sure years ago. I was reminded of the debate on the Appropriation Clause when listening to the speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), for he recalled many phrases which struck me as familiar. The noble Earl had evidently been ransacking some of his old pigeonholes, for he brought out the very arguments which did duty in 1836 or thereabouts, and he told us what opinions were entertained by Lord Palmerston in 1828. In the year 1828 those arguments did very well, but are they gravely to be put for ward in the present day? I regretted that the noble Earl should have taken this line, and regretted it the more because nobody admires the ability of the noble Earl more than I do. It has been said that whoever votes for this Bill must be in favour of entire disestablishment and disendowment. Now, the Bill, as far as it goes, contains neither disestablishment nor disendowment. Disendowment was not even in the Resolutions, and in Mr. Gladstone's introductory statement the disendowment was very limited. The great fault found with his speech by many persons was this-"You are going to make a great change in the Irish Church, and at the same time you propose to allow three-fifths or two-thirds of its property to remain in the hands of the Church." But that proposal is not in the present Bill; there is nothing like it in the present Bill. What the scheme of distribution may be I confess I do not know, for I have not seen it. ["Hear, hear!"] I admit it; I admit that I do not know what the scheme is, and that I am not prepared to discuss it. ["Hear, hear!"] I have not heard, up to the present, of any one who is prepared to discuss it. [Hear, hear!"] All I have heard is the proposal that three-fifths or twothirds of the property of the Church shall still remain to it, and that all vested in terests are to be respected. I admit to the full the great difficulties of this question. I heard the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) last night; it was a very able speech, and I agree with a good deal of it. It showed the great difficulties of the question, and that before dealing with this subject we must consider it much more completely. At the same time I say this Bill has a value; and for this reason it is a declaration to the people of Ireland that we are prepared to consider it. If you come to details, I admit there are great difficulties in any Bill. I cannot conceive myself how such a scheme is to work. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am willing to admit the difficulties which must attend the carrying out such a scheme. That was the reason which induced me to rise; I am not going to make a party speech. But you say that this Bill is brought forward with a party motive; that we want to turn you out and to get upon those Benches ourselves. I at least do not want to get into that place of humiliation! I assure you that I enjoy myself very much more upon this side of the House, in freedom, than I ever did upon those Benches. But to return to this Bill and the scheme of disestablishment. Under it we are invited to deal with the Church in this way-If a Bishop dies he is not to be replaced, or if the incumbent of a parish dies he is not to be replaced; but vested interests, as long as they continue, are to be preserved. Therefore, in one diocese a Bishop may live for thirty years and I hope that many of them will live for the next thirty yearsand retain full jurisdiction, while the very next see may be vacant the whole time. In the same way one parish may have its incumbent performing his duties for the next thirty or forty years, while in the adjoining parish the voluntary principle perforce will be at work. As far as I can see, the whole state of transition is one that is intolerable. If it is to be carried out it must be by some different arrangement; but what that is to be I confess I do not know. I will take another casethat of the noble Lord the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I will suppose him attending with all his state, and with that great courtesy and ability which never fail to distinguish him, at some important gathering. By his side, and on his right hand, there will be a Roman Catholic Archbishop in the place of honour, and some simple Protestant will naturally ask, "Where is our Archbishop? "Oh, the Protestant Archbishop!"-the reply will be-" he was abolished some time ago. Now, to my mind, that is anything but religious equality. I do not understand how religious equality is to be insured; I see so many difficulties in the way, and questions of such magnitude, and so calculated to excite the feelings and passions of men. But it is, I think, most important that we should show to our Irish fellowsubjects that we are ready to entertain conciliatory measures. I confess that if I were in the midst of a Protestant community, and saw all the revenues going to the [Second Night. Catholic hierarchy, I should view such a process with the greatest jealousy and dislike. And why should I do to my Catholic fellow-subjects that which I should never willingly endure myself? I do not want to take up your Lordships' time with details of a scheme which is not practically before us; but I do wish to urge that in dealing with a question like this the House of Lords ought to take a large view, and show that they are willing to give it fair consideration, without favouring or offending either Protestant or Roman Catholic. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Armagh) told us how matters had been managed in Ireland some years ago. He showed most clearly that the State had robbed the Church of an immense amount of revenue. I never heard a stronger case made out against the State, or the conduct of the State from the time of Elizabeth to the present day more bitterly denounced than by the right rev. Primate. My Lords, I will not trouble you with further observations, but whenever the real question comes before us, I hope we shall be able to view it in a spirit of justice towards the Irish people. THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say that I hope the position of the noble Duke upon the other side of the House, which contributes so much to his enjoyment as well as ours, will continue; and I hope the noble Duke will long retain the means of enjoyment which he is so happy to possess. I listened with great interest to his speech, but the only impression left upon my mind was somewhat perplexing; for, as I understood him, it was his opinion that this Bill was absurd, could not possibly work, and would produce effects of the most ludicrous character, yet that it was absolutely necessary for the credit of your Lordships' House that you should pass the Bill without delay. Of course, I am not as old a Member of this House as the noble Duke, and I do not know in what way the credit of your Lordships' House may be best maintained; but my impression is that, unless the nature of the people of England has altered very much within the last few days, their opinion of your Lordships' House will be increased rather than diminished by your refusing to pass a Bill which is declared, even by those who are friendly to it, to be absurd and unworkable. The noble Duke's speech was distinguished by one peculiarity for which I heartily thank him, and that is that he did discuss the Bill before the House; whereas the noble Earl who opened this debate (Earl Granville) appeared to show a steady and ostentatious contempt for the Bill which he was introducing to your Lordships' notice. He discussed everything in Europe and out of Europehe went to England, to Scotland, to Canada, among all his foreign friends, but I could not hear one single observation about the Bill submitted to your Lordships except that he thought there might be a great many plausible things said against it. Now a Bill introduced to your Lordships under such auspices I think requires some careful weighing before you proceed to vote upon it on grounds wholly unconnected with it, and not contained within the four corners of its clauses. The truth is this:-The Bill professes to be one to leave the question open for the decision of the new Parliament. But there is a well-recognized and well-understood means of leaving a question of this kind open for consideration. Whenever a Royal Commission pronounces itself unfavourably to any institution or in favour of alterations, there is a form of Act we constantly pass if we wish to leave ourselves free to confirm those conclusions, and that form of Act is perfectly well known to those who are now promoting this measure. It would gain for them all they desire-its simplicity is extraordinary, and it is this-" After the passing of this Act any person who accepts any office in such and such an institution shall be understood to hold the office and receive its emoluments subject to the pleasure of Parliament." You have done that in connection with the public schools; you have done that this very Session with respect to the endowed schools; and I do not hesitate to say that if, after the vote of the House of Commons, such a Bill had come up to your Lordships' House, I should have felt there was no course open to us but to pass it. It is quite clear that the vote of the House of Commons is at least as important as a decision of a Royal Commission; and I am sure your Lordships would have been very ready to pay that deference to the opinion of the House of Commons which consists in leaving a question unprejudiced for the decision of a future Parliament. But, knowing that this was the ordinary course, having these precedents before them, the promoters of the Bill have deliberately set them aside; they have adopted measures which several right rev. Prelates have shown will, if carried, produce the greatest confusion in the actual administration of the Church of Ireland; and I can conclude only that they desire something totally different from leaving this question entirely unprejudiced for a future Parliament. I can conclude only that they desire by a side wind and in an indirect way to procure the sanction of your Lordships to the large measure of change which they contemplate. That being the only interpretation to be put upon the very unsatisfactory and remarkable provisions of this Bill, I must ask myself before I vote for it, what does it intend to do? What are these changes which I am asked vaguely and indefinitely to sanction without having them in any shape before me? Well, my Lords, I have heard allusions to various plans for disestablishment without disendowment; I watched the noble Earl the late Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Clarendon) last night, and I remarked he was very chary of the word "disendowment." But on the solitary occasion when he mentioned it he favoured us with some remarkable information; he said that two-thirds-the greater part of the property was to be left to the Irish Church. My noble Friend who ordinarily sits near me (the Earl of Carnarvon) made to-night a very remarkable and able speech. He stated his intention distinctly that he would vote for disestablishment, but that he was not prepared, except to an apparently very limited extent, to vote for disendowment. I do not know what such schemes may be worth; we have not them before us, and I have not seen them stated in the papers; when they are laid before us I shall be ready to examine them: but they have nothing to do with the Bill before us. This Bill is founded on certain Resolutions which state in the most distinct and absolute way that disestablishment is the object of Mr. Gladstone, who has stated as much in his speeches. In language which can leave nothing to desire from its completeness, he has asserted that every vestige of property, except, I think, Sir Benjamin Guinness's endowment, is to be taken from the Church of Ireland. Now, my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) made many observations this evening in which I entirely concur, if I understood him rightly, as to the unwisdom under present circumstances of what is called a pure no-surrender policy. Personally, if I consulted my own disposi tion, I should have no objection to fight à outrance; but I confess, from the ex no perience I have had, my inclination is to say," How can you expect to hold the fortress; it's no use holding out, for the troops won't stand to their guns? Therefore, my Lords, if there were any intermediate proposal before the House, I should doubt whether I should assent to it or not-of course, everything depends upon its provisions. I should esteem any Minister who voted against his convictions in support of such a proposal wanting in selfrespect, but I should not say that any Member of your Lordships' House, who cannot escape from responsibility by resigning, was debarred from modifying his convictions in deference to a great public exigency. But these questions do not arise upon the present occasion. None of that very eloquent diatribe which my noble Friend delivered against those who stand out for a no-surrender policy applies in this instance. Nothing in the nature of a compromise. thing which the most flattering critic would describe as a compromise-has been offered to the acceptance of either House of Parliament. My Lords, we are told that to agree in time is to prevent a demand for something more. But I have no doubt that those who brought forward this proposal would have already demanded something more if they had been able to find it. I do not doubt their possible power so far as political action is concerned; but there is this limit in the nature of things, that when you have abolished a thing you can do nothing more with it; and it is an absolute and complete spoliation that Mr. Gladstone has offered to the Irish Church. The noble Duke who has just sat down (the Duke of Somerset), told us that two-thirds of its property were to be left to the Irish Church. Two-thirds of the property! Why, I heard Mr. Gladstone make his calculations, and I think it was three-fifths of the property that were to be left to the clergymen of the Church. These are very estimable gentlemen: I am glad that some provision is to be made for them; it would be a great breach of the rights of private property if some were not made. But as a promise of consolation to the Church of Ireland it is absolutely worthless. It is a matter of perfect indifference to the Church of Ireland whether the present holders of livings are compensated or not. Therefore, my Lords, I want to make this point very clear. We are dealing with a Bill which, in the first place its own advocates will not [Second Night. defend; in the second place, with a pro- | with which it is proposed to deal. One of position as large, as extreme, and as the greatest difficulties lying before you in sweeping as it is possible for human or this case is the way in which this property radical ingenuity to devise. Now, my shall be applied if it be taken. I do not Lords, on what grounds is this great change understand that anyone has disputed that recommended? We are told that they are in a Court of Law the Church's title to this two-that one of them is justice, the other property is good; but there appears to be rests upon considerations of expediency. some idea in the minds of noble Lords, Now, whenever we argue that this thing is either that the Church is different from dangerous to some other interests-danger- other corporations, or that there is someous to the Union and to the Church-we are thing weak in the title of corporations met with the assertion, "It is just; and which exposes them to peculiar operations because it is just, we are told we must do of this kind. I am fully aware of the it, come what may. Well, let us examine power of phrases judiciously used. The this plea of justice. Let me, in the first noble Earl who introduced this Bill (Earl instance, take exception to a species of Granville) told us that the existing state testimony with which I may say we have of things was the paying of the clergy of been inundated. I think it may be called a minority out of a public fund. I have the foreign-friend argument." Several heard again that fund called public pronoble Lords on the opposite Bench, having perty. These are very significant phrases. a large foreign acquaintance, have given Whenever anybody wants to rob his neighus the views of their friends in abundance bour of anything he always says the thing -as if that were the proper argument to he covets is national property. I speak offer to an English Parliament; they have for a moment as a Railway Chairman when told us the opinions held in society they I say I have heard somebody lately assert have been accustomed to frequent; and they that railways are national property: and I say so and so is held to be what the House have heard the assertion with alarm. Where of Lords should do. Well, my Lords, I is the title of this national property? Will listened to the opinion of these foreign you find it in any deed, in any charter, in friends, and I found that the late Foreign any statute book, or in any treatises of law? Secretary (the Earl of Clarendon) was No. You will not find it in any of these much smitten by the article of an illustri- things. It has simply been evolved from ous writer in the Revue des Deux Mondes. the innermost depths of the Liberal conNone would be wanting in respect for that sciousness. There is not the slightest vesillustrious writer; but among his claims tige of external proof in favour of this for our respect we must remember that he claim on the part of the nation to dispose can boast of this characteristic, that he is of this property. There is, indeed, only a most earnest believer in the Church one claim advanced, and that is that in in which he was brought up, and that past times violent Sovereigns and unscruChurch is the Roman Catholic. I must pulous Parliaments have dealt with Church say that if England were judged on the property in the manner that best pleased "foreign-friend" ground-on the principles their violent passions or inclinations, and put forward by this critic in the Revue des you conclude that because it has once been Deux Mondes, there are many actions in subjected to violence you have the right to our history that would be very severely resort to violence again. But, beyond the condemned. I even doubt whether my fact that this property may have been vionoble Friend's critic in the Revue des Deux lently dealt with at different portions of Mondes could entirely approve the English our history, you have no argument which Reformation. Now, my Lords, when you you can urge in favour of what you call its come to talk of justice in holding property, peculiarly national character. Well, there it is a question of title. If my right to my were some noble Lords who apparently land is good, it is absurd to say there would felt the weakness of these arguments, and be justice in taking it from me and giving were alive to the absolute impossibility it to somebody else. Therefore the ques- of proving that the title by which the tion of justice resolves itself into an exami- Church of Ireland holds its property is nation of the title by which the property different from that by which the property is held. No one says, as I understand, of any other corporation is held, and, that this title is bad. If it be bad, the boldly supplying the link which is missing, property vests in some one else. But we they told us that the property of corporahave no second claimant for this property tions was at the pleasure of Parliament. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) told us that the State was the heir of corporations such as the Irish Church. Unfortunately the State appears to have a power which many heirs may envy-that of killing off the possessors of the prowhich it desires to inherit. Now, my Lords, I can only say with regard to such statements as these that they are based upon a code of law which is totally new in this country. Do not imagine that you can perpetrate this illogical violence, and then go no further than you originally intended. I can quite believe that you intend to go no further; but others will take up the principles which you have started, and drive in the wedge which you were the first to insert, and the result will be that you will be led into consequences from which you, I believe, would be the first to shrink with alarm. But there is one peculiarity in this position to which I think the corporations of this country should have their attention called. It is bad enough that the supposed perpetuity of corporations should be entirely abolished; it is bad enough that it should be laid down that the State is the heir to the property of a corporation which it may destroy at any moment, or as any party exigency may. arise. But observe the peculiarity of this case. It is not because the property has been abused--it is not because its trusts have not been fulfilled-it is not because in some cases its trusts have become im possible of fulfilment; that might be remedied by a much more moderate measure-it is not because its means are required by other classes; but it is because a certain body of men grudge and envy those now in possession of this property that you are prepared to take it away by force. But how far do you intend to carry this right of dispossession and to yield to demands dictated by feelings of grudge and envy? Now, my Lords, I do not wish to push too far the analogy between corporate and private property. I am willing to acknowledge the very great difference, the existence of which every one must see; but I feel convinced that if you familiarize the minds of the people of this country with the idea of yielding to the mere display of discontent, and the mere ostentation of envy, you will cause injury to property otherwise secure, and it is not with corporate property that this principle will end. So much, then, for the question of justice. The other question is one of expediency. We are told that this Church is unpopular, and that the Irish will not be pacified until it is destroyed. But there are other matters which it is equally important to consider. You have been informed to-night by a most rev. Primate who is fully qualified to judge (the Archbishop of Armagh) that the abolition of this Church will be followed by great discontent in the North of Ireland; that it will be followed by a large emigration; that Ireland will lose a large proportion of that already too scanty class-the resident landlords within her border. But you cannot stop here. You talk of the immovable loyalty of the Orange population. Now, my Lords, I do not believe in such a thing as immovable loyalty. I believe that if you commit a deep and glaring in justice upon any portion of the population, however loyal, they will nourish in their breasts feelings of resentment which will not, perhaps, break out into open disturbances, but which will still be in the highest degree disastrous to the country, which will find their support wanting in the hour of its need. I would ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the place of some Protestant congregation in Dublin or the North. Hitherto the Protestants have paid willingly to the Protestant clergyman the tithes to which he has had a right from time immemorial. Without asking for any change, they suddenly find the clergyman taken away, the money hitherto devoted to his support bestowed upon the erection of a lighthouse or some other similar work, while they themselves are called upon to contribute towards the support of a minister who ought to have been supported out of the money already contributed by them. It would not be in human nature to bear this contentedly. I have spoken of Ireland and the Church of Ireland to-night, but these are mere expressions, having no ethnological and scarcely any historical value. The Ireland which you assume for the purposes of the present argument is not the Ireland of the Union; because, if you take all the country together, and take it as one nation, your alarming statistics will at once disappear, because the Church of England will still be the majority. On the other hand, if you regard the country in its true ethnological aspect, you will make out no case whatever in that part of the country where the Protestants prevail. In fact, it is simply by lumping the Protestant and Roman Catholic portions of Ireland together, and by cutting off England altoge[Second Night. |