The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON; THURSDAY, jULY 23, 1836.

vance a single reason in favour of the division he proposed
The Right Hon. Baronet's great argument was that the fund
from which the surplus was to be derived was already bank-
rupt, and that until the year 1853 there would not be one
farthing of surpluj available. Why, if there were to be no
surplus at all, on what ground did the Right lion. Baronet
oppose the progress of the Bill at all ? Any objections to the
details, any amendments to the clauses, might be urged in Com-
mittee. The whold proceeding was a contradiction ; the very
ground the Right Hon. Baronet took, destroyed his own case,
and he ought not for one moment to have impeded the Bill in its
progress-to a committee.—( Cheers). The Right Hon. Bart.
had objected to the Noble Lord's Bill. He ( Mr. Hume) would
admit that it was not the best that might have been intro-
duced. lie for one saw no reason why they need hamper
themselves with benefices at all. Why could they not divide
Ireland. into districts, allot a clergyman to every place where
there was a sufficient number of Protestants, commute the
tithes, sell all the landed property of the Church, bring the
whole of the proceeds into one general fund, and pay the sti-
pends which were proved to be necessary out of it.—( Cheers. )
The Right Hon. Baronet had alluded to the emoluments of
the Scotch Church. He held in his hand a list of the livings
of the Scotch Clergy, with the emoluments attached to each,
and he would give the Right lion. Baronet the information he
seemed to require. There were twenty livings, the emolu•
ments of which were 8001. a year each ; ten with 2,6001. a-
year each • ten with 500/. (all of these being benefices con-
nected with the larger and more populous towns), and the re-
mainder varied from 150/. to 3001. The Scotch Clergy, lie
admitted, were better paid than the Clergy of Ireland, for one
reason—they were more equally divided over the country ; but
he had always contended that 3001. a-year was net too high a
salary for a resident Clergyman with efficient duties to per-
form.—( Hear, hear.) His opinion decidedly was, that the
Bill did not go far enough ; for, after all, it would keep up
establishments which were not wanted, and perpetuate that ap-
pearance of domination and tyranny so repulsive to the people of
Ireland. He could not believe that any such alteration as was
now proposed would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland.
Entertaining this opinion, he thought the Government, at
no distant period, would be obliged to reconsider the whole
Church question, and adopt an entirely different course. The
Bill would not do.--( Cheers.) Far from it. It was a step,
and as a step he was content to take it. If his charge were
6s. Bd., he would take 3s. 4d. rather than lose the whole,
but he would wait for the remainder, and embrace the first
opportunity of getting it.—(Cheers.) The Right, Hon.
Baronet had said last night, that if the measure were carried,
the Church would become stipendiary. Why should not the
Church become stipendiary ?--( Cheers.) Was it to be pa-
ramount to the Government ?—( Renewed cheering.) Here
was the error, and here it had been before. The Right
Hon. Baronet had talked of the Establishment of parsons
starving on 225/. a-year, and pointed out the apparent absur-
dity of some of the clauses, but did he ever put this question
to the House—for what purpose was the Christian religion
founded ?—( Loud cheers.) Was it to promote peace and
good-will among men ?—(Cheers.) Had the Right Hon.
Baronet asked himself, or had any of those Gentlemen who
now opposed the Bill, asked themselves whether the Church
Establishment in Ireland had produced the result ?—( Loud
cheers.) Excitement, irritation, murder, and bloodshed,
were these the effects of the truth of religion ? Oppression,
tyranny, and resistance, were these signs of peace and good
will ?—( Cheers.) The Establishment was a failure. It was
the plain truth, and there was no denying the fact—a
lamentable failure. All history and experience showed that
wherever religious domination had existed, the more had per-
secution and intolerance flourished.—( Cheers.) These were
the effects of the Church of Ireland, and those effects it was
proposed to remedy in part. Was the Bill again to be thrown
out, and the people of England to pay another million as the
price of the folly which allowed it to be thrown out.—
(Cheers.) He hoped not one farthing of the public money
would ever leave the Exchequer for such a purpose. Let the
heads of the Irish Church—let the heads of the English
Church—let the Duke-of Wellington or any other than—if
they were disposed, render futile the liberal arrangements
rnade last year, and the still more liberal arrangements (even
on the Right- Hon. Baronet's "showing) contemplated in the
present; but let not the people of England, under any pre-
.tence, or on any consideration, lend their countenance or sanc-
tion to such a proceeding.—( Cheers.) The Right Hon.
Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had, in 1824, ac-
cused him (Mr. Hume) when he brought forward the subject,
of an intention to subvert not only the Established
Church, but the Constitution. With what compunction must
the Right Hon. Gentleman now think of that speech, when
he considers how general in all parts of the country the doc-
trines which ho then advocated, now are.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) So prevalent, indeed, were they, that even in Cam-
bridge he would venture to say that the Right Honourable
Gentleman would find his opinions in a minority. What was
the effect of the continual opposition of the Gentlemen oppo-
site to all reform ? The consequence of it was, that it was
now driving every part of the country into resistance. Was
it not owing to the people despairing of being otherwise suc-
cessful, that there was so strenuous a resistance at this moment
to the church-rates? He had a letter from Wolverhampton,
which showed the feeling in respect to church-rates. A mo-
tion was made last week for a new rate, when an amendment
was moved that the question be adjourned, and the amendment
was carried by a majority of 948 to 303. This showed that
three-fourths of the people of Wolverhampton were opposed
to church-rates. The church-rates would now infallibly be
lost—all the power in the country could not save them. The
same would be the case with the tithes, if the opposition to the
settlement of the question continued. Why should they,
therefore, not make a timely secession from their present po-
sition. By further opposition they would sacrifice the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland altogether.—( Hear, hear.) It was
not to be expected that more money should be paid by the
people of this country towards the support of the Irish clergy
—( Hear, hear)— and the recovery of tithes' was absolutely
hopeless.—( Hear, hear.) Let them refuse this measure,
and what will be the consequence? He would tell them, that
their opposition would be more fatal to the Established Church
of Ireland than anything which could possibly be proposed
from his (the Ministerial) side of the House. —( Cheers.) The
Right lion. Baronet had showed that there would be no sur-
plus fund, and he therefore claimed his vote in support of the
measure, for the surplus was the great source of dispute.—
( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) thought that, in all the in-
ventions of human mischief, mankind had never invented an
engine so destructive of the public peace as the Established
Church of Ireland.—(oh, oh !) How lone. had the people of
Ireland lived in hope of some improvement being made in their
condition? and how had those hopes been realized ?—( Hear,
hear.) He blamed the Government of Lord Grey for having
followed out the policy of their predecessors in regard to Ire-
land ; but that was the rock upon which that Administration
split, and he should think that those who formed it were now
convinced that they had acted wrongly.—( Hear, hear.) It
was thrown out as a matter of reproach, that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin supported this measure. But he
could say, that the Hon. Member for Dublin had always been
an advocate for the oppressed against their oppressors—(bear,
hear)—and was as anxious as any man to see the people of
Ireland in a quiet and happy state—( Hear, hear)—and he
hoped that the people of Ireland would receive this Bill as an
earnest of what it was the wish of the Government to do for
them.
Mr. GOULDURN and Sir JAMES GRAHAM then rose together,
but the latter gave way.
Mr. G 0 U LBURN then said that the Hon. Member for
Middlesex had said that though he had long fought on diffe-
rent sides from him, yet he gave him (Mr. Goulburn) credit
for having sincerely entertained the opinions which he had
advocated, and conscientiously pursued the course which he
thought best. He (Mr. Goulburn) was ready to give the Hon.
Member for Middlesex equal credit for sincerity, in pursuing
that course which, however dangerous it might have appeared
to him, was conducive to the forwarding of those views which
no doubt the Hon. Member conscientiously thought the best.
But so far from acting with any hostility on this occasion, he
on the contrary, thanked him for having stated what appeared
to him to be in many respects very correct views of the ques-
tion under discussion.—(hear, hear.) The Hon. Member
stated that he accepted this measure not as a final settlement
of the question, but as a beginning—as an earnest of what
may be done for the people of Ireland, and he even stated
that the ultimate object which he had in view, was that there
should be no Establishment of the Protestant religion at all.
—(" No, no !") The Hon. Member bad certainly said so.—
(" No, no 1 ")
Mr. HUME. begged to explain. If he had said that there n
should be o Establishment of the Protestant religion in Ire-
land, be certainly had not meant to say so.—( Hear, hear.)
What he meant to have said was, that he wished the present
parishes and benefices to be abolished, and new parishes con-
structed according to the wants of the country.—( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN—Then it appeared that the Hon.
Member would have an Establishment of the Protestant reli-
gion, but only wished to do away with the old bulwarks of the
Church, in order to reconstruct them ; but what did the Hon.
Member then mean by this being only an earnest of what the
people of Ireland had to expect ? What did he mean by say-
ing that this was not to be the final deduction to be made from
the incomes of the clergy of the Established Church, but that
it was only the commencement of a series of. deductions which
were to end in what he said would meet the approbation of
the people of Ireland ? He ( Mr. Goulburn) thought that
there was nothing to which the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) more strenuously ob-
jected than the junction of measures different in their natures
in one Bill. He had frequently been taunted by the Hon.
Member for doing so, and yet on the present occasion, when
his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth proposed
to divide into two separate Bills the two measures of which
this Bill was composed, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposed
it. The object of the two parts of the Bill were quite different,
and acting upon their own principles, he called upon them to
separate them. In doing this he only asked them to do what
was in strict conformity with their own principles.—( Cheers.)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his Right Hon.
Friend ought to have opposed the second reading. The Right
Hon. Gent. was a good tactician, and would be glad to find his
Right Hon. Friend oppose the principle of a Bill which had for
its object not only the settlement of tithes, but the question of
the re-payment of the million given to the clergy. N 9; his
Right Hon. Friend felt that there were parts of the Bill to
which he could give his support, while there. were others
which he should feel it his duty to oppose, and he therefore
had no alternative but to allow it to go to that stage in which
be might move that it should be divided into two Bills.
He presumed that the reason why the Goverment had brought
forward the measures conjointly was that they felt they could
not carry the one part of the measure without joining it with
another of a popular character. They were afraid that their
measure would not bear examindtion, and they therefore de-
termined upon producing' a species of Siamese Twins.—
( Hear, hear.) The Member for Middlesex, for the want, he
supposed, of a hatter ergement, had thought fit to attack him
(Mr. Goulburn) for having done nothing for the Irish peoplg,

It was painful to have to enumerate what had been done by
one's self, but having been attacked by the lion. Member,
he had no other coarse to follow but to enter upon his de-
fence. He had been appointed Secretary for Ireland in
1820, and submitted to the House a measure for the accom-
plishment of tithe composition, and notwithstanding the oppo-
sition of many Irish Members, the Bill passed, and for time
put an end to the disturbances on the subject of tithes, which
distracted Ireland at that period. It made the collection of
tithes safe and easy, and but for circumstances which after-
wards happened, it might have continued to answer the ob-
ject for which it wes intended. He • was blamed by the Hon.
Member for not having made the composition compulsory ;
but his answer to that was, that he had brought in the Bill
with a compulsory clause in it, but found that he was finally
obliged to abandon it, in consequence of the opposition which
it met with from the Irish Members, and he was compelled to
accept a voluntary composition for 21 years, on the understand-
ing that the Bill would at a future period be more efficient.-
-(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gent. had said that they were
enemies to non-residence; now he asked who had brought in
a Bill to put a stop to non-residence—who had brought in the
Curate Bill ? Were they not introduced by himself?-=( Hear.)
These Bills had been passed into laws, ar,d he wanted no far-
ther proof of their efficacy than what had taken place since
they had been agreed to. More had been done by these mea
sures than by any previous measures that had been introduced.
A Bill had also been introduced for the severance of Unions,
and to unite those sinecure situations in the Church of Ireland
to the poorer vicarages, or give them to the working clergy.
This princifple had afterwards been carried out to a greater ex
tent in the Church Temporalities Bill, by which a portion of the
income of the dignitaries of the Church was applied to the
general instruction of the people in connection with the
Church. The Government of which he was a Member, on
their return to power in 1828, appointed a Commission to see
how far the principle of the Bill could beneficially be carried
into effect; shortly after the principle was made to apply with
reference to two bishoprics—namely, those of Down and Ra-
phoe ; from the revenues of the dignitaries of each of which
2,0001. a year was taken, to be divided in each diocese amongst
the incumbents of twelve different parishes, which had been
placed under the superintendence of curates who then had
miserable incomes, and by means of this allowance a respect-
able but moderate income was allowed to each of them.
Each of these persons also possessed a large Protestant con-
gregation, he contended, however, that more depended on
the manner in which the Government distributed the Church
patronage than anything else, as affected the Church of Ire-
land—he meant that proper care was taken that the persons
appointed to the higher offices in the Church were compe-
tent to the proper discharge of the duties they had to per-
form. He would appeal to the lists of appointments made in
the Church during the time he was Secretary to the Marquis
of Wellesley, under the Administration of Lord Liverpool,
as a proof of the sincere desire of the Government to re-
form abuses, and to put the Church on a proper footing.
His Right Hon. Friend had said that they ought not to con-
/ skier the Church of England as connected with the Church
of Ireland, and read an extract from " Mr. Knox's Remains,"
with a view of proving this assertion. He (Mr. Goulburn)
admitted that there were differences between the circum-
stances of the two countries, but he considered that the prin-
ciples said to be applicable to the Church of Ireland, were
equally applicable to the Church of England. Therefore,
when he considered a measure proposed for adoption with
regard to the Church in Ireland, he could not help look-
ing to see how far it was applicable to this country. Now,
he maintained that the arguments that would justify the ap-
plication of many of the most objectionable provisions in
this Bill, would equally apply to a measure, with similar pro-
visions, as affecting the Church of England. For instance,
the principle of sequestrating the revenues of a parish, and
appropriating it to other purposes than the payment of a re-
sident clergyman, where there were not fifty Protestants in a
parish, applied equally to the latter Church as to the former.
He could sincerely say, that in all his attempts to oppose this
or other measures connected with the Church, he contended
only on the principle that he believed that the existence of the
Establishment, was essential to the proper maintenance of re-
ligion, and to the promotion of morality throughout the coun-
try. He could not disguise from himself that in some parts of
Ireland the Church must be considered as somewhat resem-
bling a Missionary Establishment. In this view of the case
he believed that there was more efficacy in a small congrega-
tion in each parish under its separate minister, than in making
the Protestants form themselves into large congregations be-
fore a minister was allowed them. The Noble Lord, by his
Bill, proposed to sequestrate the incomes of all parishes not
containing more than fifty members of the Church. Now, out
of the one hundred and ten parishes in this diocese there were
only thirty-four the Protestant population of which exceeded
fifty. In the diocese of Clogher there were very few parishes
that would not fall under the plan of the Noble Lord. The
Report not only gave the census of 1834, but also that
of 1831, by which it would be easy to see the relative increase
of Protestants and Catholics. In the diocese of Water-
ford there were seventy-six parishes to which the Noble
Lord's Bill would be applicable. Now, in this diocese,
the Catholic population had increased in three years about
per cent , and the increase of the Protestant population in this
diocese during the same period had been 30 per cent.—( Hear.)
In the diocese of Clogher the Roman Catholic population
had increased from 3to 31 per cent., and the Protestant po-
pulation had increased 3i per cent. The different classes,
therefore, in this diocese kept up a just proportion. In the
former diocese the means of religious instruction in connection
with the establishment had been increased within the last three
years. Would they then withhold the incomes from the incum-
bents of parishes wifh comparatively small congregations, when
they had such evidence that when a judicious selection was
made of a Protestant clergyman, a rapid increase took place
in the number of Protestants? in this ground he trusted that
the House would not rashly adopt this principle of the Bill.
The Noble Lord had asked whether they ought to continue a
clergyman in a parish with a large income, in which there were
no Protestants. The question was not, however, whether they
should maintain a clergyman in a parish with a large income
where there was not a large. congregation. All agreed that
any superfluity of income should be taken away, but what he
demanded was that they should maintain the means of religious
instruction for the members of the establishment in every pa-
rish. If they took one parish to which acre was a large in-
come annexed, and in which the number of Protestants was
but small, ought they not to take, on the other hand, those nu-
merous cases in which there was a small income and a numerous
congregation attending divine service in the church? He
could quote numerous cases of this kind ; for instance, there
was the parish of Carlow, and the case quoted the other night
by the Hon. Member for Tipperary—namely, that of Carrick.
Again there was the benefice of Cullen, which had been alluded
to last night by his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir Robert Peel), in
which case two adjoining parishes, containing few Protestants,
had been united to the parish of Cullen, which contained a
great number of members of the Church. The income of the
latter parish being extremely small, but being joined to the two
former a moderate income was afforded to the clergyman.
The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that this case
would come within some clause in the Bill, but he (Mr. Goul-
burn) found that the two parishes affording the income of the
benefice were to be severed from the parish of Cullen. The
Hon. Member for Middlesex had said that his Right Hon.
Friend (Sir Robert Peel) had demonstrated that there would
be no surplus ; but towards the conclusion of his speech he had
said that he could demonstrate that there would be a surplus.
flow the Hon. Gentleman could reconcile this he could not
tell, but, allowing the Hon. Member every merit for his powers
of calculation, lie should prefer to adhere to the demonstra-
tion—as the Hon. Member admitted it to be—of his Right
Hon. Friend, that there could not be a surplus, if they main-
tained the Established Church in anything like respectability
or decency, or in proportion to its just claims in affording reli-
gious instruction to the people. The Right Hon. Gentleman
said last night that Ireland had been driven almost to rebellion
by measures of this kind, and that on every refusal the de-
mands for concession increased, until they became dangerous
to the Establishment. He (Mr. Goulburn) contended, how-
ever, that the evils apprehended by his Right Hon. Friend
were likely to arise by pursuing the course recommended by the
Government. He could not but apprehend that by pursuing this
course, more and more would be taken from the Irish Church,
until the whole of its income would be absorbed. Urged
on step by step, and year after year, they would be com-
pelled to continue to lower the limited means to be afforded
for the maintenance of religion in Ireland, until the whole form
and fabric of the Establishment would be destroyed. He could
not consent to a measure which would ultimately expel from
the profession of a Clergyman every man who had a liberal
education. He trusted that the House would be disposed to
gimhaetasure ve t a
deeply
o affectingme a s measure et
hoef
isnutcehr
ei ms
tps oorft
thence eua
ns
ittheed per measure
con-
sideration which it so imperatively demanded, and to allow the
separating of the Bill into the two distinct portions marked
out by his Right Hon. Friend.--( Cheers.)
Mr. PU SE Y expressed his intention of voting against the
}sereamendment
re
foefrrtehde
to Rightthe Report,Hon. B Baronet. The
show Gentle-
mar,dispro-
portiontThheestrHikoitni.ge numberi
ooc
ef
se,in n Ireland. He k
the Catholic an Protestantne whe
inhabitantsmight
betweenth
thatanythese of the d
dioceses had been consolidated ; but
he
remembered, that when the Noble Lord the Member
for South Lancashire
salu-
tary measure to which he was adverting, the same cry of
i'cllbetold
ilnd many
(Lord Stanley)
Sacrilecse 1" was raised against it by a portion of the public
Press, that was now most unduly raised against the pre-
sent Ministers. This charge would, he thought, fall with
greater justice upon the heads of those Protestants who, for
three centuries, had allowed the revenues of the Church to be
diverted from their original and legitimate objects to purposes
of jobbing.—( Cheers.) His reference to this word " sacri -
lege," reminded him of another species of attack made upon
the Bill now before the House. It was said to be a Bill to
" unchi istanize" 895 parishes. • Now, how many did the
House suppose there were out of this number of parishes with
neither church, nor parsonage, nor resident minister, nor, with
very few exceptions, the performance of any divine service
Whatever, nor any resident Protestant population ? Why,
out of the 895 parishes, there were no less than 704 of the de-
scription he had just mentioned.----( Ministerial cheers.) Out
of the 1,385 benefices which were to be reduced by the Bill
by 172--out of these 1,385 benefices there were only 885 re-
sident incumbents (so we understood the Hon. Member, but
it was exceedingly difficult to hear him.) If he compared the
present state of things with the change which the Bill would
effect, he found that there would be an increase in the effi-
cient body of the Church, of no less than 300 in 900.
(Cheers.) He would now address a word to the House on the
questien of appropriation, and here he confessed that he could
not disguise from himself the danger of breaking down
the principle of the inalionation of Church property.—( Oppo-
sition cheers.) Certainly, as a Protestant, he could not de-
sire to reduce the funds of the Established Chuich ; he would
rather apply any surplus there might be in building up churches
in those parts of Ireland where there were Protestants--( C)p-
position Cheers)—or in improving the poorer livings,—(ol)po-

itiol cheers.) But when he turned to the vast Catholic
spopulation of Ireland—( Ministerial cheers)-.and when he re-
membered the beneficence of their ancestors, who founded the
local trust funds for the benefit of the parishioners—( Minis-
terial cheers)—he could not be surprised at the Catholic po-
pulation advancing a claim. Pere was a difficulty; and how
was he to get rid of it ?—( Hear, hear.) The Protestants of
course wished to retain the whole of these funds for their own
Establishment—(Hear, hear)—the Catholics might not un-
justly lay claim to a large portion. Ia this state of things, he
turned to the Bill upon the table of the House, and he con-
sidered it to be an award made by his Majesty's Government
between the two parties.—('Great cheering from the Minis-
terial benches.) Though he was opposed to the present Go-
vernment is general, yet he must say, with reference to this
particular measure, that he saw in it an award which gave a
boon to the Protestants. He would refer to an illustration
of what he meant. When the Right Honourable Baronet

the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), much to
his honour, introduced the Bill for the emancipation
of the Roman Catholics, he accompanied it with a
measure for the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders.
There was a boon given to the Roman Catholics—the boon
of emancipation given on a certain condition. There was a
boon to be given to the Protestant clergy in Ireland, and it
was accompanied by a condition in favour of the Roman Ca-
tholics.—(Cheers.) It was a subject of deep regret will him
to differ from the party with whom he was accustomed to act
—(Hear, hear); but if it were the last vote he should ever
give in this House, he must consider the sacrifice, he was
about to make due to the honour of his political oppouents—
(Chcering)—and he must consider it to the interest of the
Church of which he was a member, not to expose this ques-
tion to further agitation.—(Ministerial cheers.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Lord HO WICK rose at the
same time ; but the Noble Lord gave way, and the Right Hon.
Baronet proceeded. It was impossible for him once again
address them on this painful subject without referri7.-g to what
had fallen from the Noble Lord the §ce7..;tary for Ireland
when he introduced the measure now tefore the House: The
Noble Lord concluded his able address by stating that if in
his conscience he did not believe that the interests of the
Protestant religion would not be maintained by the present
Bill, no man would rejoice more than he should if it were de-
feated.---( Hear, hear, hear.) Respecting, as he did, the Noble
Lord's statements and character—respecting as he did his
private virtub and public principles, he could not hear such a
declaration from him without carefully reconsidering all the
opinions which himself had formed on the subject, and with-
out reviewing the conduct which he had thought proper to
pursue. And if such reconsideration and review had brought
him to a conclusion similar to that stated by the Hon. Member
for Berkshire, nothing that had passed, no opinions that he
had before expressed, would prevent him from coming forward
and avowing to the House that under all the circumstances of
the case he was prepared to make that compromise on the sub-
ject which the Hon. Member for Middlesex had so strenuously
and strongly recommended. But he was bound to say that so
far from his opinion having been changed, his retrospection
had led him to the conclusion that all the evil forebodings he
had expressed when the abstract resolution on which this Bill
was founded was under the consideration of the House, had
been more than realized—be felt certain that all the evils that
he had expected would inevitably flow from the measure under
consideration. In the first place he had a remark to make on
what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Berkshire, who
had just sat down.—( Hear, hear.) The argument on which
he principally founded his approbation of the present Bill,
was the insufficient number of the resident Clergy—the in-
sufficient number of the Parsonage Houses—and the inade-
quate provision for the scattered population of the Protestants
of Ireland.

Mr. PUSEY observed, what he said was, that owing to the
minute number of the Protestants in certain districts, no
, Churches could exist there to any good purpose ; therefore, it
was not desirable to build any.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the question whether
churches could or could not exist advantageously in such dis-
tricts under such circumstances, was the great principle for
which they were now contending.--(Opposition cheers.) But
he would deal for the present with the substantive objection,
viz., the insufficiency of the resident clergy, and the insuffi-
ciency of the glebe-houses; and he would put it to the Hon.
Member for Berkshire, and urge this consideration upon him,
that the present Bill, to which he was now disposed to
give his assent, struck at the very root of a measure which was
intended to supply, and which would supply, a sufficient re-
medy for the evil which he pointed out. The means to which
he alluded was the Irish Church Temporalities Ad.—( Hear,
hear.) It should be remembered that when that Bill was
brought forward, several of the Hon. Gentlemen who sat on
the other side of the House were parties to its introduction.
The main provisions of the present Bill would have the effect
of destroying the fund which was to be made available by the
former Bill to remedying the very defects of which the Hon.
Member fer Berkshire complained.—(Hear, hear.) He was
confident it could not be said that this measure was not a vir-
tual repeal of the Church Temporalities Act. Now, what
were the sources from which the funds were to be derived
that were to supply the ecclesiastical purposes which the
Clan ch Temporalities Act was destined to perform ? There
were only three that he would enumerate. First, there was
the amount arising out of the next presentations to livings, the
appointment to which was to be suspended in conformity with
the Act—that, under the Act, was to be carried to the credit
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; but by this Bill it was
to be taken from them, and to go to the reserve fund, and the
right was given, if an overplus was found to exist, to appro-
priate it to secular purposes, which was the final arrange-
ment of the reserve fund.—( Hear, hear.) The next provision
to which he would advert was more peculiarly applicable to
the purposes to which the Hon. Member for Berkshire re-
ferred. It was that all those funds which were appropriated
to livings attached to certain dignitaries in the Irish Church,
as they became vacant were to be applied, first to the aug-
mentation of the smaller livings to which they were united,
and were to go to the ecclesiastical fund to be applied to ec-
clesiastical purposes. Here again was an alteration. These
funds, under the present Bill, were no longer to go to the
ecclesiastical fund, but they were also to go to the reserve fund.
Then there was the perpetuity fund, which was to be most
heavily charged—that fund was to be charged five per cent.
under this Bill. The result was, that this Bill, which went
to destroy the Act by which provision was made for the aug-
mentation of small livings, and for building glebe-houses and
Churches, the Hon. Member for Berkshire would sopport,
though at the same time he was complaining of the defi-
ciency that existed.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had
also addressed himself to a point of form—he had objected
to the division of the Bill as proposed by the Right Hon_
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and illustrated his ar-
gument by a reference to what took place on the introduc-
tion of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. He trusted the Hon.
Gentleman would excuse him for saying he did not think a more
unhappy illustration could by possibility have been adduced.
What was the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet on that
occasion ? It was admitted by him, that the two measures,
the Roman Catholic Relief Bill and the Forty-shilling Free-
holders' Disfranchisement Bill, were more or less connected;
but he did not say that they were connected so intimately that
he thought it safe to embody them into one Bill.—(llear,
hear.) He next wished to make a few observations on the
speech of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and he thanked
him for the plaip, manly, and direct manner in which he had
declared his opinions on the present occasion. Ile thought
that some of the mists and obscurity which hung about the
measure had been dispelled by the clear light of truth reflected
on it by the Hon. Member for Middlesex.--( Hear, hear.) He
doubted, indeed, whether the Hon. Member for Berkshire
could have been present, and could have heard the speech
of that Right Hon. Gentleman ; but it appeared that he must
have heard the adroit and admirable speech of his Right
Hon. Friend the Chancellor cf the Exchequer, addressed to
the House last night. His Right Hon. Friend declared that
it was now necessary, once and for ever, to settle this ques-
tion. So said the Hon. Member for Berkshire. The Hon.
Member for Middlesex had treated
,it as a pounds, shil-
lings, and pence qpestion, and had gone into details, for
entering upon which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth was complained of by his Right Hon. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, strange to say, declared
that lie would not have condescended to grapple with details.
—( Opposition cheers.) But the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex, having the pounds, shillings, and pence language,
which he could use so efficiently, when he came to comment
on the request of the Right Hon. the Chancellor of thc Ex-
chequer to settle the tithe question by passing this Bill, ad-
mitted to the House that he did not consider it a satisfactory
measure ; he offered, however, to take it as an instalment—
( Hear, hear)--though he would not give a release—( Hear,
hear)—in the same way as when he went for 6s. Bd. if he
could not get the whole he would take an instalment of 3s. 4d.
in the pound. The Hon. Member for Middlesex was, if pos-
sible, still more explicit. The Right Hon. Baronet had ap-
pointed out many deficiencies ; these the Hon. Member said
he was aware of, and he never had considered the measure as
perfectly satisfactory. He then added that he had a plan of
WI, own, which was to abolish every parish in Ireland ; he
would change the system entirely and adopt a new one—he
would make the clergy altogether stipendiary—he would break
up and re-arrange tEe whole Establishment on a spick-and-
span new plan of his own—the long established system he con-
sidered entirely inapplicable to the present times, and indeed
completely worn out—the ancient distances and landmarks
were not worth preserving.—( Cheers.) Where, then, it
might be asked, was this final settlement ?—( Great cheering.)
Once and for ever they were asked to settle this question ;
but where was the cry of peace ?—(Cheers.) The Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the cry was
peace—but there was no peace.—( Cheers.) He was prepared
to contend that this measure, which it was said would send
peace to Ireland, would send a sword to Ireland.—( Cheers. )
Let them look to this question as they would, through all
its shiftings, its turning round, and its doubles, and they
would come at last to the point on which they really die.
fered, and that was, what should be the favored religion of
the State in Ireland ? and when they decided the Protestant
should be, what was necessary to give effect to that deci-
sion ? Clear it was-Lthey might dissemble it as they would
—and clear it would be, whatever their attempts at con-
cealment, that this measure, or rather that portion of it
which was founded on the Resolution passed at the early
part of this. Session, was an attack on the great principle
of an Established Church.—(Cheers.) It was now neces-
sary for him to, advert to one or two facts stated by the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening.
Though he said he would not deal with figures, and danced
past them as if they were hot irons, yet he did burn his
fingers with them a little. He saw that there were 41 be-
nefices without Protestants. Now, in candour, his Right
Hon. Friend should not have omitted the statement that if
there were 41 benefices without Protestants, there were 64
benefices which, if they were without Protestants, paid no
tithes whatever. There were 47 without any provision for
the cure of souls, and 17 inappropriate. He repeeted that

there were 64 benefices, one,-fourth of the whale number,
iu which there was no ecclesiastical tithe.--( Hear.:) The
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a
new light had broken in upon them—that they were now
quite enamoured of the Commission and its Report. He must
say, in reply to this, that he did not understand the Right Hon.
Baronet to express any approbation of the principles on which
the Commission was appointed--( Hear, hear)—but that the
Report was most useful could not be denied, because it , dis-
posed of many of the gross delusions which had existed re-
specting tile amount of parochial tithes. But whatever might
be the opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for
Tamworth, in resp2et to the Commission, he ( Sir J. Graham)
would state that he had not in the least changed the opinion
which he had before entertained of the great danger of the
principle on which the Commission must rest. He repeated,
that Übe felt objections to the latent principle which it W'.
clear to him it contained, those objections had been contrmed
an hundred-fold by the measure new founded upcos it. The
principle to which he alluded was that of parocP,at proportions,
which clearly' were made the groundwork, for the decision of
the question, whether from a parish in which there shall be
less than some given number of persons professing the Esta-
blished religion, the ministor of the Established Churdo shall
be withdrawn or not. That principle, he contended, was fatal
to the existence of any Church Establishment. He contended,
moreover, that if it were a sound principle, its application
could not possibly bo confined to Ireland, and that five years
would not roll over their heads before its extension to England
was pressed on them with irresistible force ; and he hisatself
would frankly say, that if he were called upon to sacrifice
the principle of an Established Church at aP., by yielding
to the principle of paroebial proportion's', he would rather
sacrifice it to th Protestant Dissnters in this country,
than .
to the
It _ aomart Catholics oo°lreland.—( Loud cheers.)
been asked by his P2.ght Hon. Friend, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, wts it not absurd to levy the revenues of
Ca hel and Tuam, where there were few Protestants and many
Catholics, and with them supply certain ecclesiastical purposes
which might be necessary in the provinces of Dublin and Ar-
magh ? He ( Sir J. Graham) would answer that question, in
the first place, by asking the Noble Lord, the Secretary for
the Home Department, whether he had avoided the very same
absurdity under the very provisions of the present' Bill? Was
it not indeed certain that he would levy front the rich Pro-
testant parishes in the diocese of Armagh, under the title of
the Reserve Fund, the revenues to be expended in the educa-
tion of Catholics in the south of Ireland. A question had
been put to him distinctly, when the principle of appropria-
tion had been discussed in the shape of the abstract reso-
lution, to this effect :—" Suppose a surplus to be admitted,
how do you mean to appropriate it" (and the question had
'been put as presenting somewhat of a dilemma)? Do you
mean where there shall be a limit to any district existing, top
apply the revenues of that limit locally—to the education 01
the population of the particular parish; or do you mean, in
order to render the measure more acceptable to the whole
population of Ireland, to levy funds from the limited dis-
tricts, and expend them in some remote part of the country ?
If you say that you will expend them locally, you will he
driven into the great absurdity in some cases, where the
funds to be applied to education may be large, of surfeiting
the object you have in view—if you expend them in a distant
district, what will become of your measure of peace ? Where-
in will be the satisfaction to the confiscated parish, which
contributes a large sum, not to be expended within its own
limits, but to be enjoyed by some non-confiscated parish?"
To these representations the Noble Lord had, at the time
when they were made, given a definite answer; but how bad
he left the case in the Bill now before them ? He had left
it just as vague as that most vague of all resolutions on which
the Bill was founded.---( Laughter. ) It had been always ar-
gued that the striking and flagrant injustice of the Church
Establishment in Ireland arose from the circumstance of pay-
ment for the maintenance of that Church being made by the
great bulk of the Catholics of the community. He contended
that that was a gross fallacy.—( Hear, hear.) He absolutely
denied that tithes were paid by the husbandman, by the la-
bourer, by the occupier; he contended,, on the contrary, that
they were a tax on property, and were paid by the owners of
it. He would read on this subject, a few words, written by
one now no more, but who was gifted with a remarkably clear
understanding—who grasped strongly every subject which be
touched, and who rendered it intelligible to all whom he ad-
dressed upon it—he meant the late Mr. Cobbett, who had ex-
pressed himself, so late as 1834, as follows :—" The clergy are
not paid by the people, anymore than the landowners are. The
tithes are as much their property, as rent is the property of the
landlord ; the right of the former can no more be destroyed, than
the title of the latter ; and why the clergyman should receive aa
pay what the landlord demands as his own I cannot conceive.
The tithes do not belong to the husbandman, they never can
be his. It has been the fashion of late years to talk of abo-
lishing tithes. Those who have land would do well to con-
sider how they would relish the abolishing of rent, for they
must rest assured that the latter will never be far from the
former. Those who would make a law for abolishing tithes
would not wish to have another for abolishing rent ; for they
would soon find a set of legislators to do it for them"--
(cheers)--a very pertinent observation, which it was not inex-
pedient that landlords should bear in mind. His Right Hon.
Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had quoted the
authority of a Mr. Knox, to show the connection of the
Church of Ireland with that of England formed no necessary
part of the union. He ( Sir J. Graham) had not been aware
that that person was so high an authority as the Right Ho'
Gentleman seemed to regard him ; but, however high a one
he might be, he would appeal from him to the authority of $
Catholic eminent for his learning, and now occupying a high
station—he alluded to Mr. Blake. In 1828 that gentleman
had been asked whether he thought the Catholic Relief Bill
would be injurious to the Protestant Church Establishment
in Ireland? and his answer was, " I do not think that it
would be ; if I did, nothing should induce me to support ,its
for I am of opinion, that the Church Establishment is a strong
link in the chain which binds England to Ireland ; and that,
connection is, in my opinion, indispensable to the safety and
happiness of both." What was the opinion of Lord
Plunkett, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? It was still
more explicit. He had said that if ever, in an unhappy roo"
tnent, they rashly laid hands on the protssrty of the Protestant
Church in Ireland, to rob it of its rielats, they would seal the
doom of, and destroy the conneeton between, the two mull'
tries ; from that moment tht'ir connection could no longer sur-
vive. He held in his :land, a Return from twenty-three pay
rishes in the diocese of Kilmore, which he had every reason to
believe aecurs,:te, inasmuch as it was signed by the clergyinell.
of the dflerent parishes, and had been some time uncontra-
dieted before the public. From that it appeared that the gross
number of acres paying tithe in these parishes, was 363,832'
and the gross amount of tithe compqsition levied upon these
was 8,6291. Of that number of acres what proportion did the
House believe to be the property of Protestant chief landlords ?
No fewer than 357,234—( Hear)—only 6,578 acres being held
by Catholic chief landlords. What was the proportion of the
payment ? Of the gross sum of 8,629/., the composition paid
by Protestant chief landlords was 7,921/. ; and that paid by the
Catholic chief landlords was only 1471.—( Hear, hear.) The
average rate of composition for the whole was exactly 50•
per acre. The amount contributed by the Catholic was a
quarter of a farthing per acre. If the average rental were
taken at Bs. 9d. per acre, and the average produce at 1/. 6s.
per acre, the tithe in those 23 parishes would be one-twentieth
of the rent, or one-sixtieth of the produce. The tithe was to
the rent as one to twenty ; and rent being to the produce is
the proportion of one to three, the tithe was to the produce
as one to sixty. He begged the Noble Lord to recall to
his recollection what bad been the wish expressed by
his former constituents is Devonshire. Ile denied that there
should be a commutation of tithe in England on the principle of
approximating it to rent. They had petitioned, indeed, that
tithe should be to rent in the proportion of one to ten. In Ire-
land, however, tithe was to rent as one to twenty ; in England
it was as one to three. In Ireland also tithe was to produce
as one to sixty ; in England it was as one to ten. He con-
tended, therefore, that whatever disparity might exist between
the proportions of those professing the Established religion i°
the two countries, the difference in the payment was greater
still than that disparity.--( Hear.) He had already said that
he was satisfied that the present was not a measure which
would give peace. He well remembered that
when the enu-
meration of the people of Ireland by religious classes was first
called for, the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin gave a
distinct warning to the Government that it was a most dan-
gerous process so to range a whole population, in classes, ac-
cording to their different religions. All these dangers and
feuds which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman anticipated
from the original enumeration, he ( Sir J. Graham) anticipated
from the present Bill. He contended, that if its promoters
were sincere in their wish to give effect to the Church Tempos
ralities Act, their assent to the measures now before the House
was astonisning. He alluded more particularly to those with
whom it had been formerly his fortune to act as a colleague,
and who had been parties to the introduction of the Church
Temporalities Act.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Tamworth, had referred to two passages in the
speeches of Lords Grey and Lansdowne; wherein those No-
ble Lords, moving that measure most strenuously, urged on
the Legislature the necessity of making an immediate and large
provision for the augmentation of smaller livings in Ireland,
and for the building of glebe houses. He might here observe
that when the Legislature passed that Act they did stamp, 85
far as possible, their decided judgment as to what ought to he
the amount of the income of each benefice in Ireland • for the
provisions of that Bill were that no living under 300. a year
should be taxed, and that livings under 2001. a year should be,
augmented. Moreover, as if to render the point clear heyona
doubt, the 106th clause was inserted, providing that the Ef''
clesiastical Commissioners might dissolve unions of parishes,
with this remarkable proviso, " that the annual value of golf
such parish so divided as aforesaid shall not by such division in
any case be reduced below the sum of 300/." He would, hay-
ing observed thus much, now refer to what had been said byi
Lord Grey two years ago, since which period no money had
been expended in the building of glebe houses:.-" The so°
of 10,000/. a year," said that Noble Earl, "to be applied to
the erection of glebe houses, is a very necessary expenditures
inasmuch as not one half of the benefices of Ireland are pre'
vided with glebe houses." That was the very objection taken
by the Honourable Member for Berkshire : the Church
Temporalities Act had had for one of its objects to rattail
that insufficiency, and the Bill now on the table would hay°
the effect of virtually repealing that Act.-:-(Hear, bear.)
On what principle did the Roman Catholic Church act?
That Church, whose members prescribe to those of the Esta-
blished Church the doctrine that unless there exist a numerous
congregation, calling for a large supply of spiritual assistance.,
a resident Minister shall not be continued. He knew from his
own personal experience, that in some cases Catholic chapels
had been built, and Ministers appointed in places where the
congregation was exceedingly small. The maintenance by ilP3_
Legislature of a favoured religion, was neither more nor less.
than the imposition of a tax. It was needless to argue thallt
there was to be a favoured religion, the State should decide
what that religion should be, This brought him to the quest

and many
.1 purposes
and Ar-
aestion, in
.Mary for
very same
ill ? Was
rich Pro-
he title of
he educa-
stion had
appropria-
ract rcso-
admitted,
3stion had
" Do you
`fisting, to
ucation of

conceive•

never can
1k of abo-
-1 to con-
for they
from the
ling tithes
; for they
• them"---
not incr.
ight Hon•
'noted the
n of the
necessary

produce!
recall Y?
!ssed by
hat there
inciple of
:ed, that

.