po glad, Sir, that you did not call upon me sooner in the evening, as I have had time to go into the Library to refresh my recollection of a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in 1849. What did he then say about "the badge of conquest?" Mark you, he was not speaking of the Catholic Church, and here is what he said terial) side of the House, particularly on the Government Bench, has been most relaxing to Liberal politicians; the ancient Whigs, always so wakeful in Opposition, were somewhat given to nod in Office. This question has been brought forward and debated many times in this House; it has broken up parties; it has dissolved Cabinets; it has never failed to make a great field-day for the discharge of a quantity of blank rhetorical cartridge; and when it has served the purpose of the hour it is put by in the magazine of litical combustibles, and Ireland, after looking on, supposing measures were about to be brought in for her pacification, finds herself left in the lurch, with the miserable reflection that she has merely been used as the occasion for a party struggle. Well, Sir, I am a party man. I am not without my ambitious hopes; but I place party and ambition immeasurably behind this question, and I would not, for one moment, put my ambition or my hopes by the side of the well-being or the welfare of Ireland. Therefore, I say that, whatever may happen in this debate, my object in taking part in it is not to disturb those Gentlemen from the Ministerial Bench, or merely to advance this question by putting the Opposition there. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lanca shire, in bringing these Resolutions under our notice, touched very lightly on the conduct of the Liberal party in the management of this Church question. I, Sir, am not very solicitous to define the conduct of the late Liberal Leaders; consistency, we all know, at this time of day has become a sort of amiable weakness. No man looks upon it as of any value. Even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who described himself to-night as an imperious Englishman, has not been quite consistent in the arguments which he has held upon this subject, and I must say that if I thought as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield thought upon this subject, I would give a directly opposite vote to that which he proposes to give. But, Sir, I am surprised the hon. and learned Member commenced this evening's discussion by saying that, though the Church was the badge of conquest-[Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] The hon. and learned Member said the Norman Church was the badge of conquest.-[Mr. ROEBUCK: No; the Catholic Church.] Well, then, if you said so tonight, what did you say in 1849? I am "The Irish Protestant Church, as a badge of slavery, must be and will be utterly put down. The national feeling of Ireland is influenced by a sense of injury and of oppression; if you wish to tranquillize Ireland you must remove the badge.', But the hon. and learned Gentleman has been "educated" since then. The schoolmaster has been abroad, and he now finds it is not the Protestant Church, but the Norman Catholic Church that is the badge of conquest. I leave the hon. and learned Gentleman there; he has seen much and gone through many changes; but how he will reconcile his speech with his vote remains for his constituents at Sheffield to see. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] But I deny that the Liberal party have ever been indifferent to this subject. The Liberal Leaders left the Liberal party in the lurch; but, Sir, from the time of Mr. Hume-who was the great pioneer, not only in this but in every other question which has come before and been passed by this House-the great bulk of the Liberal party has always been faithful to its colours on this question. We have always been told to wait till the proper time comes. But it came in 1833, and in 1833 the Liberal Leaders brought in their celebrated Act. And what did it do? It abolished ten Bishops, varied the taxation on certain benefices, and formed the Eclesiastical Commission. It was a most crude and undigested project. All the anomalies remained; Bishops remained with large salaries and few duties; no care was taken to inquire into the population to see whether there was a Church population in any given district; the fact was that the Bill of 1833 was altogether incomplete, and was passed to answer a temporary requirement not for the benefit of the people of Ireland, but to give security to the Irish Establishment. The measure was never intended to be final. Then came the Appropriation Clause. How was that treated? After five years of constant majorities in this House, majorities which maintained the Church of Ireland as it stood was an injustice, and that its surplus revenues should be appropriated to local purposes in Ireland, what was done? The Whigs got into office, the question was put by on the shelf and remained there for many years. In 1849 I brought this question to the notice of Parliament; in 1856 Mr. Miall, and in 1863 and 1865 the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) also brought this question before the House, and we were then told that the time had not come to deal with the Irish Church. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) opposed those Motions most vigorously; and an hon. Friend of mine (Sir Robert Peel) who is as remarkable for his talents as for his consistency, completely upset the Liberal party by a speech which he made under the Palmerston Government. Now we are called on to vote for these Resolutions in a party spirit. Sir, there are two distinct questions involved in these Resolutions. First, the question of disestablishment, and next the question of disendowment. I state that these are totally distinct questions. It has been remarked by a writer on the subject that men are so apt to confound their spiritual convictions with their personal interests that an attack upon the property of a Church is always more apt to cause irritation than an attack upon its doctrines. Now, I shall decline altogether to discuss this question as a mere money question, My opinion is that money is quite a secondary element in it. The Protestant clergy of Ireland-and I speak with some experience of that country from having resided there many years, are not unpopular on account of the tithes they get. On the contrary, the Protestant clergy, so far from being objects of dislike to the people, are objects of pity. And I will tell you why: I do not go with hon. Gentle men below me or with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who take what I call the "country gentleman" line of argument. If they knew as much as I do, they would know the Protestant clergy of Ireland are not capable of acting as country gentlemen. They are a pauper clergy, who have enough to do to maintain their large families. It is true, they have no congregation; but it is equally true that their incomes are so small from the multiplication of small livings and curacies that, so far from being able to act as country gentlemen, they are miserably paid. The worst feature of the Irish Church is an unequal distribution of labour and income. The policy of the Bishops of the present day is, without respect to the congregations, to get as many clergy in the different dioceses as they can, and then they say, "Look at the increase of the churches." But who pays for the increase? It comes out of the Ecclesiastical Fund. The money granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has increased; the clergy and the churches have increased; but have the congregations increased? Not by one man. I am not fond of statistics; but I will just show the House what is the spiritual staff which is in full vigour for these 693,000 Episcopalians. There are 2,428 parishes and 1,510 benefices, the latter being formed by uniting parishes together; and for these 693,000 persons what do you suppose is the staff that is kept up? Why, first of all, there are twelve Bishops, with incomes amounting to £55,000 a year. I include the two Archbishops; but, of course, there ought to be no such things as Archbishops. Very well-paid men these Bishops are. If you want reform, do not begin at the wrong end, with the unfortunate clergy; but cut down with an unsparing hand these men who are feeding sumptuously every day. These twelve Bishops have thirty-three deans, thirty-four archdeacons, twenty-six precentors, twenty-two chancellors, nine canons, 178 prebends, 1,510 beneficed clergy, and 457 curates. Why, Sir, at this rate, there ought to be 240 Bishops in England; for a single English diocese contains as many Protestants as the wholẹ of Ireland. And further, the 4,000,000 Roman Catholics in Ireland have only 3,000 ecclesiastics, and their congregations not only maintain these, but build and support their own chapels. Now, will any educated man in his senses say that this is a state of things which ought to exist for one minute in a civilized country? But the best proof I can give of the state of the Irish Establishment, and of the necessity of a larger reform, is by referring to the diocese in which I reside. The diocese of Waterford, Lismore, Cashel, and Emly, contains less than 14,000 Protestants. These four dioceses were rolled into one in 1833, because congregations could not be got, and this bishopric numbers 13,853 Protestants. I will give them the benefit of even numbers, and call them 14,000, for I do not wish to be accused, like the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), of suppressing Protestants. Of these 14,000 Protestants, I am a humble unit. There is a Bishop kept for me, with £4,400 a year, a dean and chapter, 106 beneficed clergy,dividing | in the words of his great prototype and £31,000 a year, and 40 unfortunate cu- namesake in Shakespeare, he said to this rates, who are paid only £3,414 amongst side of the Housethem. Thus, for these 14,000 Protestants, there is an expenditure of £3 a head. These are figures which cannot be controverted, and the diocese of Killaloe is very nearly as bad. Indeed, there is no diocese in Ireland where you can make out a moderate case for supporting a Bishop, dean and chapter, cathedral, and so forth. With such a state of things before us, is it enough for the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to get up and talk in the old Tory vein about illegality and unconstitutionality? I now come to these Resolutions, and no "Prepare thy battle early in the morning. . . I, as I may-that which I would I cannotWith best advantage will deceive the time, And aid thee in this doubtful shock of arms. But on thy side I may not be too forward." The noble Lord says, "That which I would I cannot," and whether he intends to join the camp of the aspiring Richmond or leave the last of the Plantagenets, no man in this House, I venture to say, can really tell. Well, who succeeded him? Why, he was succeeded by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy), whose great power and manly tone all must acknow doubt they are very strong. Nobody-ledge. He rallied his party round him; least of all myself-could have imagined, after the way in which I had been opposed by the Members on that (the front Opposition) Bench, that I should find myself dragged on at their tail at this enormous pace. But how have they been met? I must say I have been very much disappointed at the course which has been pursued on the other side. I am not one of those who are in the habit of casting taunts at a successful man, and I have certainly never heard the present Prime Minister utter an illiberal sentiment or commit himself to the bigotry of any party. I was, however, greatly disappointed at the enunciation of his policy at the beginning of the Session, and still more disappointed at the unpardonable vagueness of the Foreign Secretary. "Unpardonable vagueness" was the term employed by his Law Officer. I may take this opportunity, too, of saying that I condole with the right hon. Gentleman on his Law Officers; for I certainly think they have done his Government more harm by their defence than any attacks that have proceeded from this side of the House. The argument of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) forcibly reminded me of the old play of Richard the Third. The King asks "What says Lord Stanley? Will he bring his power?" And the Messenger answers "My Lord, he doth deny to come." Now, what said this "Defender of the Faith," the Foreign Secretary? Why, he said he could not defend the Irish Church; but that this was an electioneering manœuvre. He said it was the scandal of the time; but he reserved his opinion what he would do. In fact, Sir, almost but he did so by the utterance of those Church could be more equitably applied | formerly found favour among hon. Gentlefor the benefit of the Irish people; but men opposite-that the Irish Church that was denied; and what is this Com- ought to be looked upon with great remission sitting for? Has it anything to spect, because it is undoubtedly the origido with the benefit of the Irish people? nal Church of St. Patrick. Surely at this No; it was issued, and is about to report, time of day we shall not have such antimerely for the benefit of the Irish Church quarian pedantry brought forward, St. and its congregations. When, therefore, Patrick himself being-according to Dr. we are called upon to await the Report of Todd-a person of whom there is very the Commission, I say the whole thing is great doubt whether he ever existed. Very a solemn inquiry which will end in a great doubt indeed. As to who or what solemn farce. What is the composition of he was, Dr. Todd is very dubious. We this Commission? There are nine Mem- are not discussing this Church upon pebers, and five of them are already pledged dantic grounds. We have got to do with against any material reform in the Irish the Church as it is. Everybody knows Church. We all remember Sir Joseph that the original Church of Ireland had Napier, when, as Mr. Napier, he sat for no such thing as tithes or parishes; it was Dublin University; and we know what more of an oriental Church, with an inspeeches University Members are in the finity of Bishops. Nobody knows exactly habit of making. We all know what a what the Irish Church was; but it cerdesperate adherent of the Irish Church tainly was very different from what it is he was. I could read passages from his now, and, I, therefore, put it aside altospeeches which would make your hair gether. Then comes another consideration. stand on end, and which Mr. Flanagan which is said to be of greater importance. himself, as quoted by the hon. Member for The Act of Union, it is urged, forbids inKilkenny (Sir John Gray), could not outdo. terference with the Church. I cannot Not content with making speeches in this understand anybody at this time of day House, Sir Joseph Napier is also chairman getting up and saying the Act of Union is and a subscriber to what is called the to prevent us from passing a great measure Church Defence Fund of Ireland. There for the amelioration and contentment of are three other Members of the Commis- Ireland. Why, what was the Act of sion who are also subscribers, and I con- Union? A fraudulent bargain, in which tend that it was most unfairly and im- the Protestant aristocracy were bought properly constituted. The hon. Member and Catholic masses were sold. Can any for Kilkenny, as I came in, took exception argument more powerful for the destructo Dr. Ball being upon the Commission. tion of the Act of Union be advanced than I certainly could not agree with him there, to say that, as long as it remains on the for Dr. Ball is one of the best men who statute book, it is to prevent your bringing could be appointed; he is a fair and im- forward any measure of justice to the peopartial man, and was brought forward by ple of Ireland? But we are told that my right hon. Friend the Member for the 5th Article of Union is the one of Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) as the Liberal special efficacy. We all know what that candidate for the University of Dublin. 5th Article is; it is the one which says But, on the whole, I say if we are to wait that the faith, discipline, and government for the Report of this Commission, we [An Hon. MEMBER: Doctrine.] of the shall wait for what will be a mere shuffling Irish Church is to be for ever one with of the revenues of the Church among the English Church. How is the 5th themselves; no real reform, no cutting Article of Union to be more stringent upon down of the Establishment. Therefore this House than the 4th? Yet the 4th, the argument that we should wait for this which undertook to define the number of Report is one that cannot, and ought not Members which Ireland should send to to be, cogent with this House for one this House, was altered in 1832. It was moment. What other arguments have we altered for the benefit of the Irish people. heard in defence of the Church as at pre- Why should not we be equally at liberty sent constituted-this Protestant Church to alter the 5th for the benefit of the Irish which the hon. Member for Sheffield people? It is a fatal argument towards thought was a badge of conquest? [Mr. the Union to say that it prevents you from ROEBUCK: No?] But formerly you did. doing justice to the Catholic people of There is another argument which I have Ireland. Lord Lansdowne, in "another not heard during this debate, but which place," asked this question-Was he to understand that the Established Church | the North of Ireland; but in the South existed for the benefit of Ireland, or Ire- of Ireland, who are your Irish Protestants land for the benefit of the Established Church? That is the question to be answered in the division to which we shall go. I will not weary the House by going into any distinctions-though I could go into them at length, for I have taken some pains upon the subject-by going into distinctions between ecclesiastical and private property-to meet the hobgoblin arguments which are always brought forward to alarm landowners. All the great lawyers who have spoken upon this subject have always drawn a great distinction between corporate and private property. Dr. Arnold has a celebrated passage on this subject; from Sir James Mackintosh and Brougham I could quote probably fifty extracts on this point. Lord Macaulay says "Church revenues are partly public and partly private; an advowson coming into the hands of an individual seems to be as much his property as his house." there? They are for the most part the descendants respectable descendants — of an aristocracy, consisting originally of Cromwell's troopers and trumpeters. And these respectable gentlemen, whose ancestors in other days, not only derided episcopacy, but destroyed the monarchy, are now high Conservative gentry. I cannot say that they have any particular reverence for the Thirty-nine Articles ; I do not think they know what they mean; but they drink the "glorious, pious, and immortal memory," which is the one great article of their creed. And then we hear that this is the United Church of England and Ireland. I must say that one of the great inconveniences of the present state of political feeling in this House and the country is the system of what I may call gambling in Liberal stock. One Minister is perpetually outbidding the other, till all moderate measures are rendered impossible, all compromises untenable; and moderate men who wish to lead a quiet life, and .to see gradual progress, are left comletely behind. Now, while I go with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in a desire to see the Established Church disestablished, I agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who has been so unhappy about home affairs-I agree with him that that Establishment is a mere empty title. Can you do nothing to remedy this without rushing to extremes? You have got at present twelve Bishops. You see what the population of Ireland is. Why not at once, without waiting for the Report of any Commission-for we have quite evidence enough-cut down the number of bishoprics to four? That was the number proposed in 1849, by the present “Whereas it is desirable to remove all sem- Vice Chancellor of England, Sir William blance of connection between Church and State" Page Wood. [An hon. MEMBER: Lord JusI am not far enough advanced for that; I tice.] Cut them down to four, one for each never attempted, I never have wished, to province. He proposed to give them each remove all connection between Church aud £1,500 a year: I will go further, and give State. But when you talk of the United them £2,000. I will tell you why I take Church of England and Ireland, does not that limit. You have in this country an any one who resides in that country know instance of a Bishop with a population of that the name is a mere Parliamentary fic- 52,500-the greater part of whom are tion a legal phrase that there is no Churchmen - with an income of £2,000 such thing as a United Church? I hear a a year, and no seat in the House of Lords great deal of this body of loyal Irish Pro--the Bishop of Sodor and Man. He has testants, well-to-do gentlemen, who are very loyal as long as you keep up their Church for them. I do not know about I cannot understand these arguments being put forward at this time. They have always done duty on these occasions, to be sure. They did duty at the time of Catholic Emancipation, and they did duty so lately as the year 1853, when Lord Aberdeen's Government brought forward the Clergy Reserves Act of Canada, giving the Canadian Parliament power to deal with the clergy reserves in that colony. We were then told that we had no power to deal with the matter-that we could not interfere with the sacred union between Church and State. But what was the wording of that Act? "To make better provision for the appropriation of moneys arising from lands known as the clergy reserves, by rendering them available"what for?" for municipal purposes." And the 3rd section of the Act begins only one archdeacon. Why not model your Irish Church, if you can re-model it, after the fashion of the Bishopric of Sodor |