Lefroy)
should leave him on that point, and refer to another. A
statement had been made by the Noble Lord respecting the
proportion of the population of Ireland to whom the duties of
religion were administered by the reverend persons receiving
that money. With respect to that statement he (Mr. Lefroy)
felt bound to say that the Noble Lord had taken a most un-
justifiable proceeding in forming his estimate of the compara-
tive number of the Protestant and Catholic population of Ire-
land.--( Hear.) The Noble Lord had taken his statement
from a selection of the returns made by ten dioceses in that
kingdom, and from these alone he assumed what he termed his
facts. Unlike Lord Althorp, his Lordship did not wait for any
accurate information on the subject ; but, having received pri-
vately from some of the Commissioners the returns of ten dis-
tricts, he proceeded to act upon them as he should act only
upon the entire. Of these ten only two were Protestant dis-
tricts, the remaining eight were essentially Catholic, some of
them, he might say, the most Catholic of any in Ireland. It
had been said by the enemies of the Church that it had alto-
gether failed in effecting the ends for which it had been ori-
ginally established—the maintenance, support, and extensicn
of the Protestant established religion in Ireland. That asser-
tion was based upon the assumed disproportion between the
Protestants and Catholics in that country. The only proper
evidence on that subject would be the report of the Commis-
sioners; but, without waiting for that, he (Mr. Lefroy) was
compelled to say that other causes than any connected with
imputation of the Clergy might with much more truth than
the contrary be assigned as a reason for it. If the Protestant
population of Ireland be considered in relation to its number
of sectarians, there would appear no grounds for imputing a
neglect of duty to the Clergy of the Established Church.
What apologies, moreover, did there not arise out of these
peculiar circumstances to which the Noble Lord opposite had
adverted? The evidence of Dr. Boyle before the Committee
afforded some account of the result on the part of the Protest-
ant Clergy in their efforts to diffuse scriptural information and
a knowledge of the Gospel. Whenever they commenced
such an attempt, it proved only a signal for a Catholic combi-
nation against their property. It could not be said that de
Protestant Church had failed in its object from neglect
of its duty, when every attempt to diffuse its doctrines
had been opposed in such a manner. He maintained
that no case whatever had been made out against the
Protestant Church. Upon the main question of the right
of the Legislature to divert this Church property ,from its
purposes he would controvert the position laid down by the
Hon. Member for St. Alban's, and he would maintain that the
grounds and arguments by which that Hon. Member had
supported it would equally justify any species of spoliation.
That Hon. Member had maintained that all property i‘i
mortmain was the property of the State. If this were the
case he would only beg leave to ask what then was the mean-
ing of all those Acts of Parliament respecting mortmain—
Acts which were as early as the first Edward and Henry,
and which never treated property in mortmain as an aliena-
tion from the State, for if they had the State might at once
have resumed it. Did the Hon. Member for St. Alban's mean
that the property of the State was in the King, the Lords, or
in the Commons ? The House had been told by one Hon.
Member that it was all in three. He, however, would say that
no lawyer would assert that either or all three possessed and
such property, or was capable of possessing it. He would
allow that the King, Lords, and Commons had a right to
legislate for property, but still he would contend that they
had no property, and that they were not a body which was
allowed by the Constitution to be possessed of property. The
right of ownership of property was in the great aggregate of
the population, and the right of Church property lay in that
great aggregate of Ecclesiastical Corporations which consisted
of the Ministers and servants of the Established Church of
England. It lay in the Bishops, in the Chapters, and integral
members, and in the Rectors and their successors. They had
a duty in the trusteeship of this sacred property. To any ex-
tent of modification in respect to this property might the Le-
gislature go for the purposes of enforcing the duties and the
obligations of the trusteeship, but he utterly denied the right
of the Legislature to sever or misappropriate this property
from the trust to which it had been annexed in the original
endowments. Was that House to be told that the Church of
England was the only existing body that could not hold pro-
perty for its support ? Every class of Dissenters was allowed
to hold property for the maintenance of their respective reli-
gions, and there arose from these considerations a duty on the
part of this House. That House had to see the trust as re-
garded the ordinances of religion, and if there were a surplus
not requisite for the ministration of the Church, it was, he con-
tended, the duty of that House to appropriate it to the reli-
gious instruction of the members of the Church of England,
and of persons connected with it. The House ought to re-
collect that Government had lately withdrawn its countenance
from the Protestant schools of Ireland, and that those schools
had not now the advantages which they had formerly had.
He stated this upon the authority of a distinguished traveller
in Ireland (Mr. Inglis) who had given a statement of the con-
dition of the schools under the National Board, to which the
Noble Lord would apply the surplus funds of Church pro-
perly in order, as he said, to apply them to the use of all per-
sons of every religious persuasion, without any distinction of
creed whatever. Mr. Inglis had said that in the county of
Galway two of the schools received aid from the new Educa-
tion Board. In each there were five hundred children. He
BMr. Lefroy) could not think that the funds of an Education
oard were legitimately applied in aid of one of these schools
which was under the management of a set of nuns, and the
chapel of which had all the characteristics of a Popish chapel.
This was a sample of the schools of Ireland maintained by the
new Education Board, and he was convinced that these were
schools very different from those contemplated by the Noble
Lord the Member for Lancashire when he first established this
system of education in Ireland. He could only add that the
Presbyterians, to a man, had refused to let their children go
to these schools. If such were the case, and if a surplus of
Church revenues of the Protestant Church should be found to
exist, it would be the duty of the House to appropriate that
surplus exclusively to the education of the children of Pro-
testants in Ireland. The Honourable Member for St. Alban's
had said that non-residence had been imputed to nearly
one-half of the number of the Protestant Clergy of Ireland.
When he (Mr. Lefroy) had looked into Parliamentary
documents—he was sorry to say that the Parliamentary re-
turns were so far back as from 1814 to 1819—but when he
looked into the Parliamentary returns, he found that in the
course of from 1814 to 1819, the increase of residence on the
part of the Protestant clergy had been from 644 to 755 ' and
he was convinced that, within the last year, if there were any
returns before the House, they would show a still greater pro-
gress. He had every reason to believe that the residence of
the clergy in Ireland now was at least as strict as that of Eng-
land. It had been stated by Lord Plunket, when he had
been a Member of that House, that upon inquiries which he

had instituted he had reason to believe that the whole number
of absentee clergy of Ireland did not at that time amount
to fifty. Such had been the statement of that Noble and
Learned Lord. The resolution before the House, he (Mr.
Lefrov) would maintain, was totally subversive of the Church
of Ireland ; for it was not merely a proposition of a diversion
of revenue to another purpose, but it went to the establish-
ment of the Roman Catholic religion on the ruins of Pro-
testantism in Ireland. He trusted that his Right Hon.
Friend would not suffer the question—a question which did
involve the fate of the Church of Ireland, to be disposed
of by any factious vote, or by a coalition such as the coali-
tions that had recently been witnessed in that House. • He
hoped that his Right Hon. Friend would meet the question
with that firmness and with that honour for which all parties
so cordially gave him credit.
Mr. C. WOOD firmly believed that unless this question
was settled, no measure for the collection of tithes could be
executed in the sister country. It had been unfortunately the
case, that in all legislation for Ireland, the House had been
invariably behind the time in which its measures could be
useful. He might illustrate this by a reference to the Ca-
tholic question ; and when the Hon. Member for Cumberland
reproached the Hon. Memner for Tipperary and others, for
a want of gratitude for the Emancipation Bill, he ought to
have remembered that Catholic Emancipation had not been
conceded on either the petitions or rights of the Catholics.
In the present agitation of the tithe question, the House was
now reaping the bitter fruits of all the lessons given to it at
the period when the Irish people saw that they had pleaded
to the justice of that House in vain until they were able to
appeal to its fears.—( Loud cries of " hear, hear, hear.")
The present question on collecting tithes afforded abundant
proofs of the tardy legislation of that House. It was at the
end of the last session that his Noble Friend had read to the
House a despatch which his Noble Relative (the Duke of
Bedford) the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1807 was about to
transmit to the Government, had he not at that time been
removed from office. The despatch was important, as it
showed what were the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land nearly thirty years ago, in favour of the question upon
which the House was now called upon for its tardy legislation.
Even twenty years ago, when the Irish Government had had
this question pressed upon it, Ministers had introduced a
measure for a composition of tithes. The measure then passed
was intended to have been compulsory, but the unfortunate
genius of' a certain Judge had interposed, and had made it vo-
luntary, and had destroyed all the benefits of the Bill. Five
years after the composition of tithes was made compulsory,
and last year a measure had been introduced with every pros-
pect of proving satisfactory ; but that had been rejected in
another place, and now again was the House called upon to
settle the question. He thought that he was now justified in
pressing the question of appropriation. When his Noble Friend
had first pressed the question of tithes the House had been told
by Irish Members that unless it dealt with the measure of
appropriation, it had no chance in succeeding in the collec-
tion of tithes. He would not quote the Honourable Mem-
bers for Dublin, Tipperary, or Cork upon the subject, but he
would refer to Mr. Brownlow, to the Hon. Members for Mayo
and Leitrim, and to Lord Carew, and from them the House
had had the same opinions as it had had from all other Irish
authorities, except from the few Members who represented the
extremes of the Protestant and Orange party. The House
had had a warning from all these parties that unless it adopted
the principle of appropriation any course it might pursue with
reference to tithes would not succeed. The Government had,
however, attempted the collection of the tithes without the
principle of appropriation, and had they succeeded? The
Gallant Generals opposite—men not likely to shrink from
danger or difficulties, or to be deterred by imaginary evils—
had confessed that they could not gather the arrear of tithes ;
and the Right Hon. Baronet himself bad confessed that in the
collection of tithes the Government was powerless. • Govern-
ment was now reduced to the alternative of sacrificing a part or
of losing the whole. What was the use of insisting upon a
principle whilst all the clergy were starving ? It was a mockery
to tell the clergy that their right should be maintained, when
they were obliged to confess the impossibility of enforcing
those rights. How did the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
he would ask, expect to carry his Tithe Bill through the House
without dealing with the principle of appropriation ? He would
beg to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman of the division the
other night, when, although many Members of his (Mr.
Wood's) side of the House were intentionally absent, the
Government were only able to obtain a majority of 15. For
his own part he should not consider himself justified in voting
for any Tithe Bill until the question of appropriation should
be disposed of.--( Cheers.) One of the greatest sources of
discord was the mode of collection, and this would have been
remedied by the measure of last year, which placed the pay-
ment of the import on the landlord. It was against the nature
of the impost and not against the amount that the people of
Ireland, the great majority of whom derived no benefit from
the fund in any manner, were so decidedly hostile. Was this
any new feeling that sprung up in Ireland? No, it existed
there ever since the Reformation. The Reformation was car-
ried in that country by the arbitrary mandate of the Monarch
against an ignorant and unwilling people, and from that time
the majority of the people were Catholics. In the reign of
Elizabeth the state of the Irish Protestant Clergy was de-
scribed to be " abundaut in abuses, far beyond any that were
to be found in England." The Clergy were slothful and lit"
terly negligent of their spiritual duties ; and, besides these and
other particular enormities, most of those who held benefices
were laymen. He feared it was now too late to effect any change
in Ireland that could lead to the end that was sought in those
days,the conversion of the Roman Catholic population to the Pro-
testant religion. Where, ho would ask, was the parallel of the
state of Ireland to be found in any nation on the globe ? A Church
richly endowed, while the country was overwhelmed with a pau-
per population ; and this impoverished population too bad to sus-
tain a double Establishment ; first, they had to maintain one
with which they felt no religious sympathy, and they were im-
pelled by their attachment to their own religion to the support
of the other. The feeling of hatred that existed to the tithe
system, and to all who upheld it, in Ireland, could only be re-
moved by striking at the root. He wished it to be understood
that he was one of the last men in that House who would wish
to subvert or destroy the Protestant- Church in Ireland, nor
would he deprive any Protestant Clergyman in that country
of what he at present enjoyed ; but he would apportion the
revenues of the Clergy in a manner mere adequate to the du-
ties performed, and the Protestant population of each parish.
According to the scale laid down last year, it was agreed that
there would be a surplus of 100,000/. a year, after paying
the Irish Protestant Clergy in the same proportion that the
English Clergy were paid ; but according to the statements of
that night, which, he confessed, were to him unintelligible, there
would not be any surplus whatever. That there really would
be a large surplus, however, he believed was not doubted by
any Member of that House, although he confessed he did not
know the best means to obtain that surplus. He certainly
was not disposed to pay the Protestant Clergy of Ireland at
so much a head, in proportion to the number of Protestants
in the county, but at the same time he thought that some re-
gard should be had to the Protestant population of each
parish, and the mode of living of the Clergyman who resided
in it. He agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for the
University of Dublin, as to the advantages of as general a
system as possible of Protestant education, but this he did not
think enough for the present state of the Irish population.
The late Government, with which he had been connected,
were unanimous as to the establishment of one general system
of education in that country, as a great national benefit. It
was to education alone that they must look to raise the Irish
people from their present state of superstition and ignorance.
But this was not to be attained by a Protestant system of edu-
cation alone in a country seven-eighths of the population of
which were Catholic. It must be attended with the utmost
national advantage to have Protestant and Catholic children
brought up together in the same school, where they would
each imbibe those enlightened and liberal principles which
would establish future unanimity in the country, and learn
from the same Gospel that peace and Christian charity which
it prescribed. Surely it could not be denied that a portion of
the revenues of the Church ought to be applied to such a pur-
pose as this. The Church Establishment in Ireland had failed
to produce any beneficial effects in the condition of that country.
He might rest his case here ; but if there remained any
scruple as to the legality of the appropriation involved in the
motion of his Noble Friend, that might be removed by a re-
ference to the eleventh report of the Commissioners of Irish
Education. That report quoted the Act of Henry VIII., by
which all Protestant Clergymen in Ireland were bound to
maintain a school in their parishes, not for the purpose of Pro-
testant education, but with a view to the civilization of the
people. Two of the Commissioners who signed this report
were the Archbishop of Dublin and Mr. Leslie Foster, neither
of whom would be suspected of a want of attachment to the
Protestant Church. From the reign of Henry VIII. to that
of Anne, the Protestant Clergy were liable to maintain paro-
chial schools of this nature. Now his object was to deal with
theacthlloisbsr
ibirevenuesprseertßint:.cawitipNhi of the Irish Church at present so as to carry out
teoGh.,Lei
os
same ,
on this
Mt rh
sC
occasion,o
moment,a E s T,
there a
wn da s w Colonelseatede r elo u DA
on ac
rm t
stet
forshavinge c Mo n
rd.
Ministerial bench, immediately behind Sir R. Peel.
The SPEAKER, however, decided that Colonel Damer
was in possession, and the Hon. Member proceeded to address
the House.

Colonel DAME R said that the events that had taken place
in that House since the meeting of the present Parliament con-
vinced him that the present resolution was only brought for-
ward by the Noble Lord as a means of embarrassing his
Majesty's Government, and of forcing the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to abandon that post which he at present occu-
pied with so much advantage to the interests of the country.
Cheers.) As an Irishman he would not conceal that
he thought the best means of settling down the Irish people
into a state of tranquillity and repose would be to create an
alliance between the State and the Catholic Clergy.—(Hear.)
The poor population would then be relieved by that
means from a demand that now pressed heavily upon
them, and they would be the better able to apply them-
selves to industrious habits. If the people of England were
only half as liberal to the Irish Catholics as they were to the
slaves of the West Indies a fund would soon be raised suffi-
cient to provide for the wants of the Catholic Clergy and to
ensure the tranquillity of the country. In France, where there
was a population of thirty millions, the whole of the clergy of
all religious denominations cost the state only 1,600,0001. an-
nually, and if 400,0001. were set apart in this country it would
be amply sufficient to pay the Catholic clergy of Ireland. In
Prussia the utmost concord reigned amongst all classes, whe-
ther belonging to the established religion of the State or not,
and he could not see why the same cordiality might not sub-
sist in this country. Holding himself wholly unpledged to
any particular course, repecting this measure on any future
occasion, and declining to give any opinion upon the resolution
of the Noble Lord, he should in the present instance lvote
against its adoption.
_ _

-Mr. COBBETT and Sir R. INGLIS again rose together,
amidst loud calls for Mr. Cobbett, but the Speaker called on

Sir R. INGL I S said he did not lispars:;,, I%t=
value of the speech delivered that night by the Hon. Member
for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood), but he looked upon that speech
as more applicable to a Tithe Bill than to the subject of ap-
propriation. The views stated by the Hon. Member ( Mr.
Wood) with respect to the Established Church of Ireland
would apply with equal force and propriety to the whole em-
pire. The principle laid down by the Hon. Member was
cheered by the Hon. Member for St. Alban's. But after all
of what value could the principle be if so inconsiderable a
sum as 100,0001. was still to be supplied for the support of the
Church Establishment in Ireland ? The objections and the
difficulties would still remain as strong as ever. Pacification
would not he secured in Ireland by a transfer of a portion, or
even of the whole, of the revenues of the Established Church.
This was a Serbonian bog which the Hon. Member did not
dare attempt to trace. The Member for St. Alban's was
much more decided and more candid in layine; down his
principle, for he contended that Parliament had a right to
deal not only with the whole of the Church property but
with all corporate property whatsoever.—( Hear, hear.) They
who maintained such a principle ought, before they at-
tempted to act upon it in a single instance, to reflect seri-
ously how far they might eventually carry them. The
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) put the case last
night upon this point powerfully and unanswerably. For his
own part no power on earth could ever induce him to ad-
mit such a principle to regulate Church property. It was
property not conferred by the State, and the State had no
right to take it away.—( Cheers.) They who broached such
a theory, whatever they may say, or whatever they might
pretend to the contrary, could entertain no very deeply-
rooted respect for the Church property of England, when
they proposed the application of the principle to the tem-
poralities of the Irish Church. One Hon. Gentleman said
he would limit the application to that country, in which the
Protestant Church was an evil, but would not extend it to
that part of the empire in which it was found to be a bless-
ing. By whom was this measure brought forward and sup-
ported? All those who spoke in the debate of yesterday admitted
themselves to be members of the Established Church ; they
professed a veneration for its doctrines, and a wish for its con-
tinuance. They said they were Protestants, but in their pro-
ceedings he firmly believed they looked as much to the satis-
faction of those who were not of the Established Church as
they did to any of the objects which they professed. He was
entitled to expect from the doclarations of the Roman Catho-
lics themselves that no propositions would emanate from them
having a tendency to overthrow the temporalities of the Es-
tablished Church. If the import of language was to be taken
from the plain meaning of words, all Catholics who took a seat
in that House were bound to uphold the present settlement of
Church property as by law established. He should like to
know how the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for
Tipperary could reconcile his speech upon this question with
his declarations upon former occasions, and with the oath he
took as a Member of that House. This was the security, a
feeble one indeed, given to those who conceded Catholic Eman-
cipation; but they never could have expected to see such a crisis
as the present arrive. Who was it brought this question now
forward ? Technically, indeed, and in the usual forms of Par-
liament, it was brought forward by the Noble Lord (J. Russell),
but in reality at the desire and by the instigation of the Ca-
tholic body. In place of going back to former periods of his-
tory, the ''()Teat consideration with the House ought to be what
was its character—how great was its usefulness in the present
day, and to the present generation. It had made rapid ad-
vances of late years. In 1762 there were only 342 Protestant
churches in Ireland. They soon after reached the number of
643. In 1800 they were 689, and since 1800, not less than
312 new churches were erected, and 64 more were in progress.
If the principle now proposed for adoption had been in opera-
tion in 1800, this great advancement of the Protestant reli-
gion, this support of the best interests of Christianity, this
great number of Protestant places of worship must have been
lost to the great cause of morality and of the Protestant faith.
How could the Member for Halifax be, as he professed him-
self, a friend to the Protestant Establishment while at the same
time he said he would vote no money for its support ?
Mr. WOOD—I did not say so.
Sir R. INGL IS—The words of the Hon. Member were—
" I cannot agree to extend the Protestant worship by increas-
ing her means." How could he expect to extend the Pro-
testant Church without affording her means? They had heard
upon this occasion a great deal urged about the distresses of
the people of Ireland. Unless the grievances and sufferings
of the peasantry of Ireland could be clearly traced to the
existence of any Established Church, which had not yet been
done, their distresses could have nothing to do with this ques-
tion. Let Protestantism be destroyed in Ireland and it would
be impossible to maintain the Union.—( Cheers.) Weak as
the bonds of that Union were at present, they never could be
entirely broken until the bond of Protestantism was destroyed.
At all events these were not the times in which such au at-
tack should be made upon her, and these were not the men
by whom it ought to have been made.—(Cheers.)
Mr. PO ULTE R observed that it was once considered true
that everything greater included in itself that which was less;
but it was now contended by a Church, whose sole title was a
Parliamentary title, who claimed by the dispossession on the
part of the State of another Church, with-out the slightest
regard to vested interests, that that State had not the power in
the most extreme case to apportion or reduce that Church even
under a most distant recognition of all vested rights. Who
could doubt what the tithe of the Church was, who would read
the statute of 2d and 3d Edward IV., by which the clergy were
bound to the use of the Common Prayer, under the penalty of
deprivation ? Who could doubt what it was, who would read the
statute 17th Elizabeth, by which all benefices were taken from
those who refused to subscribe to the articles and doctrines of
the Church of England ? If this extreme severity of legisla-
tion was adopted in this country, what must have been the
course of things in Ireland, where there was not the slightest
pretence for a reformation ? Here there were the title-deeds
—here was the commencement of the title of the Protestant
Church, to the use and support of which, by the will and
decree of the nation, a vast property, granted principally by
private Catholic individuals to the ministers of their own
persuasion, was forcibly, and contrary to the intent of the
granters, applied and converted. If this statutable dis-
position had been made for a year only, and had been from
that time down to the present day annually renewed, the case
would have stood in principle precisely as it does at this mo-
ment. He put his support of this motion entirely on the dis-
tinction between the principles of the two establishments.
Both stand in need of great changes, but while a better admi-
nistration and distribution is sufficient for the one, diminution
is absolutely required for the other. If Hon. Members will
persist in identifying the two, let them do so—he was as reso-
lute in separating them. He saw no danger to the one from
any degree of correction necessary to the other. The Refor-
mation was in unison with the national feeling in one country,
but was founded upon conquest and violence in the other. Is
there no difference between charity and the power of the
sword ? For such are the exact measures of the difference
between the foundation of two Churches ; and it would be
an insult to truth and justice to permit the temporal immu-
nities of the one to find shelter under the cover of a similarity
in spiritual doctrine to the other. No length of time, no
lapse of ages, should prevent his hearty concurrence in an
effort to redress a great national iniquity. No appeal to the
rights of property, beyond existing lives, can ever be main-
tained where such rights were never united with the real and
religious interests of a nation. In such a case no prescription
can be urged against the cries of a people, and the voice of a
people becomes the voice of God. It may be admitted that
any change in long-established things is an evil, and that no-
thing can justify it but the niost powerful necessity. If the
peace and prosperity of Ireland be essential to the welfare of
the empire such a necessity has now arisen. Antiquity, when
utterly opposed to the improved wisdom and intelligence of
thousands, is the richest of all justifications. Whatever force
it may have on the minds and prejudices of some, it would be
lamentable indeed if a Legislature should ever forget that
antiquity is the real infancy of the world, and that the period
of its most advanced age and of the most extended human ex-
perience is that instant of time in which he had now the ho-
nour to address the House. What would be thought of a
State which should devote nearly a million a year to the spi-
ritual wants of about half a million ? What would be thought
of a policy which would carry a religious war into a country,
and, having triumphed over it, should set up the monstrous
pretence of a united Church of the two countries ? No Acts
of Parliament could ever sanction the using the name of reli-
gion against the principles of religion itself. The Hon. Mem-
ber asked when the argument of distinction would cease to be
resorted to, for there never was a great measure of improve-
ment proposed which had not been met by this argument. So
long ago as the Bill of Catholic Emancipation was passed
this was the language of its opponents. Just before lhe
passing of the Reorm Bill some small remains of irritability
were still found to exist in the nation ; but this was to
be utterly annihilated by the abominable Reform Bill. All
of a sudden this measure of total distinction has become an
unchangeable, unconstitutional law—a law of the Medes and
Persians, which altereth not. Now we are to be a third time
destroyed by the proposition of the Noble Lord. This nation,
with its three lives, is the most extraordinary that ever was
heard of. He might liken it to the famous serpent of antiquity,
whose heads grew again as fast as they were chopped off. He
might liken it to the zoophyte, which, though cut into separate
pieces, continued to survive with a multiplied instinct. He
would rather compare it to that peculiar monster on whom its
mother is said to have bestowed exactly three lives and no
more—

K Nascenti cui tres animas Feronia mater,
(Horrendum dictu) dederat : terna arna movenda ;
Ter leto sternendus erat : cui tune tamen omnes
Abstulit liwc animas dextra, et totidem exuit armis."

The Hon. Member said that they were taunted sometimes
with apportioning the Establishment of Ireland by the rule
of three. How much was there to be for ten, how much
for twenty, how much for fifty Protestant communicants ?
This might be called an argument, a ridiculo, and though it
might produce laughter and pleasure, did it ever produce
conviction ? Was there ever a question of general reasonable-
ness—was there ever a question of degree—was there ever a
question including the ingredients of amount and number, in
which such an argument might not be used ? The very uni-
versality of it totally destroyed its force ; for it might be used,
in every instance. Was not the same line of argument
used on the Reform Bill ? When the number of 2,000
was taken how much ridicule was cast upon it. It was said
suppose you had 1,998 in any small borough would you dis-
franchise it for want of two—unless indeed some good lady by
graciously producing twins should step in and save the bo-
rough ? Were not some of those who now resorted to the
same argument the first to answer it on that occasion ? For
himself he would only add, that no one could estimate more
highly than he did the value and the absolute necessity of re-
ligion. No one was more sincerely disposed to look upon hu-
man life as a dreary waste, as a scene of sorrow and despair,
without the support of its consolations. Nothing could have
induced him to support this resolution but the strongest con-
viction that the overgrown and unnatural extent of the Church

Establishment of Ireland had materially ob4rtieted the cause
of Protestantism in that most misgoverned country.
Mr. GL A D STONE said his own mind was made up,
and he thought more completely made up than that of many
Hon. Members opposite, on the question of the appropriation
of the property of the Irish Church. With respect to the dis-
tinction drawn between private property and corporate and re-
ligious property, he should say that the former, private pro-
perty, involved the sacredness of persons ; and the latter, reli-
gious property, included the sacredness of purposes. Did the
Noble Lord ( Lord J. Russell), wish to violate the sacredness of
Church property ? If the Noble Lord did not, he would keep it up
as it was now, and apply it as nearly as possible to the pur-
poses it had been hitherto applied to. With respect to the
arguments adduced from the change that had taken place in
Church property at the time of the Reformation, he begged
Hon. Members to bear in mind that at the time of the Refor-
mation the Legislature had completely altered their religious
belief—had altered it from purely conscientious motives--and
that the consequence was an appropriation of Church pro-
perty in unison with that change in religious sentiments.—
( Hear.) If a similar change should now take place in the
opinions of the Legislature, and the different legislative
bodies should agree to return to the old faith—to the
Catholic creed—he considered that that would be a fair
case for coming again to the original appropriation of the
property of the Church. But until the great bulk of the
Legislature was represented by persons of the Roman Ca-
tholic persuasion, he protested against the adoption of any
such doctrine.--( Hear, hear.) The great grievance com-
plained of in Ireland was that the Protestant Establishment
there was paid for by the Roman Catholic inhabitants. Now
was such in reality the case? Was it so paid for? 'Were
tithes paid for that purpose, or were not tithes rather a part
of the surplus profit of the land, which went not to the cultiva-
tor of the soil, but to the owner of it 7—( Cries of No.) Tithe
was paid by the landlord—( No, no)—and the grievances on
this point complained of by the people of Ireland were rather
in theory than in reality. But if there were evils arising out
of this question of tithes, was not the present Government
prepared to redress them ? Had the Government not a Tithe
Bill in the course cf progress through the House, the object
of which Bill was to place the payment of tithes where they
ought to be—on the landlords 2—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
One of the arguments, and indeed the principal argument, of
the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire, by which he
pressed the House to agree to the invasion of the property of
the Protestant Church, was that that property was not pro-
perly applied, nor did it carry it out for the purposes for
which it was originally intended. Well, he might admit that,
and suppose he also granted that there were general abuses
and neglect in the administration of the Church of Ireland.
Having made such an admission, was it not then fair for him
to ask, had not the same general vice that prevailed in the
religious government of that country pervaded also, and to a
like extent, its political government? The Roman Catholics
in Ireland called upon them to give up the Protestant Esta-
blishment there, because they were told by persons in that
House, that the Protestant Church must surrender.—(No,
mi.) What was the remedy proposed for the grievances of
the Roman Catholics, that would make them give their sup-
port to the Protestant Church ?—( Hear.) In principle they
proposed to give up the Protestant Establishment. If so, why
ndt•propose to abandon the political Government of Ireland—
to cede the repeal of the Legislative Union ?—( Hear, hear,
hear.) On some admitted facts of misrule in the political
government of Ireland the people of that country would call
upon them to grant them the repeal of the Union. Such
would be the fatal results of concessions similar to those now
about to be made. As regarded the Perpetuity Fund, it ap-
peared from the statement made by the Right Hon. and Gal-
lant General ( Sir H. Hardinge) the other night that it would
be in debt for fifteen years to come, so that the period was
not as yet arrived when the question of a surplus could be
raised with respect to that fund. The amount of tithes was,
in round numbers, 540,000/. per annum. On that a deduction
of one quarter would take place by the Tithe Bill now
passing through that House, which would reduce the ori-
ginal amount to about 400,0001. a year. Then the amount
arising out of glebe lands, as stated by the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell), was 68,0001. a year. Under the Tithe
Bill now proposed by Government, there would lie Are fur-
ther deductions, on the 400,0001. The first, in the shape of
a rent charge on the land, would be followed by a diminution
of the income of the Church to the amount of ten per cent.
Then a taxation of livings would amount to 20,0001. a-year,
and the suspension of livings in some places would leave
400,000/. a year as the parochial revenue of Ireland. Could
that sum be considered as enormous for the Irish Church ?
The number of benefices in Ireland was 1,450, and according
to the returns the average yearly income of each was 2751.
Now, was that too much? Why, taking the Scot& stan-
dard, which was considered the beau ideal of economy, the
average income of benefices by it was 2501. a year.--( "No,"
from Mr. Warburton.) If it fell short of that in Scotland,
he would ask whether 275/. a year was too much for a Minis-
ter in Ireland, when it was considered how many duties he
had to perform, and how many expenses he was obliged
to go to. Was it anything extraordinary that there should
be 400,0001. a year allowed for the parochial institutions
of, the Irish Church ? The Noble Lord who brought
forward the present motion calculated that the number
of persons belonging to the Established Church in Ireland
was 750,000; now he (Mr. Gladstone) believed that they
amounted to upwards of a million, or at least to a mil-
lion.—( Oh, oh, from the Opposition.) If he was wrong in
his calculation with whom rested the fault ? Did it not rest
with the Noble Lord whose conduct brought on the discus-
sion of this question before they had received full informa-
tion on it ?—( Hear.) Allowing that there were a million of
Protestants in Ireland, the result would be that it would give
to each of 1,450 rectors a flock of 700 souls, and that in a
country where those souls were scattered over a wide extent,
and lived at a great distance the one from the other. Was
that amount too small to occupy the attention of a clergy-
man ? He thought that it was not. Taking eight millions
to be the population of Ireland, and 1,000 persons to be
placed under the spiritual care of each minister, and allowing
300/. a year to be the income of every minister, the result
would be that the parochial revenue ought to be upwards of
2,000,000/. instead of 400,0001., its present amount.--( Hear,
and a laugh.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh and think it ab-
surd to assert that one elergyman ought to be allowed to
every thousand, and that each clergyman ought to be allowed
300/. a year. The above amount would be four or five
times what the present income of the clergy was, and
it would be six times their income when the property of
the Church was placed on a sure and satisfactory footing, as it
would be by the measures in the contemplation of the present
Government. He considered that the proposition to which
the Noble Lord asked them to assent was alike impracticable
and unnecessary ; that it was, moreover, unjust, because the
only principle on which the Protestant Establishment could be
maintained was that it was founded on truth..—( Hear.) As a
Government was bound to maintain that religion which con-
tained the greatest proportion of good with the smallest mix-
ture of error, on that ground he contended they ought to
maintain the Protestant religion and give up the Roman Ca-
tholic. It was refreshing to the House to have its attention
recalled from the lower and minor features of the question to
its higher parts, as it was last night by the noble and high-
minded speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Cumberland.—( Hear.) He would not eulogize that speech
—any praise of his would be useless—but seeing that it 'had
changed the character of the debate he thought it necessary
to call the attention of the House to it. The most important
consequences would attend the success of the motion before
the House. In the first place it would enfeeble and debase,
and then altogether overthrow, the principle on which the
Church Establishment rested..—(Hear.) The Noble Lord in-
vited them to invade the property of the Church in Ireland.
He considered that they had abundant reasons for maintaining
that Church, and if it should be removed he believed they
would not be long able to resist the repeal of the Union, and
then they would become fully aware of the evil of surrender-
ing the principle the Noble Lord called upon them to give up.
—( Hear, hear.) The remedy of the Noble Lord was a mi-
serable refuge from the adoption of a bad principle. Hon.
Members were called upon to accede to that principle ;
they were called upon to support a religion as if existing
de facto, and not founded on the true basis of religion. In
New England formerly the Government called upon each in-
dividual to support the religion he belonged to. As soon as
that system was known in this country it was called the Ame-
rican system, and immediately abandoned here, and it only
now existed by tradition in America. The system they were
now called upon to agree to was in its essence transitory, and
yet it involved the existence of all Church Establishments.
He hoped that he should never live to sec the day when such
a system should be adopted in this country, for the consequence
of it to public men, and to the character of the country, would
be lamentable beyond all description.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that the Hon. Member who had
last spoken had praised the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
(Sir James Graham) ; but that was rather surprising, for the
Right Hon. Baronet said that he opposed the motion on con_
scientious grounds, whilst the Hon. Member's opposition was
of a contingent nature. The Hon. Member said that if the
time should arrive when the Legislature should be formed
of a majority of Catholics, then would he feel bound in matters
of religion to bend to them. The people of Ireland would be
more gratified by the concession of the principle now con-
tended for, than by a removal of two-thirds of the taxes now
imposed on them for the support of a religion they did not be-
long to. The Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir James Graham)
was guilty of a strange inconsistency, for he now said that
he would not vote for the present qUestion' since it involved
the appropriation of corporate property. When he saw the
Right Hon. Baronet associated with the Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Stanley) he could not help looking upon him as one of
those insignificant persons whom the Noble Lord said he
carried about him in his pocket. On the amendment to the
address the Right Hon. Baronet said he would not vote for it,
because it did not go far enough on the subject of Corporation
Reform. They were taunted with a want of fairness and con-
sistency by the Right Hon. Baronet the Paymaster of the
Forces for opposing the present Government, when, on the
questions of Irish tithes and the marriage of Dissenters, it
gave fuller measures than those proposed by the Government
of last year. Was it unfair or inconsistent to wish this year,
on great questions that involved the interests of the people, to
go farther than last year ? Were they still to allow the Church
to remain always recipient, and never try to make it donative?
Was that a principle never to be broached ? Why, it was car-
ried into effect by the measures of the Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Stanley), who took from the landlord and the tenant in
order to better secure the property of the Church in Ireland.
With regard to the absurd distinctions which had been drawn
in favour of Church Froperty, let it be recollected that all
property, not excepting landed property, was only protected
by the law, and that tithes were the creation of the law.
As to the principle being a precedent for the diversion of the
corporate funds of Liverpool to the completion of a ship canal
between Kingston and Dublin, the proposition was ridiculous,
and if it had proceeded from any Hon. Member of less reputa-

ton than the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J. (:raharn)
would have been met with shouts of laughter. The Hon.
Member, after declaring that the present Ministry would in-
troduce their measures only for the purpose of retaining their
seats, and that the people were now only demanding their
rights, the first of which had been restored to them by the
Emancipation Bill, said that the applications of the people had
heretofore been met with Coercion Bills and martial law. The
admission that some change was necessary, entirely justified
the agitation that had been resorted to, and even if it did not
lot them as men, and not as legislators, place themselves in the
situation of the people of Ireland, who were compelled to sup-
port Ministers of a different creed, and then candidly declare
whether or not mortal men suffering 'under such grievances,
could have been more gentle in their proceeedines. Let
Hon. Members ask themselves what would be their feel-
ings if an unwarrantable claim to ascendancy was placed be:
tween them and their just rights. To speak of the number of
Irish acres belonging to Protestants was ridiculous ; no longer
was the question one of pounds, shillings, and pence.
Whether the Ministerial Tithe Bill was or was not a beneficial
measure—whether it went beyond that agreed to by. the
Melbourne Administration—had no connection with the ques-
tion then before the House.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The question involved a great and important pro'
ciple, upon which the subject of tithes must hereafter be con-
sidered. They had no right to take from the landlord for the
purpose of giving to the Church ; and yet under the present
system such was the practice. In a bad season the landlord
reduced the rent of the tenant, but no reduction was made by
the Clergyman, who, upon averages previously fixed, exacted
tithes to the full amount, and in the same proportion that the
very best of seasons only could afford. If the of th!
Noble Lord were fairly carried out, it was his well-considered
opinion that the cause of the Protestant religion would be ma-
terially served. The Clergy would be compelled to pSY
greater attention to their duties, and the disgraceful conten-
tions between those who professed different creeds would be
extinguished. The Right Honourable Baronet (Sir James ,
,
Graham) had asked 'of what use would be the recognition 1
that principle, when at the utmost 100,0001. was the amount.
which would benefit the people of Ireland. But 100,0001.,
though nothing in the estimation of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, was of great importance to the impoverished peasantry
These, however, were not put forward as objections when the
celebrated Bill with the 147th clause was before the House.
Since that time, in proportion to the enlargement of the views
of the Noble Member for Devonshire, the opinions of the Noble
Member for Lancaster and the Right Hon. Member for Cum-
berland had become narrow and unpopular. Would the country
continue to tolerate the neutrality of that party—a neutrality
which in these times amounted to a crime ? Would they al-
low, such an army of occupation in that house ?—(A
Would they allow the Noble Lord and his party to sit on the
flanks of the Government—( A laugh)—and at the same time
to declare that the Government possessed not their confidence
—that their measures were far from affording them satisfaction ?
A more anomalous, and a more ridiculous, opposition ,was
never heard of. The question before the House was tants;
mount to one of confidence or no confidence in the pre
Administration. The speeches which had been made from
this side of the House had afforded him much pleasure, and he
hoped that when they were read by the people the sentiment:
they contained would inspire a greater confidence in that
House than had ever yet been entertained. Greatly cli
it gratify him that so much respect was now paid to the
Irish Members. During the last _Session they were treated
with disrespect and contempt. Whence the alteration had no;
ginated he could not say—but certainly a more decorous Ine'
gratifying attention was now observed towards the Represen-
tatives of Ireland. The Hon. Member then adverted tothe
non-residence of the Irish Protestant Clergy, and declarwa
that the Rector of his own parish he had never seen, nor hi
the oldest inhabitant.—(A laugh.) The curate lived out °t
the parish, the clerk resided at a distance of fourteen miles
From the church, and the sexton sold spirits without a license
in the churchyard.—(A laugh.) This he stated before, ht.'t
the Right Hon. Representative of the University of Dublin
was enabled to deny it, because the clerical authoridl
fearing an exposure from the frequent debates on the Iris
Church, took care to introduce pro tempore a more improrr
discipline. If the recognition of the principle of the ISTobid
Lord's motion would cause a saving of only 1,0001. he Won
strenuously advise the House to adopt it. Such a core,
would show to the Irish people the determination of Peril"
ment to correct all existing abuses; and indeed the principle
rather than the amount of the tax was cared for by the people.
Give them an interest in the tax levied upon them—give them
an advantage to the benefit of five shillings only—and they
would willingly pay the other fifteen shillings. Sooner or
later must the great principle be affirmed. If not, the pe°P, e
would be roused to madness. Did the House think that ta
people who had been so clamourous and vehement when dis-
couraged by Hon. Members would be less vehement, less de-
termined, to attain their point now that their right was tlie;
knowledged and their claims encouraged by no inconsiderable
number of the Members of that House ? Did not Hon. Meet-
hers opposite foresee that their friends they would place in $
most odious position, and their enemies in the most advanta-
geous situation they could wish for ? The Right Hon.
ber for Cumberland said that the articles of the Union would
be violated, but he would ask whether in 1823 they were 0°
violated by the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home DePatt:
ment ? The Right Hon. Baronet also declaimed on the ac
tation for a repeal of' the Union; but he would ask whether 3
was not better that the decision of a question should be upon.
its merits alone, and not in reference to other exciting topics?To this he would add that if they recognised this principle
they would considerably narrow the discussion as to the policy
of repealing the Union—they would enforce its consideration
and disposal on, its own immediate merits. He should feel It
his duty to support the Noble Lord who had introduced tile
motion, and the Noble Member for Northumberland, both 0t
whom had acted laudably in marching in the spirit of the age'
The movements of the Noble Member for Lancashire and the
Right Honourable Baronet were retrograde, while those of the
other two Noble Lords' were progressive, and in accordance
with the spirit of the Reform Bill, and the rapid march Ofill.A;
tellect. From the Noble Member for Devonshire the Im'
people had much to expect. He trusted they would meet
with no disappointment. He trusted that the practice °t
making the Irish Members a mere dead weight in a divishle;
and of bandying them from one party to another, would neveid
again be resumed. He trusted that henceforward they Wfalbe
be invariably found voting with an imposing majority in toe
cause of civil and religious liberty throughout the world. cit.
could have wished that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sit
R. Peel) was unfettered, for he was sure his good send
would not have suffered him to hesitate as to the propriety ofse_
ceding to the principle. But, unfortunately, the -Right Ile:
Baronet was hampered by his connection with a party ill t
possession of whom an unrighteous ascendancy had long ri;
maimed. The members of that party were in many, perhalrh„,r
most instances excellent landlords and most respectable coon
gentlemen, but as magistrates they acted tyrannically, an_
no degree mitigated the effects of the political ascends";
they possessed. They had been told that in every pariephe„.
lieland dwelt a tyrant who assumed the name of " The
ple ;" but there was also a tyrant who called himself the
law, the constitution, the religion, and the loyalty of bb
country." To this tyrant a check must be given, and he lithe
every reason to believe that to recognise and carry out
principle of the Noble Lord's motion would effect that
ject, and considerably benefit the people of Ireland. 1141_,4,0
glad to find that he and the Noble Lord had hit upon a quonie
on which they could agree—(Laughter and cheers.)
was glad to find himself assisted by so powerful a Pa'of
Under what circumstances he received that assistance 5y5.4.40
no importance.—(Laughter and cheers.) The principle Tdd,
all he looked to, and in explaining the justice and prollie
operation of that principle, he had felt it his duty to trout
the House at such length.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL felt that the House ullsl,l,
without any sufficient evidence, either documentary or et" -or
wise, to justify the adoption of any legislative measure' pa
the sanction of any important resolution. On that tber
alone he would not support the motion of the Noble eels.
for Devonshire. But even if the House had been in Y,- it
session of the requisite data he should have objected to
on other, and, as he believed, on far higher, consideration"
—(Cheers.) He objected to the principle involved even its •
the language of the motion ; he objected still more to
ultimate application, as disclosed, if not by the Noble 02' he
ber himself, at least by the Hon. Members by whore ber
had been followed. He admitted that the Noble Menlo!
for Devonshire in the speech introductive of his motioneo
adopted a more moderate tone than the Hon. Gentlemo,)
who afterwards spoke' rom his side of the House,--(Cheea.
Some of the topics, it seemed to him, were calculatedl
to increase the party animosity so unfortunately prevalent:or
Ireland, and to inflame to a still higher pitch the 10 00
choly spirit of religious discord and strife.—(Cheers.) back.
knew not why. the Noble Lord thought proper to gooA and
to the early history of the connexion between Engle!'" ati
Ireland.—(Cheers.) He knew not why the Noble
went back to the barbarous legislature of our Edwards re.
(Cheers)—or even of much later periods—why bean of
ferred to Acts of the British Parliament to which nom be,
whatever party, or whatever religious persuasion he raight..,..
could look back without feeliugs of the deepest regret;ced
(Cheers.) He knew not why those topics were introdool
into this discussion—(Cheers)—nor, above all, did he 1‘
why the Noble Lord should say to the Catholics of Irelatil_on.
" From the justice of England you have nothing to
—if anything you get, by force must it be extorte?_lics
(Much cheering.) Why did he say this to the Catn_o_lo,
of Ireland—why did he say this of the English House of uruer.
moms ?—( Much cheering, amidst which an Hon. Mere NT
claimed " No, no.") He was not misrepresenting the If the
Lord. What he understood him to say was this one House of Commons do not sanction my
if they will not hold out to you, the Catholics of 1re1et,...41
prospect of the removal of the Irish Established
the
they will not promise the relief which my resolution cono
then what I say to you is Clamour for the repeal„,, ober
Union.' "—( Great cheering,) Did not the Noble 'lase
for Devonshire say this to the Members of the Englisll,o„tion
of Commons :—" Although it is my belief that the a" gsta-
of my resolution is pregnant with danger even to the_ it je
resolutiod,
blished Church in England—although I believe thalighed
pregnant with danger to the most sacred, the most che'..e for
of tine institutions of the country, yet I ask you to vu_' votethat motion, and if you do not, I call on you not t° Thus
against the Repeal of the Union.—(Loud Cheers.) lisle
had the Noble Lord addressed the Members of the of
House of Commons. Now he ( Sir W. Follet) as a meleb, be-
that House and as a member of the Established Chi"ye the
lieving in his conscience that if this resolution did rec°
untry
ce
sanction of the House the Established Church in this _ effect,
would be endangered ; believing that such would be theta the
lre could not by any motive be induced to give his vote.!rt was
Noble Lord's motion. And whenever any resolution the
brought forward for the repeal of the Union, eithe,reering)
Noble Lord or by any of his new associates—( Muc-111..et; to bill
—he should feel that he did not discharge his ""