that nothing but nationality or separation from England will satisfy them-is it not altogether inexpedient to introduce this measure? Is it not one of the most unstatesmanlike and unjust proceedings that a Legislature could devise? Is it not notorious that you are offering them a boon in a sense different from that in which you know they are prepared to receive it? And not only will their appetite not be satisfied, but they will take it as an attempt to deceive and cajole them, and will probably turn upon the giver with renewed vigour. Therefore, the measure is most inexpedient and most unstatesmanlike. But then, I am told, we must remember that this is a sentimental grievance; that the Irish are a very sentimental people, and unless you remove their sentimental grievances you cannot get them to be at peace with England. Now, I know something about sentimental grievances. They mean this, either in individuals or in States,-a morbid sensitiveness as to some fancied wrong which, because it has not a real existence, is all the more difficult to remove. That is a sentimental grievance, and if given way to it becomes the most deadly poison. A man has a sentimental grievance against his elder brother because he cheats him out of the estate; and if we were in the days in which mad passion broke out into mad action, the tragedy of Cain and Abel would be enacted over again. Morally, the most dangerous thing a man can do is to cherish a sentimental grievance. We have sometimes heard of destroying a sentimental grievance by creating a real grievance, and I cannot help thinking that has been the attempt here, though it has been made in rather an Irish way. A real grievance is indeed to be created, only it is not in the minds of those who have got the sentimental grievance it is on the opposite side. In old times, when a Royal pupil committed a fault, a boy was kept to be whipped for him, and it was supposed that the Royal pupil would in that way learn his lessons better for the future by seeing another boy whipped in his stead. That practice was not, I suppose, found to work very well, for it has been abandoned. But it is revived now, and my most rev. Brother and the rest of the Irish prelates and clergy are to be whipped in order to heal the sentimental grievances of the Irish people. I do not think that is a very wise course to pursue. It seems to me, indeed, that all the arguments advanced in favour of this mea sure break down when you come to look at them. There is, to my mind, the prime argument of justice, and the argument, which stands next, of expediency. Then there is the fact that you will not be able to support the Church throughout all Ireland if you deal thus rudely with it, and that, in sweeping away from Ireland that presence, you will be doing a deep injury to Ireland itself-not only to your co-religionists, supposing that you are Protestants, but to the Roman Catholics who reside in Ireland quite as much as to the English residents. I believe that the effect upon the whole of Irish society of the residence in that country of the men who are acting as now the Irish clergy as a body are acting is one which cannot be easily calculated. They spread good around them upon every side; they raise the tone of honour, of truth, and of piety; they exhibit what it is to have a conscience capable of acting in the concerns of a man with his God. I believe there never was a time when the Irish Church was doing its duty as it is doing its duty at this mo ment. Try it by any test. After the Revolution they received 100,000 members of their Church; there are now 700,000 members of that Church. And of whom do these consist? I venture to say it-they are the salt of the society of Ireland. They are, as a body, the men of the greatest education; they are the men who undertake the greatest labour; they are the men who set an example to their fellow-citizens in all the relative duties of social life. These are the fruit of the work of the Church in that land. Do not tell me that they would have been there equally if you had not had that Church. I point to the example of Crom. well's soldiers, who settled in parts of Ireland where there is no Established Church, and whose descendants are now, many of them, the hottest representatives of the Roman Catholic religion. not among individuals religious depth and fidelity enough to maintain old impressions for long if these individuals are cast into the midst of a hostile communion with none of the advantages of their Church. Even in its days of weakness you had in the Church of Ireland that which you have now. To whom did we look in troublous times for the maintenance of the full connection between the two islands! Was it not to those, in the main, whom the Church of Ireland had leavened with principles of order, loyalty, and submis sion? Is this a time when you can afford There is to throw these men aside, when churches, Ireland, and through them to the clergy are being built every day, when schools under them, the power of nominating the are being multiplied, when glebe-houses representatives of that country in the are rising, when the clergy are improving Lower House of Parliament? My Lords, in every one of their moral characteristics; I heartily wish that all to whom the Rewhen, I venture to say, they are becoming formed Faith is dear would carefully ponder much better Churchmen and far less Cal- this certain issue. What if by driving vinistic-is this a time when you should from the remoter parts of Ireland the turn round on this Church, which has scattered members of your Church now done so much for you, and with nothing to living there you should hand over the regain by the sacrifice, to slay her that you presentation of the sister island to the may appease a fancied sense of grievance? Bishop of Rome? If he is represented in I, my Lords, cannot receive the noble the Lower House of Parliament by a Duke's statement that we are to regard serried phalanx of men bound above every this measure as a party question. I feel other obligation to receive his commands that if it were propounded to this House and to carry out his will, what is the worth nakedly as a party move it would be re- of the liberties of Great Britain, what the jected with the ignominy which I think it worth of the freedom of your Church of would deserve. But I cannot believe that England? it is so proposed. I believe that noble Lords opposite have persuaded themselves that they would promote the peace of Ireland by such a sacrifice; and therefore I have endeavoured briefly, but in the best manner I could do, to show that justice does not allow the sacrifice, and that expediency does not counsel it. I have no doubt how your Lordships will decide; but I ask you to give your decision with the unwavering voice of those who are acting on high Imperial principles. I have heard it whispered that men have said they would vote for this measure, although they felt that it would be an evil thing, because they knew it would not be carried. God forbid that there should be such an utterance from any one! God forbid that the great moral issues involved in this case should be decided in that way by any man, as though they were the sport of a party move! No, my Lords, if you do not look as much as I do to the religious aspect of the question, let me ask you to look at it as it affects the future state of England. It is not a question of the Reformation only. For 700 years, in Roman Catholic times as well as in the Reformed, your forefathers have been striving against the usurpations of Rome in a free country. The Statutes of Provisors came far before the Reformation. Your Plantagenet monarchs carried them and enforced them THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I have from the first felt it quite impossible to discuss this great-this unspeakably great-question in all its length and breadth upon the immediate issue before us; and that impression has been confirmed by what fell from the noble Duke who opened the debate to-night, and who spoke of the distinction between disestablishment and disendowment. When we were told that disendowment was not intended, and that a compromise would be made, I think your Lordships must have felt that we cannot properly discuss this question until the whole scheme is before us. We are now all engaged in dealing with different issues ; some of us looking to the Bill itself, others to the consequences of disestablishment, others to the consequences of disendowment; and we cannot come to any consecutive and uniform treatment of the subject. When I first looked at this Bill I confess it seemed to me a measure of a most meagre and insignificant character, and one that would do neither good nor harm. No doubt, the argument of the most rev. Prelate who presides over the Archdiocese of York showed that certain inconveniences would result from the provisions of the Bill if it were continued in operation for any considerable time; but I do not believe, after the Reformed Parliament has met, that any long time will elapse before a substantial plan will be submitted to this House. But, be that as it may, the rejection of this Bill will not retard or advance by a single hour the disestablishment of the Irish Church. Disconnecting the Bill from all argument as to the extreme consequences which may ensue, and disconnecting it also from the Resolutions adopted by the other House, but which do not appear here, I confess I [Third Night. ment which is already beginning to prevail. I am not speaking my own sentiments alone, but that of many persons out-ofdoors who are as anxious as your Lordships for the maintenance of the Church of Ireland. Thousands of those, who wish well neither to your Lordships nor to the Church are panting with eagerness for your Lordship's decision to-night, knowing that it is so liable to be perverted into an argument against you. If the elections were to be held a twelvemonth hence there would be time for public opinion to right itself: but as the elections will occur in ment, calumny, and violence prevalent, I must say I do not wish this House to be exposed to the danger of misrepresentation without the possibility of explanation. It appears to me that this Bill has been constructed with a strategical purpose, as if with the object of inviting your Lordships to come down from the strong position you have occupied, and as you are descend. am at a loss to conceive why the Opposition should be so anxious to carry and the Government so anxious to defeat this meagre and insignificant measure-a Bill that, it seems to me, derives its main importance from the resistance that has been offered to it. My Lords, I am prepared to maintain, as strongly as any man can do, the integrity of the Church of Ireland-subject, I mean, to all those necessary and wise reforms which it must undergo; and I sincerely hope that whenever a full and substantial plan shall be submitted to this House, in the next Session of Parliament, we shall find your Lordships ready to main-two or three months, with all this mis-statetain the Church, even at the hazard of your own extinction, and that your attitude will be as bold and fearless as on the present occasion. But I think the House should look at this question in the way in which I feel assured it is looked at by the country. Observe how the Bill has come up to this House. It came up backed by a very large majority of the House of Commons on its second reading. All its subse-ing the hill depend upon it there are thouquent stages were there passed almost in silence, and, therefore, it reaches us with the apparent sanction of the whole of that House. I must say we have a right to complain that the House of Commons should have intended to throw upon us the responsibility of rejecting the measure. Moreover, it comes before us in a peculiar form, not only as bearing the sanction of the other House, but also the sanction of Her Majesty herself, whose name and authority are recited in the Preamble. Therefore we have two branches of the Legislature against one in this matter. The Bill also professes, and will go out to the country-although I do not say it is the actual intention-as demanding no more than a full and fair opportunity for discussing this question. Its rejection, therefore, by this House will be regarded as a refusal of that demand-a demand in itself legitimate. That is the light in which I am certain the Bill and its rejection will be viewed by the country. I now speak in the interest of the House of Lords, and I solemnly declare that I view with dismay-on an issue such as this, so feeble, so powerless, so totally unaffecting the great issue to be raised hereafter I view with dismay its going out to the country, on the eve of a General Election, that this House had set itself against giving the opportunity of a full, fair, and legitimate inquiry. I know very well that will be the way in which the whole thing will be perverted. I know that is the senti sands of Cromwells who will say, "The Lord hath delivered them into our hand." In a party sense, I can have no interest in the result of this contest, but I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government could not have given to their Liberal rivals a heavier blow and a sorer discouragement than they would have done by passing this measure without a division. I am aware it may be said that this is the first step towards the main question-the disestablishment of the Irish Church. I think those who argue thus are justified in so arguing; but, on the other hand, I think others may be equally justified in maintaining, as I do, that this, though apparently a step in advance, is in fact no step at all, and yet it is a measure which, if resisted, will expose this House to no end of censure and calumny. Most earnestly so I say, that if we are to come into collision with the House of Commons and with the country, let it be upon some grand and vital measure; let it be upon something that the country can feel and understand, and not upon an issue so paltry, mean, and insignificant as this. I readily admit-indeed, I feel it intensely, that the main question with which we shall have to deal is, perhaps, the most solemn and most important ever submitted to our consideration. It has not only a civil, but it partakes very largely of a religious character. There are very good men who see their way clearly and conscientiously to the disestablishment of the Protestant Church of Ireland. I venture to take an opposite view, and, perhaps, in taking that view I run into the opposite extreme, because I do as conscientiously believe from the bottom of my heart that if you proceed to overthrow the Protestant Church of Ireland by such means and for such purposes you will break up the foundations of our national existence, and take the first step towards a national apostasy. Now this Bill involves no principle, and is entirely a matter of policy or expediency. I had at at one time determined, with the view of escaping the snare which I think has been laid for the House of Lords, to vote for it. But I have now determined to take no part in the division. It is, I know, a pusillanimous course, and one which I am half-ashamed of; but I have taken it in deference to the most urgent entreaties and to the deep conscientious feelings of many who take a solemn, vital, and religious interest in this question. I confess my weakness in so doing, but I am willing to surrender that portion of my consistency in deference to the deep and earnest solicitations of persons for whom I have so profound and constant a regard. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships any long time after the lengthened discussion that has taken place; but, holding the position I do as one of Her Majesty's Ministers, I do not think it would be right to remain silent upon so great an occasion-especially as to do so would be contrary to my inclinations. The noble Earl who has just addressed you (the Earl of Shaftesbury) described this Bill as a paltry one, and of such insignificant dimensions that your Lordships might have passed it without opposition; whilst the noble Earl who introduced it to your Lordships' notice (Earl Granville) described it as one of the greatest importance. I incline to take the view of the latter noble Earl. Since its introduction to your Lordships I have vainly endeavoured to ascertain from the speeches of its supporters the character of the measure and the probable results which may be anticipated should we pass it, and what are the special grounds which exist at the present time that did not previously exist, to induce your Lordships to adopt the measure. In endeavouring to discover its objects and its probable results, I am somewhat indebted to the noble Duke who spoke on Friday evening (the Duke of Somerset) with a candour which is so characteristic of his conduct both in and out of this House. I must say I sympathize with him on the exceedingly uncomfortable position in which he must find himself placed-namely, the position of supporting a Bill which he described as perfectly unworkable, to be followed by measures of the purport of which he was entirely ignorant. Nevertheless, though he had not been asked to take any part in the Resolutions on which this unworkable Bill was founded, and though he is quite in the dark as to what is to follow, the noble Duke with exemplary faith in the party to which he belongs, intends to give it his support. Now one of the great objections I have to the passing of the present Bill is that it is the forerunner of some scheme for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. If any such scheme be in existence your Lordships have a right to demand that it be laid before you. But if there be no such scheme then that is a sufficient ground why your Lordships should refuse your assent to this Bill. I am forced to the conclusion that the Bill is brought forward merely in order to prejudge and prejudice a question which is avowedly remitted by common consent to the decision of a new Parliament. The operation of the Bill extends only to the 1st of August in next year; but is there a man in the country who will pretend to say that there is any possibility of a scheme for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and for the appropriation of the funds which will accrue if such a measure be carried, passing in the meantime through this or the other House? This Bill virtually says to the members of the Established Church in Ireland,-" We have in our minds the disestablishment of your Church; we are not able at this moment to say whether it is possible to carry such a measure or not; but in the meantime and until we can carry it, we will hamper and cripple your ministrations, and, if we can do nothing else, we will bring your Church into such discredit as to render it powerless for good." It is not my intention to cite Hansard in order to prove the change of opinion which has taken place in many noble Lords on the other side the House in reference to this subject. I find no fault with those who honestly change their convictions, believing that the opinions they have held are no longer tenable, and that the progress of events and the force of circumstances required the adoption of a different policy. What, however, I do complain of is the fluctuation of opinion which has been exhibited by the other side on this question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) the [Third Night. other evening quoted the speech of Sir George Grey who, in 1865, speaking on the part of the Government in opposition to Mr. Dillwyn's Resolution declared that no practical grievance existed, and that in attempting to redress the theoretical a great shock would be given to our laws and institutions. He went further, and said that it was "The firm belief of the Government that the Irish Church could not be subverted without revolution and all the horrors that attend revolution." It would seem, however, as if the right hon. Gentleman had one set of opinions when in Office, and another set when out of Office. In 1844, when in Opposition, he thought the Irish Church a grievance, and we find him using much the same arguments and language as we hear now. He said in 1844 "Among all the nations of Europe we find that Ireland alone is so peculiarly circumstanced that while seven-eighths of the population are Roman Catholics, and the remainder divided between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, there exists in that country an exclusive Church Establishment for the Episcopalian minority. This is a grievance that comes home to every man irrespective of the question of payment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this question is one beset with difficulty, but I deny that it is a difficulty sufficient to deter a Minister of the Crown from dealing with it."-[3 Hansard, lxxiv. 841.] In 1865, being in Office, the right hon. Gentleman said— "For these reasons, believing that the object avowed by those who have brought forward the Resolution is one which could not be attained without great mischief, being of opinion that no practical grievance exists, and that in attempting to redress the theoretical grievance a great shock would be given to our laws and institutions, I can have no hesitation on the part of the Government in opposing the Motion."-[3 Hansard, clxxviii. 402.] My Lords, I cannot help thinking that these fluctuations, these changes of opinion are somewhat traditional in the policy of noble Lords opposite. I will remind your Lordships of two lines written some forty years ago by a famous poet, whose works have been edited by a noble Earl, a Member of your Lordships' House. Moore tells us that "As bees on flowers alighting cease their hum, So settling into places Whigs are dumb." During all the years the present Opposition were in Office, and when they could have calmly and quietly considered the subject of the Irish Church, they would not entertain it, and I hope that the poet may prove in this case a prophet also, and that if noble Lords opposite succeed to our places on these Benches we shall hear no more of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. My noble Friend who introduced this Bill (Earl Granville) spoke of the Fenian insurrection as if to show your Lordships the necessity for adopting such a measure; but, my Lords, the grievance of the Established Church, if it be one, existed in 1848, when, during the administration of the Government, of which my noble Friend was a Member, an insurrection broke out in Ireland; and yet that Government did not then propose any such Bill. They relied on force-they trusted to the strong arm of the law; but they never suggested the expediency of destroying this Church as a remedial measure. There is another argument which my noble Friend made use ofnamely, that the members of the Established Church in Ireland were in a minority as compared with the whole population. But is this new? Why they have been in a minority ever since the Reformationit was so at the Revolution, it was so at the Union, it was so at the passing of Catholic Emancipation-and I ask is there any man alive who thinks that if a clause had been introduced into that measure for disestablishing and disendowing the Established Church, on the ground that the Protestants were in a minority, there would have been the slightest chance of that Bill passing? And it so happens that the Established Church in Ireland are in a less minority now than they were at any former time. Take three periods during the last 200 years at which the comparative numbers of the Established Church and the Roman Catholics have been taken. 1672 they were as one in eight to the Roman Catholics; in 1824 as one in twelve; and in 1861 as one in six and a half. Again, my Lords, if you allow this argument of minority to prevail in respect of the Church, I venture to submit that you will be admitting a very dangerous principle. I do not see how you will be able to limit it to the case of the Irish Church. Are not the landlords in a minority? are not the fundholders in a minority? are not the possessors of every kind of accumulated wealth in a minority? I do not see why the argument now sought to be applied to the Irish Church may not, if it be admitted in this case, be applied to them. Then we are told that Ireland will be pacified by this measure, or rather by the great measure which is dawning into existence, but which is still in a haze, even for my noble Friend who introduced this Bill. If it would pacify Ireland I admit there would In |