giving them in return a mere pittance in porate property. In the first place, I must no respect adequate to promote their spi- observe that I think it a most dangerous ritual or temporal objects. Then, again, argument to use to try and do away with if you once begin to endow religious the distinction which is inborn in the minds sects, where are you to stop? I do not of all of us-the distinction between indisee where you are to stop short of the Bel-vidual and corporate property. Talk of ingian or French system, which is that when- flammatory speeches and Fenian addresses! ever a congregation, whatever its religion, I never heard such inflammatory speeches amounts to a certain number, a right is as I have heard in this debate from Tory thereby acquired to demand from the Go-Peers and Conservative Ministers. Some vernment an endowment from the State. of those arguments will be repeated and I say that is contrary to the whole genius studied and quoted in contests which may of the English people; it never could be be coming-and this by men to whose carried into effect here, and I believe it opinions your Lordships will not be faought not to be carried into effect. A vourably disposed. I repeat that there is Church in such a position as that I have a radical and fundamental distinction bereferred to is a very different thing from tween individual and corporate property, an Established Church-it is merely a paid and that the State may deal with one in a Church. What we mean by an Estab- different manner from that in which it may lished Church is a Church in close connec- deal with the other. But I say further, tion-almost identified-with the institu- that even this is not the question before tions of the State. We have a noble ex- us. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of ample of what is meant by an Established Salisbury) talked throughout his speech of Church in the Bench which I have now the the corporation of the Irish Church. The the honour to address. There we see in Irish Church, in that sense, is not in any the highest Court of Parliament, the great way a corporation, and it can possess no officers of the Church joined with laymen corporate property whatever. Of course, it in the consideration of public affairs. In may be said that this is purely a technical the northern part of this country, in the argument, but I am answering one techniChurch to which I myself belong, we have cal argument by another; and it is of imthe same principle exhibited, only in a mense importance not to use loose landifferent order, and directed to a different guage with regard to a principle upon object. Instead of having ministers of the which the property of all of us depends. Church sitting in Parliament, we have lay The Irish Church-meaning by that phrase members from every Royal borough in the individual Irishmen all over Ireland who Scotland sitting in the Convocation of the happen to be Protestants-is not a corporaclergy. Under such conditions as these, I tion, and has no property. Each individual say you have a power and a spirit given to Bishop is a corporation, and each holder of religious bodies which you never could have a living is a corporation; but Parliament by mere stipendiary clergymen not other has already assumed the right to deal with wise connected with the State. I beg your the property of these corporations. When Lordships to observe that all these are ar- you suppressed ten Bishoprics in 1833, you guments against the system of indiscrimin- suppressed ten independent corporations, ate endowment which are entirely apart from and you distributed their property among what may be called the bigotry of Protest- other corporations to whom it had never ant feeling in this country. I say again previously belonged. This is an indisputable that if I had to vote as a member of an fact, and I challenge any lawyer to conabsolute Committee, I should not vote for tradict it. When the noble Marquess the indiscriminate endowment of Churches talked of property depending upon title I in Ireland. Then, my Lords, if this alter- was about to ask him what is the title under native cannot be accepted-and in the opi- which tithes derived from one of the supnion of many ought not to be accepted-pressed bishoprics and given to some we have but one remaining, the alternative of the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland. And upon this point I wish to say a few words on the main argument of the noble Earl and the noble Marquess who spoke with such ability on Friday night-that is to say, with regard to what they call cor diocese near Dublin are held. There is no title whatever except the Act of 1833. I am not disputing the policy of the transfer at all, but I say it is a question of policy and not a question of property; that is my argument. Then your Lordships know perfectly well that whatever may be the abuses, or what are called the ano malies, of the Irish Church, whatever may be the over-proportion of Bishops or clergy to the congregations, these are not the anomalies or abuses which have raised any spirit of disaffection in the Irish people. It is idle to talk, in this point of view, of any mere re-distribution of funds within the Irish Church itself as a question of policy. It may be right or not; but no measure of that kind can be tried with any hope of success as a means of ameliorating the condition of the Irish people. One word before I pass from the question of property. I entreat your Lordships to observe that the doctrine of absolute property in the funds of the Church is absolutely inconsistent with any compromise whatever. If you stand upon the doctrine of property, you say that you never will consent to any compromise with regard to the division or appropriation of any part of the funds of the Established Church of Ireland. I ask the House to consider well whether that is a position to which they will be able to adhere. Before I conclude, let me say a few words as to the very alarming opinions of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. The noble Lord said we have no right to deal with what he calls the property of the Church, because it is property "devoted to the service of God." Now, I have this fundamental objection to my noble Friend's doctrine,-I deny that money given to the service of the Church for what may be considered religious purposes is necessarily observe, I say necessarily-given to the service of God. All the monastic property of the Middle Ages represented gifts for purposes which the donors regarded as religious, and yet I say boldly that those donations were not serving God's truth or cause. My Lords, we must judge whether money is or is not given to the service of God by the results which it produces. And we are free to judge of this from age to age. Our fathers so judged of the lands held by the monasteries, given, as regards the intentions of the donors, in a thoroughly religious spirit, and devoted by them, as far as that intention was concerned, to the service of God; but I say that our fathers judged, and all the civilized Governments in the world have judged, that practically that property was not spent in the service of God. And so I say you must judge of Churches in these matters precisely as you judge of all other human institutions. By their fruits ye shall know them." If Churches produce good-will and peace among men, then the money given to them is indeed devoted to the service of God; but if we, in the exercise of our reason, and judging from all the circumstances before us, political, social, and individual, come to the conclusion that the money given to the service of any Church is producing evil effects, we are entitled to judge that that money is not being spent in the service of Almighty God. My Lords, I believe there is a great confusion of thought in men's minds upon this important subject; I believe, and I think I may conclude from the argument of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, as well as from some of the speeches which have been delivered by right rev. Prelates, that there is some confused notion in men's minds to this effect, that endowments are the fulfilment of the great duty of Christian giving. Now, my Lords, the chief element in Christian giving is self-sacrifice. But there is no self-sacrifice in endowments. So far from it, indeed, that endowments seem very often to have a damping effect on the inclination of members of Christian Churches to give. I was much struck by a remark which fell from the Primate of Ireland on. this subject; he told us on Friday of the immense difficulty experienced by the clergy in getting in small subscriptions from rich members and rich supporters of the Established Church in Ireland. It is true he said things were mending in this respect, and I believe they are. I rejoice that they are mending, not only in Ireland but in England also and in Scotland. But, my Lords, I say it is a notorious. experience of Established Churches that where you have the clergy provided for, not by our charity, not by our self-sacrifice, but by the charity and self-sacrifice of former generations, there is a tendency to make this an excuse for laziness and idleness, and for penuriousness in the Christian duty of giving. My Lords, I utterly repudiate the doctrine that we are not entitled to judge of the fruits produced by money given to Churches, and to deal with that money as statesmen are bound to deal with the revenues of all the other national institutions of this land. My Lords, I have never ridiculed, as many do, the doctrine of a State conscience, so strongly urged in his younger years as the foundation of Church Establishments, by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone). I believe that States have a conscience, and that Parliaments are bound to act by their con[Third Night. sciences—but for Heaven's sake let us remember that consciences must be enlightened, that they must be enlightened by argument and by reason; because the most horrible crimes ever perpetrated by mankind crimes which have been the opprobrium of great men, and, alas! the scandal of the Church of Christ have too often been prompted by what men call their consciences. Not merely has the plea of conscience been put in in mitiga. tion of guilt, but these crimes have absolutely been committed from the sincere promptings of a darkened, an unenlightened conscience. My Lords, the first dictate of my conscience in regard to such matters as those now raised, is this-that a Member of this House, a Member of Parliament, or a Member of a Government, is not only free to act, but is bound to act respecting matters of religion upon principles which may materially differ from those in which he should act as an individual. I cannot believe, for example, that my own private opinions in respect to religious truth entitle me to give the whole of a common and national fund to the support of the religion of a small minority of the people. My Lords, I am I confess a Protestant among Protestants; I hate the whole ecclesiastical system of the Romish Church; I believe it to be dangerous to the faith and injurious to the liberties of mankind. But I have the fullest confi. dence that the Protestant Church will be able to meet her opponents as well as and better than before, under the voluntary system. Let conscience be consulted our State conscience-our conscience as public men. I entreat the right rev. Prelates, I entreat the Members of the great Conservative party, to put to their consciences this question · What would they feel as Irish Catholics if they saw a small minority of their countrymen in exclusive possession of the ancient ecclesiastical property of this country? I maintain that if there is any claim of property in the endowments of the Irish Church, the Irish Catholics have as good a plea as any others; for those who hold to the ancient medieval faith of Christendom may most naturally claim that they should continue to enjoy the use of the funds originally given to those of that faith. The only answer to that claim is to assert, as I have asserted and do assert, the absolute right of the State to dispose of those funds as may be best and wisest under all the conditions of the case. I therefore entreat noble Lords opposite and right rev. Prelates to sweep away this injustice, remembering this above all things-that injustice in all its forms-political injustice not less, but more than others, as affecting the character and temper of whole generations of men-is contrary to the law of God, and injurious to the interests of His Church. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, although it may seem almost presumptuous for one sitting upon these Benches to venture to address your Lordships upon this subject after the denunciations of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll)-after having been told that, being ecclesiastics, and necessarily bound to regard matters from an ecclesiastical point of view, we are no longer entitled to deliver any judgment upon any statesmanlike matter upon any statesmanlike principle; yet I venture to believe that not all the House of Lords will endorse that sentiment, in which my-per haps prejudiced-eyes see written in large and broad characters the word "Presbyterian." Now, my Lords, the noble Duke has not only given us this proof of his determination to put us down, but he has, I think, shown to-night a courage I will not say an audacity-which has exceeded the bounds even of his ordinary daring. The noble Duke began by dealing with the Bill and not with the general subject which is occupying your Lordships' attention, and in doing so he first of all fell upon the noble Earl on the cross- Benches (Earl Grey)-which is, I think, a great mark of courage-and it was with some warmth that he assaulted the noble Earl-whose speech, by the way, seemed to me so entirely to demolish this Bill, that I could hardly conceive what could be said in its favour after that speech was delivered; and what very much bears out the truth of my view of that speech is this-that until this brave man came into the field not a single person has dared to deal with the arguments of the noble Earl. Falling upon the noble Earl, the noble Duke attacked him for having said that really the funds of the Church were so ample that it did not matter if a little more was spent rather than have this Bill passed, which was to kill the Church by inches. But, my Lords, what did the noble Earl say Instead of saying that the funds of the Church were so ample that it did not mat ter what was done with them, he said that if you put side by side the two great principles of justice to the Church in Ireland y? THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I beg your pardon; I said nothing of the kind. and to its funds and the comparatively noble Duke's succeeding remarks carried little loss which would be entailed by me back into the midst of my distress; letting the appointments of another year because the noble Duke explained what he or another six months go on, he esteemed meant by saying that there was to be no but lightly the money that was to be saved disendowment. There was to be no disencompared with the principle that was to be dowment, because the churches were not lost. The noble Duke then proceeded to to be taken away-churches which, as the assert, among other remarkable facts, that Returns show, have been mostly built during there were at this time in the Church of the present century; because the houses Ireland more livings than there were were not to be taken away-houses that people, and that therefore there was no- in still greater numbers have been built thingduring the present century; and because the glebes are to be given back to the clergy, or rather a small bit of the glebe THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I wrote the is in each case to remain untouched, that words down. I am quite sure they did not there may be just something to delight convey the noble Duke's meaning; but the poor man's eyes as he looks out of the that he said what I have stated there is no window-glebes which for the most part doubt. "There are in Ireland more liv- have been given to the Church since she ings than people to supply them" fell from was reformed, which are still being given the noble Duke's mouth. [The Duke of to her-so much so that there are no less ARGYLL dissented.] No, you did not mean than four now being conveyed to the that, of course; but as it has been said Church in the diocese of Limerick alone. perhaps I may as well say that I hold in So much for disendowment. The promy hand at this moment a list, which I posal of the noble Duke certainly appeared shall be glad to place at the disposal of to me somewhat to resemble the conduct the noble Duke, of twenty-two parishes in of a highwayman who, after having robbed Ireland, the Church population of which a carriage and taken away all the jewels varies from 8,000 to 1,000, and the re- and gold, in the greatness of his liberality venues, including pew rents, from £188, gave back sixpence to pay the next turnthe highest, to £89 per annum, the lowest. pike. But, my Lords, the noble Earl on There is therefore certainly a considerable the front Opposition Bench (the Earl of number of livings very ill-endowed indeed Clarendon), not the latest but one of the at present in the Irish Established Church. former Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, did I think, at all events, that I do not misun- make it abundantly clear that he at least derstand the noble Duke's argument about perceived that the disendowment of the disendowment. When the noble Duke told Established Church was intended. us that the word had been left out inten- my Lords, the noble Duke was afterwards tionally after the most solemn consideration kind enough to take notice of the speeches of what the case required, and that the delivered by my humble self and two of my Resolutions which pledged the House of right rev. Brethren in another place, and Commons to disestablishment were pur- the main fault that he found with us was posely not intended to pledge the House of that we spoke very ecclesiastically, because Commons to disendowment, I began to we did not propose that the money which breathe I began to think that we must all was now devoted to the maintenance of have been misled, and that the organs the Established Church should go towards which represent with such marvellous ac- the support of the Roman Catholics. But curacy all that passes in "another place" anyone who could suppose that conscienhad in this instance been mistaken, and tious Bishops of the Established Church, had led us to believe that hon. Gentlemen holding the positions we do, and professing and right hon. Gentlemen had spoken the doctrines we profess, could propose words which conveyed a meaning exactly that the money devoted to the teaching the reverse of what they intended-because of the Reformed Faith and to the mainthe impression that those words conveyed to my mind, and to the minds of most of those who read them, was that not only the disestablishment but also the disendowment of the Irish Church were the objects which it was sought to attain. But I had hardly taken that consolation to myself when the VOL. CXCIII. [THIRD SERIES.] Now, tenance of the teachers of the Reformed Faith should be devoted to teaching and to the teachers of a religion whose doctrines are entirely opposed to our own, must, indeed, entertain a strange and an extraordinary opinion. Indeed, it reminds me of a sentence of the late Mr. [Third Night. H Henry Drummond, who in what was apparently absurd, frequently conveyed much that was sensible. "It seems to me exactly as if the head of a great house should pay his butler a small premium to preach in the servants' hall against their coming to family prayers." Now, my Lords, when I listened to those parts of the noble Duke's speech, I could not see why he could not concur with the alternative of this Bill suggested the other evening by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salis bury), who showed that if the real object were to prevent the creation of new vested interests the usual form of enactment ought to have been resorted to, and those who accepted any appointments which might become vacant should do so on the distinct understanding that they accepted them subject to the will of Parliament. Now, my Lords, it was quite refreshing to hear that the noble Duke and those who differed from this course objected to it, because the high respect in which they held the Episcopal Office would not permit them to leave its holders in a state of uncertainty. And here, my Lords, I must remark that I have noticed a great inconsistency in this Bill, for the Maynooth Professors-for whom I entertain the same sort of respect as the noble Duke entertains for those who occupy these Benches -are to have their places filled up, and those who take them are to take them subject to any alteration that Parliament may make. There must be some reason for making this distinction. I did not know what that reason was, but we now learn that it really arose from a desire to honour the Episcopal Bench-a feeling which I, for one, should be glad to cherish and nourish in the noble Duke and his Friends. The noble Duke, however, turned from the consideration of the Bill itself to the consideration of that which, after all, is the great question before your Lordships -not this particular Bill with its absurdities and impossibilities, but the great question on which this Bill is intended to prepare the minds of the people of this country the disestablishment of the Irish branch of the Church. That, my Lords, is the real question; and that is the question which will be submitted to the constituencies of the country in the course of a few weeks. That is the question upon which, I believe, your judgment even upon this Bill itself ought to be founded. It is for that reason, and not on account of its own intrinsic value-it is in itself insignificant, it is a mere pilot balloon on a greater subject-and merely to prevent the mischief of this Bill a bare majority against it would be sufficient-that I desire to see, as I hope I shall see, its rejection insured by a great majority of your Lordships' House; and I desire this to be the case in order that the country may be made to understand that the Peers of England are not prepared to secularize ecclesiastical property. Is it possible to separate the two things? It is said that the Government of England may accept this Bill, and that as they intend to pass some remedial measures and to distribute things much better, they really ought to pass it, because it will come in just in time to save a preliminary bit of legislation when they proceed to pass their own measure. But when I am told that this Bill is proposed in connection with the Resolutions carried in "another place," and that those who bring it in, bring it in with a view of carrying out the Resolutions, is it possible that, as a man of com. mon sense, I can separate this Bill from that intention? Supposing a very good and wise member of the Society of Friends wanted to get rid of a steeple house" in my diocese, and came to me straight from a meeting where it had not only been decided to pull down the church, but where the very scaffolding itself, necessary for the purpose, had been determined upon-would it not be absurd to imagine that I should listen to some such argument as this"You won't, I am sure, object to my putting up a scaffolding against your church. You know you have often said that the little window near the top wants repairing, and you will find this scaffolding very convenient for the purpose. It is quite true that in some quarters there is an evident intention to pull down the entire building, but never mind what they say-recollect that your fane wants repairing, and let me put up the scaffolding." But I quite agree in one of the remarks that the noble Duke made towards the end of his speech-our decision on this subject ought to be dictated by the justice of the case. And, my Lords, whatever may be the other sins of my conduct in this House, I have not shrunk from the odium which my conduct in many cases entailed upon me, because I believed I was voting for what was just, and I believe that whatever is just is expedient. Now, my Lords, to take one single subject which was dwelt upon very much by |