The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 13,. 1844.

--
In the _
be utscharge of their duties, and whatever might
the success of that Church, its abuses would
Gn..'ettilger an impediment to its progress. An Hon.
t_7 epan had asked whether they would create the
MLblished Church de novo if it ceased to exist ? He
(Sir ja
test b mei Graham) did not think that was a fair
cb,i which to try the advantage of the Protestant
ister from
There were several institutions which ex-
ver m the earliest time, and which they valued
creSat "eh, and which they would not, perhaps,
Le e again if they were no longer in existence. But
tanwteve,cl not deal w,ith that now, for the Irish Protes-
t Ch deal was yet in existence. They found that
tie, Ch arch
had been brought under the considera-
at" of both the British and Irish Parliament
the
Pet that time of the union. He would not
fereril
article of the union, to which re-
of the bad been made, higher than the necessity
article ekse required. He would not say that that
ratifies prohibited all interference with the tempo-
Ras les of the Protestant Church of Ireland, but it
solemn consideration that any interference
ii‘o temporalities should be an. inteference based
bathe maintenance and prosperity of the Church.
were on that ground that he and his
.Noble. Friend,
the
eeParties to the Church Temporalities Act and
ration Commutation Act. The greatest exagge-
pr'or prevailed out of doors as to the revenues of the
jaellestant Church. They had been 800,0001. a year,
lacedng all sources of revenue. They were now re-
the to 650,000/., and if deductions were made from
tier bey
income he did not believe that the Hon.
Int
h. tu for Sheffield would dispute the fact with
that
about the revenues from all sources were now
Wasutere 59%0004, certainly under 600,0001. Nothing
wbe common than to have recourse to threats,
spokereason failed, and the Gallant Commodore wit()
first'siOn this subject would be quite
.decided by the
and not fired in Europe. He had given them wars
Pr►ntnours of wars, and he had given them the
not'e de Joinville in the chops of the Channel, and
ferettst,hey gave up this question there was no safety
did " Aloritish Empire. That assertion, he thought,
Ireitteat injustice to the Roman Catholics of
11a" did not think that the accustomed
es """Y and loyalty of the Roman Catho-
ThesWould be found wanting when occasion offered.
leg that they had come from one so distinguished for
tkelerapverY as the Gallant Commodore, the best
jog nullifying such danger would be by employ-
leekit;e Gallant Commodore himself.—(Cheers and
'linger''el%) He did not believe there was much
d to be feared if that Gallant Commodore
.did
elswlibtY, not in uttering threats, but in conquering
for enere• The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member
Were h'r`earripton, said that the present Government
°Pinin'tlable to do justice on questions involving theof t
the and feelings of Roman Catholics, on account
that lie warm feelings of some of their supporters in
tiled-°use• How was that statement to be recon-
te with the conduct of the Government in reference
rnatienal education in Ireland, which was opposed
Prien;anY of their supporters in that House .
late ?
hear)—or with their conduct on a
they ‘easion towards the Unitarians, whom The ?
i!°PPorted from a sense of justice alone .
varlet , 'gut lion. Gentleman, who had diverged into a
dehaj of topics which did not properly belong to the
ogle' had observed that even for the Church of
1111-ttiley had failed to perform their promises,
ast v,„"" the measure which they had brought forward
esllYcar to increase its usefulness, had not issued in
ueeifsefical benefit. Now he must remind the Hon.
11Poe-e4111,1a0 that the borrowing of 60,0001. of capital,
!salt ~,ue security of the ecclesiastical revenue, had
150• 47,the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to place from
'istrh,-,`°o additional clergymen in the manufacturing
!yeacsi with an income varying from 1501. to 2001.
the When such a great addition had been made
th Parochial strength of the Established Church,
tsite-i°ußbt the Right Hon. Gentleman was
astir premature in declaring that the
had not been attended with any benefit.
t„rnpb,es,r) hear.) Now he was quite prepared to do
she Justice to the speech of the Hon. Member for
tit C'd in introducing the motion before the House ;
must be permitted to say that, although he had
lotia° very extensive premises, nothing could be
"rieZtisfactory as the conclusion at which he had
.Ist oni Ile appeared to have ransacked all the stores,
Partnj• $e
Hansard, but of history generally, in pre-
NA toat speech. They had had extracts from
~stl‘toreans in the House of Commons and in the House
extracts from history, extracts from ser-
<di•
a'6 extracts from pamphlets, extracts from the
tistleer,47.Bll Review ; they had had puffs of auc-
,'kte,:ni,eeehes in taverns and at dinners, speeches at
,41tes, -Val], Mr. Glover's book, Mr. I‘l4Neil's lec-
;ras-Isitast.lArontgome,ry Martin's repeal newspaper,
e travellers comments on Ireland; in
ell
, ere b the Hon. Gentleman's historical. researches
bit
to bear upon this subject, and yet, he
44 red, although nothing could be more ample than
!lets :111;es, nothing could be so narrow and incom-
i42l3, yo is conclusions.—(Hear, hear.) He would
s.‘"the'b"te one or two of his expressions with respect
ran protestant Church. He said that the mai.n-
-tisil4-e of that Church was a grievance to the Irish
iZrat,Lao said that Europe desired to see Ireland
S"'at h-'4 from the last remnant of the yoke; he said
Wee
ker prepared to concede at once
.what. it was
itteea,°llB. to withhold ; and then, entertaining these
e el:unions, he contented himself with mo. ving
tb°lrmaittee of inquiry. Now, as a preliminary
s'ettia-'4t might be intelligible, if the Hon. Gen-
ttb'e-tli Wer.e -more with. reference to the
tgat „which he had in view in proposing
et the House should go into Committee.
t!letl,l said he did not ask the House by its vote to
thae:tself to any specific plan ofiproceeding. If he
theard the Hon. Gentleman before last night
t• ied subject, he should have believed that he 1-Td
very extensive view of what appeared to him
e7°ser livery
subject, attended with considerable.
the but that he had no preconceived opinion as
it! rerneoly which ought to be applied. The Hon.
eeaa,
eetha s opinion last session was that seven-
fl)t reßacirfethe temporalities of the Irish Church, hay-
•hste it, u to all existing interests, should be taken
t,11" proe_llld those seven-eighths should be transferred,
'0 MT • to the different reli-
it Its se leo to their numbers,
lii.4l)ph,."`S in Ireland. He must say, therefore, that.
' p -en to him,thatthe House could not entertain
ttke tesent
L. a ~._aproposition unless they were prepared to
i(,tt Nueurtchstiepltrowl towards the spoliation of the Pro-
(Hear, hear.) It should
tljithit,fc'rgottennthate thosea who were best acquainted
hilted t-7, Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland had de-
-tel -"at the • 'sten of that Church would abso-
be y ref. mm
the uuse the offer of endowment.. If that were
t ,iatt ihk-Lemourable Gentleman's object could not
jt CaCed except by depriving the Protes-
in thllreh of all its revenues, and placing
cede Position of a voluntary church, without
tesre h °wrnent.—(Hear.) To that proposition, if he
,ioelleitc;tottioitaken, the Noble Lord, the Member for
tio that London, had declared on a former occa-
%tit Whi el'e felt insuperable objections. The clues-
% there: they were then debating. was, in reality,
k; Pa s't not they should go into Committee for
.oNt partl:
,?f
Viteet,'Nek not the whole, of its revenues. He did
ae art. it at all necessary to cavil about the terms
hie lele of union. He was not prepared to deny
..telz,„`°ptieal fact brought forward by the Hon.
ttlihNi‘a 'or Sheffield, that Mr. Pitt had considerably
fore, the fifth article of union, as compared with
tiq ‘,,ur Words adopted by the Irish Parliament,
tit,7 of uf,`Tiol frankly admit, that he believed the er-
rs ru "1") as now formed, would admit of
Cthe
akin°
• prie e some endowment for the Roman a-
il) w 'Mood in Ireland. But without. casuistry,
th 4%); c° „°,.114 be unworthy of a deliberative body,.he
IltLk tete-I.eu°l that the proposition of depriving
Ces"nt Church in Ireland of its revenues was
eh ,W frain'eonsistent with the fifth article as it was
150,,Ntested• Some reliance had been placed on the
ties4ol I.l;ee that there was no reference to the tem-
e,4,ll-ied An that article of union, and allusion had
-11e00 Scotland snore than once in reference
hie of Se J,eet• Now he did not consider that the
1:- to be and was at all analogous. It appeared to
434,very converse of the case in point. In
kibtkity ;stile time of the union the religion of the
tete. of this the religion of the State, a_.nd. the reli-
14,4eserlta't.t majority constituted the religion of the
Aori at th2v body at the time of the union. In Iresee .
wae-,t,i_ute of the union the religion of the mi-
-1 religion of the State, and the repre-
Npave b
k)o to°dY—the parties to the union— be-
tql 14r th the religion of the minority.r
erefore, from the cases being pa
terera on appeared to him to be the con
of the other. But with respect to the.
4ttl3°l.4llti-e: of the Church of Scotland and
tonicif ef the Church of Ireland a. di-
all" was made in the articles
ttc,:aeh
ea that they should be preserved inviolate.t
(pre upon tile maintenance of the Establishment
!eta'ance to bPortheelt,sely the same ground ; and with re-
let act -'-aogland was bound by the most so-
k aet and esernents to maintain the Establishment
Iti:11115er for She hear.) Now, the Hon.
0, the tr Sheffield, and the Right Hon. Gentle-
Wegea-L`-kember for Northampton, had both referred
111':41 of ye at the time when the motion for a
thencla e.eunion was brought forward in that
je:u that thtuat occasion it was said Parliament de-
Necallse of cY would do their utmost to remove any
the',Y Well-co omplaint, and that they would grant
1,41 t Were sdered measure of improvement ; and
of Irteoilti that an absence of measures for the he-
tae it w aud had
deb (gild no, marked the present session.
!Ileet ate tb be consistent with that period of
intrWith'r at he should go into any detailed argu-
nlerqueed le3sPect to the measures which had been
altkate the,,Y the Government; he would only enu-
haitationha In the first place, a very important
the
eo had
the been made in the Irish poor-law, which
_effect of relieving he oorer portion of nity from an Oppressive ratep which had been

imposed upon them;—he believed that measure was
a substantial benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He had heard
with extreme regret the comments made upon two
other measures proposed by the Government, which,
however, they might have been received in Ireland,
had been framed by the Government with a
sincere desire to remove just causes of complaint. He
alluded to' the Irish Registration Bill and the Mu-
nicipal Franchise Bill. He thought he could show
that a considerable addition was made by one of
these Bills to the county constituency; and not
content with dealing with the county franchise,
they proposed to take off a number of taxes from
the occupiers of 101. houses. They proposed to give
the same municipal franchise to Ireland, as
already existed in England. They had also in-
troduced a measure to remodel the com-
position of the Board of Charitable Works.
The Government proposed to bring in a Bill relative
to charitable bequests, and also that a certain number
of Roman Catholics should be placed upon the hoard,
in order that this might ensure the confidence of the
Roman Catholic population and the administrators of
the board, and further the Bill would enable them to
make endowments to Roman Catholic bodies. That
measure would be introduced forthwith, and he could
say no more upon the subject at present. A measure
of the late Government, to which he (Sir J. Graham)
gave his support—namely, the Tithe Commutation
Act, had had the effect of relieving the Catholic occupiers
from oppressive burdens. The present Government
had further shown their disposition to ameliorate the
grievances of the Irish people by extending the
county franchise, and by placing the muni•
cipal franchise upon the same foundation as
it was in England ; and they had further pledged
themselves to increase the grant for national educa-
tion in Ireland by the sum of one-third of its present
amount.—(Hear, hear.) It was possible, on account
of the unhappy religious differences, of which
,the
Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last truly said that
they embittered even that which was intended in a
spirit of kindness and charity—it was possible, he
(Sir J. Graham) repeated, that the good intentions
of Government might be frustrated ; but it was their
sincere desire to prove to their Roman Catholic fellow
subjects that the Government were actuated by
motives consistent with their sense of duty—con-
sistent with sound policy—consistent with a desire to
transmit entire those solemn engagements into which
this country had entered, and to do all in their power
to remove the existing discontent in Ireland. It had
been said that the Established Church of Ireland had
been a type of inferiority to the Catholic popula-
tion. Well, then, the question before the House
was not whether the Catholic priesthood should
be endowed—not whether a State provision should be
made for them ; but the question was a question of
degree, he admitted, among Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site, some of whom were for taking away the property
of the Established Church, and applying it to Catho-
purposes, and some for applying it to secular pur-
poses; but the great question was whether the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland should not be despoiled
of its revenues, or of a large portion of them. He
felt bound to state that to that proposition he could
not give his sanction or support ; and he should also
add—for he felt bound to be frank with the House—
that he feared that if the Protestant Church were
despoiled of its revenues, no other description of pro-
perty would be safe.—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposi-
tion.) A century ago it would not have been for a
moment believed that such language would have been
held towards the Protestant Church by Roman Ca-
Roman Catholics. If it had been said at the time the
Emancipation Bill was passed that an attempt would
be made to despoil the Protestant Church of its
revenues, the idea would have been laughed at, and
scouted.—(Hear.) He repeated, if the property of the
Church of Ireland were to be confiscated, the inva-
sion of property would not stop there. Those were
his opinions, and he thought it to be his duty to
state them fully and fairly to the House, for although
it might not be competent for those entrusted with
power to resist the course of events, yet they might
show the danger of adopting any hazardous and rash
resolution which could only involve the country in
ruin ; —it was much better for those entrusted with
power to state what they would do, and what they
would not do—what they could do, and what they
could not do. He would not say that this was an
attempt to subvert the Protestant Church, although
there certainly was an attempt to abstract a large por-
tion of its revenues from that Church, for other purposes
than their original intentions, namely, for the pur-
pose of bestowing them upon Roman Catholics, or
for other similar purposes ; and such being the case,
it appeared plainly to him that justice, honour, and
the original contract, forbade the House to accede to
the proposition. The Crown, the Parliament, and the
British people were restrained from acceding to such
a course by the highest moral obligations, and upon
those grounds he felt bound to give his most unhesi-
tating and uncompromising opposition to the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose and said—Sir, the
question now before the House is of so much im-
portance that I will endeavour to confine myself to
that question, and to touch as lightly as possible
upon any of the other important questions regarding
the state of Ireland. I do so the more willingly
because I had an opportunity, in an earlier part of
the session, of stating my opinions with respect to
several of those qnestions which now stand upon the
notice paper of the House, and also because I per-
ceive it is the intention of my Right Hon. Friend,
the Member for Waterford, to bring two of these im-
portant subjects under the consideration of the House.
—(Hear, hear.) But at the same time, whilst I wish
to avoid dilating upon other questions, it is impossible,
in considering this question, to put out of view the
present state of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord the Secretary for Ireland, in his speech of last
night, rested his defence of the Irish Church
mainly upon the ground of prescription, and
he adverted to the speech of his Right
Honourable Friend the Member for Edinburgh,
delivered a few nights ago, and therefore considered
that a prescription of 300 years was a sufficient rea-
son to induce the House not to interfere with the
temporalities of the Irish Church. Now, passing by
the question to which my Right Hon. Friend has
addressed himself, and which is a totally different
question from that now under the consideration of
the House.—(Hear, hear)—l should say that that
argument of the Noble Lord might have force, if there
were not circumstances of great difficulty, great
peril—in the present state of Ireland. It cannot, I
think, be urged that prescription is paramount in every
question: of this kind—(hear, hear)—because it
might be asked, if such a principle were admitted as
inviolate, how we could justify our interference 300
years ago.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") There
was then a longer prescription.—(Hear, hear.)
But I find that prescription was overturned.
I think the circumstances of that day, and
the revolution in religious opinions which took place
in England, was a sufficient ground for the change in
the ecclesiastical establishments and in the tempo-
ralities of the Church of England, and for the enact-
ments of Parliament. But we had set aside prescrip-
tion, a very long prescription, and interfered largely
with the temporalities of the Roman Catholic Church.
If we look at the present state of Ireland, and
looking at the proceedings which had taken place
there during the last year—three or four millions of
people assembled to declare their discontent with the
Government under which they lived—when we see
that after legal proceedings were taken there still re-
mains discontent—that there still remains a Repeal
Association, as an evidence of that discontent, with
an exchequer more flourishing (if he were
rightly informed) than ever—(" Hear," from the
Tory benches)—I must say, Sir, that, looking
at these things, there must be some grievance in the
state of Ireland of which the peopls of that country
have to complain—(Hear, hear)—to which the House
ought seriously to look; and as one of those who wish
to maintain the union, who deny that the repeal of
the union would be beneficial to Ireland, I feel myself
obliged to look to other remedies. I cannot admit
that so much discontent pervades such a large mass
of the people, showing itself so continuously m mani-
festations which cannot be mistaken, and at the same
time believe that it is baseless and unfounded.—
(Hear, hear.) I cannot admit, on the other hand,
that the remedy proposed to the people of Ireland—the
repeal of the union—would be a remedy which this
House ought to sanction in order to remove the ginev-
vances of that people. Among the questions to which our
attention has been turned, one of the most important
is that which my Hon. Friend, the Member for
Sheffield, has brought under our notice.—(Hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the Hon.
Member for Sheffield stated his case very fairly, and
with great ability and perspecuity. The defence of
the Church of Ireland has been undertaken first by
the Noble Lord, the Secretary of Ireland, and then by
the Right Hon. Gentleman who peculiary represents,
as Member for the University of Dublin, the clergy
of the Church of Ireland. I listened to that Right
Hon. Gentleman as the avowed defender of that
Church, and I was surprised that the Right Hon.
Gentleman altogether left out of the question the
condition and state of religion in Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) Any one listening to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man must have supposed that there was a Protestant
Church, and that my Hon. Friend had stated that
there were certain abuses in it, and that the Right
Hon. Gentleman not denying the existence of these
abuses, was showing that they were in course of re-
form, and that he was proving, as he thought, sa •
tisfactorily, that the Church ought to be maintained
in its present size and extent. But 13 that the ques-
tion ? Is that the present state of Ireland ?
(Cheers.) Does not the Right Hon. Gentleman,
who is the defender of that Church, show what I think
is generally the case—an extraordinary. inattention
and neglect to the faith of the great majority of his
countrymen in Ireland—when he puts the question on
that issue? Sir, I am ready to make greater con-
cessions that any yet made to the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, For the sake of argument I will admit that the

eighty-one cases of pluralities, and the 109 cases of
non-residences are in course of reduction, and that in
a very few years there would be no case either of plu-
rality or non-residence. I do not think I could make
a larger admission than this. Putting the case in that
shape, I still say that the Church of Ireland is an
anomaly and *a misfortune to that country, and re-
quires the most serious attention of this House. But
the case of the Church of Ireland, as a cause of com-
plaint, is a very short one. It is, that here are
800,000, more or less, to go to the extreme, say
850,000, the only part of a population of 8,000,000
who are cared for by the State, and the only persons
who are in enjoyment of 650,0001. a year, which is
given to them for the support of their Establishment.
That appears to me to be a case to which there is no
parallel in any other country in Europe.—(Cheers.)
That is the plain and obvious cause of the complaint
made by the people of Ireland, and anywhere else
it would be called an oppressive and intolerable
grievance. The Right Hon. Gentleman, an Irish
Member, in stating the case of the Church of Ireland,
altogether omits this question. He entirely forgets
that there do exist six and a half millions of Roman
Catholics ; and he considers them as no part and
parcel of our constitution, when the question of the
Church of Ireland is before us. I believe there is no
such case at present existing in Europe of a church
of this kinl ; I believe that the only parallel to it
to be found in history in the state of the
Episcopal Church in Scotland during the
reign of the Stuarts, when that country
was convulsed with insurrection, and was dis-
turbed and oppressed by tyranny and by wrong. The
same uneasiness existed, the symptoms being different
only because the present age is different from the
seventeenth century. The same symptoms of a dis-
position to monopoly, and to inflict a religion upon
the people, existed with respect to Ireland, as formerly
existed in Scotland; and I cannot but believe that
the same remedy will be required before we can ex-
pect peace or tranquillity there.—(Cheers.) I will
now take the objections which have been urged
against our entering upon the consideration of
this question in a Committee of the whole House.
The Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland,
says there is the article of union ! The Right Hon.
Baronet, the Secretary of State, urges that ground
not in the very temperate manner in which it was
treated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the First Lord
of the Treasury. He advances that argument in a
manner such as I have never heard before. He puts
it in this way, and says, the words being the same
with respect to Ireland in the treaty of union, that
they are with respect to Scotland, then you are
obliged and bound to maintain in effect and inviolate
the Church of Ireland in its property, as it existed
at the time of the union. Why, I must say that I
was astonished when I heard that statement
fall from the Right Hon. Gentleman, because
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself was a party to a
Bill which took away a considerable portion of the
property of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman supported a Bill which took away
property to the amount of, I should say, nearly,
if not more than, 300,0001. a year from the Irish
Church. It is quite true that those revenues were
not to be devoted to Catholic purposes; but they had
been devoted to no ecclesiasti :al purposes, having
been applied to the secular purpose of swelling the
rent-rolls of the owners of land. But I say that the
Right Honourable Gentleman was a party to
a Bill that was brought in either by Lord Althorn,
or the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), with
respect to the temporalities of the Church of Ireland,
Were there no objections stated then ? Yes, I will give
you the objections ass they were stated by two
very high outhorities. The first authority I will quote
is that of Mr. Lefroy, now Baron Lefroy, who pos-
sesses very high legal recommendations, and a very
extensive knowledge of law, and who had been re-
commended by her Majesty's Ministers to the high
situation of filling one of the judicial benches in Ire-
land. Now, what said he to the Bill to which the
Right Honourable Gentleman was a party.
Mr. Baron Lefroy, in speaking of the Pro-
testants of Ireland, said, "much dissatisfaction
and discontent exists among them with re-
spect to opposing this measure, which I think they
will consider as violating the Legislative union.
They consider that this measure not only violates the
Coronation oath, but also directly violates that Act of
the Legislature on which the union of the two coun-
tries was originally established. The Protestants of
Ireland, who had been hitherto such firm supporters
of that union, will now be ready to join with those
who cry for its repeal." Mr Baron Lefroy as strongly
stated his objections to that Bill as the Right lion.
Gentleman had stated his objections to this Bill. His
ground was a very firm ground, according to the
Right Honourable Gentleman's present statement.
There was still a higher authority who made objec-
tions to that Bill—l mean the Archbishop of Canter-
bury. When I quote the words of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, I quote the words of a prelate who is
not accustomed to deal in declamation, or use terms of
exaggeration, with respect to any measure which he
may think it his duty to oppose, but one who states
temperately and firmly what he thinks. He stated
his objections to the measure to which the Right
Hon. Gentleman was a party :—" He should object
to this Bill, because the principle of the reform it
contained was only of a subordinate kind—that the
conciliation contemplated would fail in its object, be-
cause it went to apply the property of the Church to
the purposes for which it was not intended. He ob-
jected to it because it gave a triumph to the Catholics
over the Protestants, which would not tend to the
harmony of that country. He objected, to it because it
was the most sweeping measure ever applied to the
Church, and disposed of the property of the Church
to those who had no right to it whatever;" and he
stated that he feared the Bill would be taken as a
precedent. These were the objections which the
Archbishop of Canterbury stated to the Bill to which
the Right Hon. Gentleman was a supporter—objec-
tions as strong as any that he can apply to the mo-
tion of my Hon. Friend. The Archbishop of
Canterbury feared that it would be taken as a
precedent. Certainly, if it had not been intended to
farm a precedent, I should not have supported that
Bill, because, although I considered that it would be
a useful measure, I felt that there were other reforms
that would subsequently be required. If this be the
case, let not the House be frightened by the denun-
ciations of the Right Hon. Baronet. Let them not
take alarm at the statement that the Act of Union
will be violated. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for the University of Dublin, at the time
the Bill wasbefore the House,,said, that if it had been
proposed at the time of the union, one half of the
benefices in Ireland would have been abolished. He
now speaks of that measure as a measure which was
brought forward by the friends of the Church, and
says, having done so much in the way of reform, I
hope you will not now listen to the enemies of the
Church. It is very consoling now to find that such
an appeal is treated with so much respect by the
Right Hon. Gentleman. During the time I have
sat in this House I have heard measures denounced
as being calculated to destroy the Constitution
two or three times over, and two or three
years afterwards, when those prophecies were
found to be groundless, I have heard
some person interpose, and beg that we would
not destroy the Constitution, which he proved to be
so flourishing and so healthy.—(Hear.) I therefore
apprehend that if my Hon. Friend be so fortunate as
to persuade the House to go into Committee on this
question, and should adopt a measure in accordance
with his views, in the course of a few years we should
have the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite saying, do
not make any further innovations in the Church; the
last measure was a very wholesome and friendly one,
and was adopted on the very amicable suggestion of
the Honourable Member for Sheffield ; don't
trust to any hand less friendly to the Church.
The statement made by the Right Hon. Gentleman
was, that there should be endowments for the Roman
Catholics ; that might be all very well, but there was
great objection to it. He would now proceed to the
question whether the Protestant Church of Ireland
answered so completely the purposes for which it was
designed, as to render it necessary not to interfere
with it. What was the ground on which the Esta-
blished Church rested ? 'Was it not to give the
means of religious instruction to the people ? The
great question was, did the Church of Ire-
land answer the purposes of a great State ?
He thought it had been clearly shown that it
did not. If they would cut down the Protestant Esta-
blishment to something like what was wanted by the
people, they would do something. In Ireland not an
eighth or ninth of the people were connected with the
Establishment. The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, had
been pleased to say that the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Sheffield with respect to the Church was not
so explicit as usual; and added to that, it was to be
remembered that the party opposed to the mea-
sure were not particularly united in their views.
He (Lord J. Russell) begged to state, that it would
not be very difficult for him and his Hon. Friend,
the Member for Sheffield, to discuss the merits of the
question in their minutest particulars at the proper
time, and he should not despair of framing something
that might meet with a general concurrence and
support on that, the Opposition, side of the House.
—(Cheers.) But did the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir James Graham) think it necessary that all who
voted for the motion then before the llouse must
have agreed on some specific plan before doing so ?
—(Laughter from Sir James Graham.) The Right
Hon. Baronet seemed amused with what he said ; and
yet he and the Right Hon. Gentleman had before
that day contended in a cause in which persons of
various views and opinions supported them, and by
so contending together, succeeded in carrying the
measure called the Reform Bill.—(Loud cheers.)
Some Hon. Members on the occasion he alluded to,
said, with Lord Carnarvon, it was best to go for
a moderate and graduated portion of reform—others

were for annual Parliaments—others for the most
extended suffrage—and yet they all went out together
with the greatest harmony into the lobby, and by so
acting, and not pulling against each Ater, got the
Rouse to consent to go into Committee, and, diverse
as were their opinions, managed, by the aid of that
Right Hon. Gentleman himself, and of the Noble
Lord next to him (Lord Stanley), to pass a Bill for
a very considerable reform in the representation of
the people.—(Loud cheers.) This was the conse-
quence of acting together, and he had little doubt that
by the same plan they would eventually be enabled to
effect important and desirable changes in the tem-
poralities 9f. the Established Church of Ireland.—
(Hear, hear, and Cheers.) In the course of the
remarks which had fallen from the Gallant
Commodore (Napier), that Hon. and Gallant Gentle-
man had warned the House that if a time of war and
danger arrived, then Ireland could command, and
would have the rights she sought ; and the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) in reply had said
that they were not to be deterred by threats. But it
did so happen that history furnished them with in-
stances where danger had secured rights which had
been refused to justice and reason.—(Hear, hear.) In
1779 they were as violently opposed to the demands
made by Ireland as they were now, but when the vo-
lunteers were in arms, and danger from France was
impending, they had conceded those very demands.—
(Cheers.) Lord Granville used the same warnings in
those days, and they were unheeded. And since Lord
Granville had spoken was there not another instance
to the point ? Were they not told in 1828 that they
would not be intimidated, and the very next year,
1829, the demands then made were granted by the
very men who had previously boasted so much of
their courage.—(Loud cheers.) In his (Lord J.
Russell's) opinion they should seriously delibe-
rate upon this subject now before the House,
when they could do so without the appearance
of fear, for he thought it would be a great calamity
indeed to do so when danger might be impending
over the country.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
It was said from the benches opposite that the Irish
were loyal. So they were loyal ; but was that any
reason why they should impose wrongs upon them
which no other country in Europe would submit to ?
—(Great cheers.) When the people of the sister
country saw what was the rule in England—when
they saw what was the rule in Scotland—but that
they strenuously refused the same rule to Ireland—
let him ask the Government if the warmest loyalty
might not grow cold, if the strongest attachment
might not be converted into enmity.—(Cheers.) He
said, if such was the condition of Ireland—and if
Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not find some better
and more reasonable arguments to justify such con-
dition—then ought they to go with his Hon. Friend
into the Committee he invited them to. Let them in
that Committee consider all the various circumstances
incident to the case. Let them consider the best
arrangement that could be devised regarding it. Let
them consider what ought to be done for that worthy
clergy (for in spite of all the taunts that had
been heaped upon them, they were a worthy clergy)
—let them see what these worthy men would agree
to—let them try to make them independent, and to
ascertain what their views and feelings were, and let
them give to the laity of Ireland the same privileges
as were enjoyed in England. Let them, he said, go
into Committee with those intentions, and he did not
despair of the result.—(Cheers.) Until they showed
that spirit—until they showed that they were willing
to be guided by reason in their government, and that
their disposition was really, not merely by words,
but by acts to conciliate the affections of
the Irish people—(Hear, hear)—they had no right
to say that they were doing that which was right,
or that they had any sincere desire to do justice to
Ireland.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amidst
loud and continued cheering.).

Sir H. PEEL said the motion for the House to go
into Committee, with a view to consider the question
of the temporalities of Ireland, had been supported by
the usual plausible and specious asseverations.
What was the nature of the proposition of last year ?
At that time a distinct intimation was conveyed to them,
that the Hon. Member thought it was no use their voting
for him, unless they were prepared also to adopt and
carry out his plan. He assumed that the revenue of the
Church in Ireland was about 558,0001. ; and the Hon.
Gentleman most fairly and candidly said, " Do not vote
for me, unless you are prepared to adopt my proposi-
tion." He said that those who voted for him must not
be content with Church Temporalities Bills, or Appro-
priation Clauses.--(Hear, hear.) He proposed that the
present revenues of the Church should be divided among
the Presbyterians, the Wesleyans, and the Roman Ca-
tholics, appropriating to the latter Church abOut 412,0001.
of the amount. That was the course he proposed iast
year. Any one who remembered this declaration, and
was not prepared to adopt the Hon. Gentleman's plan,
was therefore fully justified in refusing to keep up a de-
lusion, and to follow the Hon. Gentleman into a Commit-
tee.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the allusion that
had been made to a former declaration of his (Sir R.
Peel's), as to the compact that had been made with the
Church, he did not wish to disregard that compact, unless
it could be shown that an advantage would arise from
doing so. He wished not to alter the language
he then used) he abided by what he then
said. The opinion he then expressed was the opinion he
still entertained, but it was not the opinion that had
been imputed to him by the Hon. Gentleman. He stated
distinctly that, though they were not bound irrevocably
to the letter of a compact, if their- own convictions told
them that an adherence to that compact inflicted wrong
and injury upon the country—(Hear, hear)—yet, at the
same time, be distinctly said, " this compact is a most
material element for our consideration, and nothing
would have a greater tendency to lower the authority of
Parliament than not keeping the faith they had pledged.'
The Hon. Member had referred to the speech he (Sir
R. Peel) had made in 1817 ; he had referred to it on
every occasion on which he had brought this subject
before the House. That speech was deliveredltwenty-
seven years ago ; in it he expressed the apprehension
he entertained at the time—that the removal of the
Catholic disabilities would not ensure tranquillity. He
apprehended that, after that removal this very question
would be raised, that it was consistent with what they
knew of human nature that the Roman Catholics should
endeavour to depress the Protestant Establishment, and
raise their own. He was rather surprised that the Hon.
Gentleman should so constantly remind him merely
of the opinion he then delivered, and not of the state-
ment made in answer to that opinion—the statement
that went far to destroy the arguments on which his
opinions had been founded. In 1821, the chOsen advocate
of the Roman Catholic body, the most powerful advocate
they ever possessed, the present Lord Plunket, referred
to those apprehensions he (Sir P. Peel) had expressed,
and he did ask the Hon. Gentleman and the House to
hear the counter statement of Lord Plunket, which did,
at the time it was made, produce a great impression on
reasoning men : it satisfied many of the Protestant com-
munity. That speech was one that stood almost alone;
it displayed great eloquence, united with powers of rea-
soning such as he had rarely heard. In commencing
that speech in 1821, Lord Plunket presented a petition
which he said was signed by some thousands of the Ro-
man Catholics of Ireland. He then proceeded to pass a
glowing eulogy on the late Mr. Grattan. lie endea-
voured to create an impression in the Protestant mind
of this country that there was no danger to be appre-
hended from the removal of the Roman Catholic disabi-
lities. Mr. Plunket declared solemnly that if he could
entertain the opinion that there would be any peril to the
Protestant Church from the removal of those disabilities
he would abandon the cause he espoused, and range
himself on the other side, and referring to what had
been said by him (Sir R. Peel), Mr. Plunket said, that he
would be bold to affirm the Roman Catholic body har-
boured no feelings of hostility to the Protestant Estab-
lishment, and that they would no more attempt to de-
stroy the Protestant Chui oh Establishment than they
would deprive individuals of their property. That argu-
ment of Mr. Plunket's prevailed over him (Sir R. Peel).
A great change was made in public opinion, and in
1829 he felt it to be his duty to propose to Par-
liament the removal of the Roman Catholic disabilities,
as he had good occasion to conclude from the declara-
tion of their chosen champion, that the Roman Catho-
lics would not make any aggressions upon the Protes-
tant Church.—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the
union, there could be no doubt that in4the opinion of
Mr. Pitt, and all those who spoke at the time of the
union, it wit; their intention to assure the Protestant
mind in England and Ireland that the Protestant Esta-
blishment, as it then generally existed, shOuld thereafter
be maintained.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite a different
question whether a contract was to be literally ad-
hered to, if it was proved to be injurious.
Vhthel799fr' brought forward- his resolutions,
which frame-work of the Act of Union,
e n
were M r. Pitt,
to
bein
he followed the precedent of the Scotch union. The
words used in one of those resolutions, were that the doc-
trine, and discipline, and revenues of the Established
Church should be maintained. In 18t)13 additional
words were introduced in the Irish Parliament, which
claimed for the bishops and clergy the power of sitting
in convocation, and other words which would heve ren-
dered it impossible to grant any endowment to the Ca-
tholic Church. Mr. Pitt proposed the omission of those
words. There was nothing to be found in-the language
of Mr. Pitt, or Lord Grenville, or Mr. nuncios, or Lord
Cornwallis, to induce the belief that the temporalities of
the Irish Church were not to be maintained. His im-
pression was that at the time of the union Mr. Pitt con-
templated the removal of' the Roman Catholic disabili-
ties—(Hear, hear)—and assurances were Aiven which
would lead them to expect that.—(Hear,- hear.) He
also believed that Mr. Pitt intended a separate endow-
mentneler for
intended,the
C tat; o lbi ce
(SirChu r
Robertch.— (Hear, hear.) But be
any portion of the temporalities of the Irish. Protestant
Church should be appropriated to that purpose. He
held that engagements were made both at the period of
the union, and in 18:39, that the Protestant Church should
be maintained in its integrity. He, therefore, thought it
most important that this should not be lost sig. lit of in
coming to a decision upon this question, becausdahe con-
fidence of the people in the good faith of ParliatAnt and
public engagements was involved in the result.=(Hcar,
the
eo
gpruoubnlidc compaets.--,(Hear.)
upon which he gave
hear.) But he defended the maintenance of the Es-
tablished Church on other grounds aVwell as on
tHhee
would
shortlyyi ofadhsetraitneg
his vote for the maintenance of
.the Estahlished Church.
He thought it of the highest importance, looking at the
public, and particularly at the ecclesiastical, pax" of the
country, that there should be an established religion in
each part of the United Kingdom, that is; folm of the
1 Christian faith, supported by, and incorporated with the

State.—(Hear, hear.) There were some who supposed
that they would have religious peace if they had no esta-
blishment. He must say that he did not concur in that
opinion. He had seen a recent occasion, in which the
cause of dispute was not between the Established Church
and those who dissented from it, but between certain par-
ties who were opposed to that Church. There was, then,
an opportunity- of seeing whether or not the existence
of an establishment was the sole cause of animosity and
ill-will; and without wishing to utter a word which was
disrespectful to those who dissented from the Established
Church, judging from the interviews he bad had,
and the letters he had received, he must say that he had
seen greater instances of religious animosity and
jealousy among different classes of Dissenters—(Cheers)
—than he had ever seen between Dissenters and the
Church.—(Hear, hear.) He had thought it probable
that having long been engaged in opposing the Church,
they would not display much hostility towards
each other ; but his expectations had not • been
realised; and he believel the removal of the
Establishment, therefore, would not be a guarantee
of peace. Now, if that were conceded, the question was
—What form of faith should be incorporated with the
State in Ireland ? The public policy of this cau stry
would give a preference to a Protestant Establishment.
There was a Protestant Establishment in other parts
of the empire. The religion of the Sovereign, and
the general course of constitutional law seemed to be
decisive of the selection of the Protestant religion.
Was he at liberty even to select another when they were
told by the professors of the Roman Catholic faith
that they preferred total spiritual independence
to union with the State, upon the condition
that their independence would be fettered.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not think they could have an Established
Church connected with the State, and in possession of
all the emoluments of the State, without being subject
to stringent laws, and to the influence of the Crown
over its affairs. He would be sorry to see perfect inde-
pendence on the part of the Church; he thought it of
great importance that the spiritual authority of the
Church should be restrained, as it was now restrained,
and that it should be made subordinate to Parliaments—
(Hear, hear.) But the Roman Catholics told them dis-
tinctly that they were not prepared to admit
the exercise of any such control; and therefore the
terms offered by the two parties were not equal. They
would not allow the nomination of their prelates by the
Pope—they claimed for themselves the right of regu-
lating all their spiritual affairs by their own authority.
Under these circumstances, it did appear to him that to
propose to abolish the revenues of a Church, which had
existed for 250 years, was altogether unreasonable.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord contended for civil
equality. Did he mean that the Catholics should be re-
presented in the House of Lords, or did he wish to ex-
clude Protestant Bishops ? Were the churches which
had been built by Protestants from their own contribu-
tions to be given up to the Catholics ? It appeared to
him that the principle of religious equality, which sounded
so specious, would lead to a total alteration of the ecclesias-
tical policy of this country ; and he thought there
was the greatest danger of such principles re-acting
upon this country. They could not expect much
satisfaction from a trifling alteration. When the present
Lord Spencer brought in a Bill for the extinction of ten
bishoprics of the Protestant Church, the measure was
hailed by Mr. O'Connell and the Catholic body with
delight. One Hon. Member, in the course of the night,
said it made no difference to the Roman Catholics what
appropriations or reforms were made in the Irish
Church, if there was not some privation of emolument.
But the measure of Lord Althorp was admitted by those
who entertained the same opinions as Hon. Gentlemen
who sat on the Opposition benches, as a most useful
reform. Ten years had only passed away, and although
reform had been extended, and although the revenue of
the Church had been curtailed, yet now, in 1844,
language still stronger was held with respect
to the Protestant Church, and it was denounced as
an injury and an insult.—(Hear„ hear, and cheers.)
Even suppose they were to go into Committee, what
good could they hope to effect? He was not prepared
to go one-tenth of the way with the Hon. Gentleman;
but he really could not see if the Committee were
granted, how they could possibly arrive at a satisfactory
result. At the same time he was perfectly willing to
admit that every reform compatible with the main-
tenance of the integrity of the Church ought to be in-
troduced—(Hear, hear)—that those pluralities which
now existed ought to be extinguished, where they could
be extinguished with a due regard to the maintenance
of the minister;; also where there were non-residents the
evil should be remedied. Although unwilling to
enter into the Committee, he would not say that
the present state of the Church was perfect.--(Hear.)
He would not say that he was not willing that greater
equalisation of the revenues of that Church should take
place, and greater emoluments be given to the working
clergy. He would not, a these accounts alone, refuse
to enter into a Committee ; but he saw that it was
not a question of revenue—of any alteration in the pecu-
niary amount of the revenue—or, that any deduction of
the sum of 50,000/. or 100,0001. from the emoluments of
that Church should be made ; but he stood upon the
pledged faith of Parliament, and would continue to stand
upon it, unless convinced by some overwhelming politi-
cal necessity which would compel him to depart from them.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition
benches.) He was not convinced that there was that
overwhelming necessity. He believed the Church was
more secure in its present position, opposed as it
was to a formidable hostility, by retaining the whole
amount of property, than by making any partial con-
cession in respect to pecuniary amount. Believing that
it was for the interests of religion that that Establish-
ment should be maintained, although he was willing that
it should be improved in the details of its constitution,
yet after the avowal of the Hon. Gentleman opposite,
who contemplated the total subversion of that Church,
he could not consent to raise the delusive hope that he
knew would be raised if the proposition to go into Com-
mittee on the subject were acceded to.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL explained. The Right Hon.
Baronet misunderstood him ; he did not by any means
infer that, under any regulations, the Catholic Church
should be placed in a position of supremacy.
Mr. SHEIL commenced by saying that he wished the
Right Hon. Gentleman had spoken at a later period of
the debate, that he might not be placed in the somewhat
presumptuous position of replying to him ; but the sub-
ject was one so intimately connected with the state of
Ireland that he might be excused for trespassing on the
indulgence of the House.—(Hear, hear.) There did
not seem much coincidence of opinion between the
Members of the Government on this subject. Lord
Eliot commenced his speech by expressing himself
favourable to an endowment of the Catholic clergy.
The Home Secretary differed from the Noble Lord, and
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment did not say a syllable on the subject. The Noble
Lord the Member for South Lancashire proposed that
400,0001. a year should be granted by Parliament
to pay the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland.
But if the Secretary for Ireland, he who had Ireland
under his control—if the Government were prepared to
endow the Catholic Church—he would ask, what course
did they intend to take with respect to Maynooth ?
They were told that the Catholic clergy would not ac-
cept the endowment, and surely they were not suffi-
ciently disingenuous as to offer that which they knew
would not be taken, and withhold that which would be
accepted.—(Cheers.) The endowment of the Catholic
clergy was liable to a great objection, but an increased
grant to Maynooth would not be liable to any. No new
precedent was involved—they were building on a foun-
dation which was already deeply deposited. They felt
the necessity of that increase, and they ought either to
sweep it away altogether or to make it what it ought to
be; and yet they were tendering an endowment to a
clergy who would not accept the slightest boon
from them.—(Hear, hear.) But then they passed
over in silence—a silence which was most ex- •
pressive, indeed—that which the Catholic clergy
were willing to accept. They did not seem to care whe-
ther an endowment was consistent with the principles of
British legislation. If they were to endow the Ca-
tholic clergy, did they think that the people of this coun-
try would consent to having both the Churches kept up ?
Did they think the people of England would consent to
have the support of the Catholic Church defrayed from
the Consolidated Fund ? There was a fund in Ireland
applicable to the Church of Ireland, and to other reli-
gious purposes. The moment they endowed the Catholic
Church they incorporated it with the State, and a portion
of the revenues of the Protestant Church must be made
applicable to the support of the Catholic Church. If they
endowed the Catholic Church they must be prepared for
a large reduction in the resources of the Protestant
Church, for, suppose that they were to propose that the
Irish landlord should be taxed for its support, would he
not say, " What, am I to be taxed for the support of
both Churches ?—(Hear, hear)—you first impose tithes
on me, and increase the poor. rates, and after all you tax
me to support an idolatrous Church !"—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that the Right Honourable Baronet would
be only involving himself in great difficulty, by as-
senting to the endowment—the hypothetical endowment,
of the Catholic Church. The Right Hon. Gentleman
conceived that it was contrary to the Act of Union to
diminish the revenues of the Established Church. It
had already been said by the Noble Lord, the Member
for London, that the protestations of the Right Hon.
Baronet were at variance with his practice. If it were
contrary to the Act of Union, how could the Right Hon.
Baronet consent to the abolition of Church-rates in Ire-
land ? How could he consent to confiscate one quarter
of the tithes of Ireland ?—(Cheers.) Sir Henry Har-
dinge—but he begged pardon of the Right Hon. Baro-
net, he was not a Member of that Administration ; nei-
ther he nor the Noble Lord were Members of that
Administration—but Sir Henry Hardinge brought in
that Bill, and the present Prime Minister supported it,
and now the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man were in conjunction with those by whom the pro-
position was received.
Lord STANLEY—I supported it then.
Mr. SHEIL continued—One quarter of the tithes—
twenty-five per cent.—were subtracted from the Church,
and not for the purposes of religion—no, it was de-
posited in the coffers of the Irish landlords. Was that
the case ? Everybody knew that twenty-five per cent.
was given to the landlords. This was confiscation.
Mr. SHAW—It was an allowance, in consideration of
the tithes being paid by the landlords.
Mr. SHEIL—The Right Hon. Gentleman called it al-
lowance ; he (Mr. Shell) called it confiscation. Out of
every 1001. that were paid for tithes, the parson only re-
ceived 751. now.
Mr. SHAW—That is not the case.
Mr. SHEIL did not think he had been guilty of mis-
representation; but, :however, " by any other name 'twill
—(Laughter)—smell as sweet" to the landlord and as
offensively to the parson. There was only-one part of
the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for
the Home Department, which he had heard with pain—
pain on account of the Right Hon. Baronet himself.
He said that if the Church property was touched, the
whole property of Ireland might be set at nought.
Was he not falling into the error for which lie con-
' downed the Hon. Member for Marylebone ? The sug•
-

► gestions that had been thrown out by the Right Hon.
Baronet were of the most exciting kind. The Right
Hon. Baronet ought not to have raised the ghost of
Cromwell, to mount guard upon the revenues of the
Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)—(The Right Hon.
Gentleman then read several extracts from the work
of M. Kohl, and the Life of Lord Sydenham, and
proceeded to state, that the case of the clergy of Ire-
land rested on the Act of Union, in which there was not
one word with respect to temporalities, but, they
came to the conclusion that temporalities was meant.)
It was clear to him that the word " temporalities"
would have been inserted in the clause of the Act of
Union if it had been meant. He had already occupied
the House some time with quotations, but he must
trespass on its patience still further, by quoting from a
document drawn up in 1833 by the Marquis of Anglesey,
and addressed to the head of the Government (Earl
Grey), the Noble Lord the present Secretary fur the
Colonies being then Chief Secretary for Ireland. The
Noble Marquis, whose heart was full of affection for Ire-
land—(Hear, hear)—had in that document distinctly
laid it down that the Irish Church greatly exceeded the
religious wants of the Protestant population—that it
ought to be materially cut down—and that the revenues
thus saved should be formed into a national fund to be
applied to national purposes. Here, again, was a re-
markable coincidence with the case of the Clergy Re-
serves in Canada—a coincidence which, in his opinion,
justified a similar remedy to that suggested by Lord
Sydenham, and applied by the Government and Parlia
naent. Let the House remember that they did not seek
for the subversion of the Protestant Church in Ireland.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh, mixed with Opposition cheers.) They
did not seek its subversion, but for a reduction of its re-
venue.—(Oh, oh.) He had never asked ,for anything
else. He for one protested that a modification of that
Establishment was all that he had ever sought or asked
for.—(Cheers.) He felt for that:Establishment, for it
was an ancient institution, and to sweep itsuddenly, away,
leaving no wreck behind, appeared to him to be highly
impolitic. But, in his opinion, it was perfectly possible
to introduce salutary reforms into it, and so make it
ample for the wants of the people, and consonant
to the spirit -of the age.—(Hear, hear.) Their
complaint was, that the Protestant Establishment in
Ireland was totally and inordinately disproportioned to
the wants of her communicants. This was one com-
plaint, and the other was, that the heads of the Church
were greatly overpaid for the responsibilities which at-
tached to their office, and the duties which they had to
perform.—(" Oh, oh.") Why, were they not too highly
paid ? The Commission which had sat on Church
revenues in England had reported that 5,000 L per
annum was sufficient for a Bishop in England? Was not
17,0001. a year too much for the Archbishop of Armagh?
Sir J. GRAHAM—That is thegross return-14,000/.
is the nett.
Mr. SHEIL continued—He did not understand these
nice distinctions on certain occasions between the gross
and nett returns. They were never made in the
estates of your territorial proprietors. But he ad-
mitted it was proposed this should be reduced. To what?
His successor was to have 10,0001. a year. Now, they
said there was no violation of morality, no infringement
of the solemn obligation of an oath, in their contending
that 10,0001. a year was too much. Why should an
Irish Archbishop be paid more than the Lord Chancellor
of Ireland?—(Hear, hear.) Why should he be paid
more than the Chief Justice, particularly since Chief
Justices had more onerous duties ?—(Cheers and
laughter.) Why should he be paid more than any
judge of the land? The Bishop of Derry had 14,000/.
a year ; he agreed to give up 4,000/. of it. His succes-
sor received 6,0001. a year, but the next bishop will
have 8,0001. That exceeded the salary of any Chief
Justice, or of any judge. They did not ask for
these bishoprics to be suppressed ; they only asked
that they should be paid a sum more adequate to the
labours they had to perform.—(Mr. Ward here touched
the Hon. Gentleman's arm, and said " the English
bishops.")—The English Bishops had from 4,5001. to
5,0001. a year. Why should an Irish bishop, in a coon •
try where there were eight millions of Catholics and
800,000 Protestants, receive more .than was thought
sufficient for a bishop in England—(Cheers)—for a
bishop in this great Protestant country?—(Cheers.) The
Member for the University of Dublin said that the in-
come of the Church, divided among all the clergy, would
only amount to 2001. a year for each. But they said,
let the number be diminished, for they contended that
where there was no congregation, the living ought to
be suppressed. Let them reduce their divisor.—(Hear.)
At this hour he would not go into these general ques-
tions ; but there was one point to which he could not
refrain from calling the attention of the House. A re-
ference was made, by the Right Hon. Secretary of State,
to what the present Government had done for national
education in Ireland. He thought that was a subject
which the Right Hon. Baronet ought to have avoided.
In their Factoriesßill theyhad declared that the Church
ought to be the national instructress of the people. In
Ireland they had declared the Church incompetent to
administer the fund appropriated to the purpose of edu-
cation. In England the Church was the church of the
people. In Ireland they had gone so far as to say that
no clergyman should be promoted who was not in
favour of the system of national education.—(Hear.)
There was one observation more. It was this : the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had adverted to the
Registration Bill. He did not think that the introduc-
tion of this Bill into the discussion of the Irish Church
was so irrelevant as might at first appear. He thought
the Bill was connected with the Irish Church. He
thought that every measure brought in with regard to
Ireland was connected with the Church. He regarded
that Church as the source of every, difficulty. He
thought the Right Hon Baronet had not delayed the
measure from any such motive. When the Whigs were
in office, they were repeatedly taunted by the Noble
Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and others,
that they did not venture to bring forward the mea-
sure. The Noble Lord himself then undertook the
task, and ventured upon premature legislation. When
the gentlemen opposite came into office, they naturally
asked for a Registration Bill. In the first year they
were silent on the subject; the second year the Noble
Member for Dorsetshire declared, as Chairman of an
Irish Election Committee, that a Registration Bill was
immediately required. That year passed and nothing
was done. At length the Right Hon. Baronet announced
a Bill for this session. It had been brought in, but it
had been delayed week after week to such an extent that
now any inquiry after it only created bursts of laughter,
and the Secretary for the Home Department himself
could hardly answer the question without betraying, by
his tone and manner, that there was something peculiar
in the reasons that prevented it from being brought for-
ward. They had agreed to the reading the Bill a second
time on the Ist of July, when it was manifest they could
not pass it through the House. Did he blame them ?
No ; because when they came to legislate for Ireland
they were met with difficulties at every step.—(Hear,
hear.) They might be anxious to give a fair and legiti.
mate constituency to Ireland, but they were afraid of
increasing the popular power, lest the Church Es-
tablishment should be disturbed.—(Hear, hear.) They
were afraid—he did not mean illegitimately afraid—but
they were most positively apprehensive that, by giving
Ireland a larger constituency, the popular power would
be increased, its action in this House would be aug-
mented, and consequently be fatal to that institution
which they so much cherished.—(Cheers.) Difficulties
met them at every step, arising from the Established
Church. They had been for ten years asking them to
make alterations in the Church Establishment, but that
House had resisted the majority of the Irish people, and
of the Irish representatives, when they asked for
those alterations, which events might render peremptory
—when they asked for new appropriation clauses.
With Canada (continued the Right Hon. Gentleman)
I commenced, and with Canada I will conclude; and as
in Canada you have found it necessary to act in con-
formity with the wishes of the majority of the people,
as expressed by their representatives, and as by adopting
that principle you procured peace, and are likely to pro-
cure prosperity and happiness, if you take the same
course in Ireland the same results will follow; and if you
do not, the time may come when, amidst public calamity,
the Right Hon. Gentleman may take a retrospect of his
public life, and lament, when repentance would be fruit-
less, and contrition would be vain, that he omitted the
great occasion of winning everlasting fame, and that the
opportunity of rendering his country incalculable ser-
vice was disastrously thrown away. - The Right Hon.
Gentleman sat down amid loud cheers.
Mr. SHAW rose to explain ; but in consequence of i
the noise which prevailed in the House, and the cries of
" Divide, divide,' " Spoke, spoke," none of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's observations were heard.
Sir R. INGLIS rose amidst cries of " Oh, oh." He
said he resisted the motion of the Hon. Member for
Sheffield, not on the ground of any public contract, but
because the Protestant Church in Ireland was the-trust
—(lronical cheers)—committed to their care by a
gracious Providence.—(Laughter.) lie had made no
concessions—(Hear, hear, and ironical cheers)—but he
admittted that the Protestant Church in Ireland was
neglected.
Mr. WARD replied. He merely wished to say, in
reference to what had fallen from the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that his resolutions last session
contained no plan whatever; they merely expressed an
opinion that the Church of Ireland sreuglduebsetimonorheechaond-
formable to justice. In introducing the
which
nsanrdeqaulilrhede
mfelutchthfaotrbiteawraans-ceonaen,
dthine suettutalelncieonntce
ossfio
asked now was, that they should go into Committee and
when there appeared—
disTphases}ioinoautseelythiennqudiirveidiendt,othe subject.
For the motion 179
Against it
Majority in favour of Ministers —95
The other orders of the day having been disposed of,
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

MEMOIR OF A BABYLONIAN PRINCESS.—We are
requested to state, that Mr. Co'burn, of Great Marl-
borough-street, has this day published in two vt,ls.,
small octavo, with portrait., price 21s. bound, " The Me-
moirs of a Babylonian Princess, Maria Theresa Asmar,
daUghter of Emir Abdallah Asmar," written by herself,
and translated into English ; containing a narrative of
the persecution and destruction of her family, on ac-
count of their adherence to the Christian faith ; of the
scenes she has witnessed, and the trials she has expe-
rienCed during her residence in Mesopotamia, Jerusa
.lerni Mount Lebanon, Kurdistan, Ispahan, Teheran,
and Schiraz ; together with an account of her travels
in Italy, France, and England. Her Majesty the
Queen Dowager, has graciously permitted these Memoirs
to be dedicated to her Majesty.
WONDERFUL INCREASE !-Mr. John Buttery, of
the Railway Tunnel Tavern, near IN hitby, last week,
c"
received a marvellous increase to his"live
Saturday , his favourite sow littere
thirteen
dgave birth
stok. On
" little
grunters ;' on Sunday morning dun cow
to two healthy calves ; and the following; morning his
wife presented him with two fine boys
All which "are
doing well."—Thill.Packet.

DRURY-LANE THEATRE.
Mr. Stretton took his benefit at this theatre last even.
ing, and, we are happy to say, the house was crowded.
This was but a proper tribute to the merits-of Mr.
Stretton; but, independently of his own claims on Vie
public, it was impossible that such a bill of fare as he
had provided should fail to attract. The performances
commenced with Acis and Galatea, with Staudigl
Polyphemus. In the hands of other performers this
character has been either a nonentity or an absurdity;
Staudigl, however, makes it the character of the piece--
his is the true Polyphemus of Handel the un-
couth, unwieldly, but impassioned Cyclop. To
Staudigl is due the merit of having developed
the capabilities of this remarkable character,
and Of having made Polyphemus a musical Caliban.
Nothing could exceed the gusto with which be gave the
" Ruddier than the cherry." His acting was most cha-
racteristic and appropriate, and lie gave the music in
the true Handelian spirit. To Acis and Galatea sue
ceeded the celebrated closing scena of Lucia de Lam-
mermoor, with Sal, i, the most perfect of tenor singers,
and the most impassioned of lyrical actors, as Edgard° ;
and then followed a grand concert, consisting of nine-
teen different pieces of music, in which Madame Cas-
tellan, Mrs. Alfred Shaw, Miss Dolby, Miss Maria B.
Hawes, Miss Rainforth, Mr. Stretton, Mr. Harrison,
Mr. Ilorrani, Herr Staudigl, Signor Cammillo
AL Thalberg, M. Vivier, and M. Prospere Sainton, took
part. Last night may be considered as the first public ap.
pearance of M. Prospere Sainton in England, for although
he performed at the Philharmonic on Monday, before
her Majesty and Prince Albert, with the greatest suc-
cess, which alone is sufficient to stamp his character ;
yet the Philharmonic concerts, as we know, are not only
caviare to the vulgar—on whose approbation, after all,
every performer must ultimately rely for his success
but even to many of the dilettanti. M. Sainton is a
violinist who has attained great celebrity in Paris, and
who certainly well deserves the celebrity he has attained.
He performed last night a concerto of his own composi-
tion with great smoothness and taste, and exhi-
bited a thorough knowledge of his instrument,
and great powers of execution. We were highly
pleased with the manner in which M. Sainton wet t
through his performance. He did not appear
until after Sivori had performed both his pieces, the
first, Paganini's variations in " Nel cor piu," and the
other his celebrated " Carnival de Venise."- An inferior
artist would have either attempted a servile imitation
of Sivori, in which he must have failed, or he would
have cramped himself by cautiously eschewing the most
remote approada to Sivori's style. M. Sainton did
neither. He played his concerto as if there had been
no such person as Sivori in the world—where there
was a pizzicato passage, he gave it as it was written,
and gave it admirably, but he went not out of his
way in search of any Sivori-like efforts. He played
smoothly, correctly, and beautifully, and was re-
warded with the enthusiastic and justly merited ap-
plause of his audience, who, after he had
quitted the stage, again called him on to applaud him.
Last night was the second appearance in England of
M. Vivier, who is decidedly the first performer on the
Fren2ll horn in the world. M. Vivier is one of the few
men who are worth more than their reputation. We
had heard great things of M. Vivier. We knew that
Balte had reported wonderful things of M. Vivier's per-
formance, and we had been told that he could produce
four distinct notes at the same time on the French horn.
We were certainly sceptical as to his capabilities of pro-
ducing four notes at once from the horn, but, to use a
Parliamentary phrase, we are free to confess that we
were mistaken—that M. Vivier, from an ordinary
French horn, without keys, without pistons,
without any mechanical contrivance, does pro-
duce four distinct and separate notes at one and the
same time, is a fact of which we last night had auricular•
demonstration. In the first piece which he performed
he produced two distinct notes, and this we thought most
marvellous, but in the second piece, a pastoral fantasia,
concluding with " God Save the Queen," he produced,
incredible as it may appear, four distinct notes; but, in-
dependently of this remarkable power, he infuses a
pathos and an expression into his performances, of
which we have hitherto thought the horn incapable.
The horn is to him what the pianoforte is to
Thalberg, or the violin was to Paganini ; he is
the greatest horn player the world has ever pro-
duced. Madame Castellan gave us the " Bel raggio,"
from Semiramide, and the " Assesu a pie d'un
Salice," with exquisite expression, delightful clear-
ness, great power, and perfect intonation. In these
days, in which everything seems sacrificed to effect, and
to astonishing exhibitions of power, it is delightful to
hear a thorough musician, like Madame Castellan, give
us these delicious gems in all their purity. Would that
all our vocalists, would imitate Madame Castellan in
the correctness of her intonation. She is not, however,
a mere coldly correct singer—she is all soul. Nothing
could exceed the melancholy tenderness with which she
gave "Assesu a pie d'un Salim." There was something
quite Shaksperian about her manner of giving that most
exquisite romanza. We have dwelt upon the per-
formances of Madame Castellan, M. Sainton, and M.
Vivier, because they are as yet comparatively unknown
to the English public. The,other artistes are all of them
well known, and justly appreciated. They all exerted
themselves to the utmost, and were applauded to the
echo. The farce of My If ife's Come concluded the even-
ing's entertainments.