me I extent, then, the tenantry of Ireland are the Secretary for Ireland, has introduced a placed in a more advantageous position bill on this subject which has been referred than those of England. I certainly must to a committee up-stairs; I believe the comadmit, with great regret, that in some in-mittee has reported, or is about to report; stances the landlord exercises his legal but, at all events, it is the intention of right with harshness, but I confess I do Government during the recess to instinot know how such a practice is to be re-tute an inquiry on the subject in Ireland. strained by legal enactments. I under- Another measure was, to consolidate the stood the hon. Member for Limerick to grand jury laws, which was passed when say, that he is not aware of any particular my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was remedy that could be applied to the diffi- Secretary for Ireland. Then another meaculty. Even the right hon. Member for sure with reference to public works in Edinburgh has said, that this was a ques- Ireland has been adopted, and also enacttion upon which he was more disposed to ments relative to sub-letting and drainage. listen and to learn than to dogmatise. It It had been recommended, that some asis, in fact, a subject of great difficulty, and sistance should be rendered to parties who should be approached with the utmost cau- were desirous of emigrating; and in the tion. On such a subject, it would be un- Poor-law Act there is a provision under wise to raise any false hopes, but I admit which funds may be raised for the purthat it is open for discussion for the purposes of emigration. Allusion has been pose of seeing whether any favourable al-made to the opposition which was offered teration is practicable. What is called a to the advance of public money for the fixity of tenure appears to me to be neither construction of railways in Ireland. more nor less than confiscation of the land; | beg the House to consider the circumand the erection of a tribunal of tenants stances in which that grant was proposed. to decide what rent should be paid, and In the first place, in this country a great what allowance made for outlay on land, extent of railway has been constructed, appears to a direct interference not less than 1,500 miles I believe, withwith the rights of landlords, which could out one shilling of public money havnot take place without the greatest dan- ing been granted for that purpose. ger, and without an entire overthrow of has been found, that the minimum cost the existing laws and institutions framed of a railway is 23,000l. per mile, whilst for the protection and defence of property. the average expense per mile is about The hon. Member for Limerick, in his 34,000l. It was proposed to have a railopening speech, argued that there had way from Dublin to Cork, a distance been some neglect in legislation with re- of 168 miles, which, at an average of spect to matters of importance affecting 34,000l. per mile, would have cost so much the interests of Ireland. Now, I beg to that with the railways to the west and to remind hon. Gentlemen, that in 1830, a the north, which it would have been incommittee of this House was appointed, dispensable to construct, the sum to be over which Lord Monteagle presided, to advanced by the public would not have inquire into the state of the poor in Ire- been less than 10,000,000l. Hon. Memland; and though I will not occupy the bers may point to the estimates which time of the House by reading any portions were made for the Irish railways, but I of that report, I may state that it con- beg leave to say, that in matters of this cluded by recommending nineteen specific kind, experience is much more to be relied legislative measures. Now, will the House upon than any estimates. Experience has believe that with one single exception-likewise proved, that in England and Scotall these measures have, since the year 1830, been dealt with legislatively, and that remedial enactments are now on the statute book? The first six of these measures related to charitable institutions; and all the suggestions which they comprehended, for the extension and amendment of charitable institutions, have been carried into effect, with the exception of one recommendation with regard to medical institutions, which yet remains to be embodied in an act of Parliament. My noble Friend, It land no railways succeed or are in a material degree valuable to the public interest, except those which unite large seats of manufacturing industry with each other, or with the capital, and in the present state of Ireland, a country purely agricultural, the advantage of railways, I am convinced, would not be at all in correspondence with the expense. It has been said, that no assistance has been given since the Union to public works in Ireland by Great Britain, Now, the fact is, that since the Union there has been advanced for public works in Ireland about 7,200,000l. out of the public funds, of which about 5,500,000l., has been repaid, leaving about 1,700,000l. unpaid. Then a considerable advance was recently made for the improvement of the navigation of the Shannon, one-half of which, if I mistake not, is an absolute grant from the public treasury, not to be repaid. I believe I have now touched upon all the various topics which have been introduced into this debate, and I am unwilling to trespass longer on the attention of the House; but, at the same time, I feel that it is impossible for me to pass by that to which more importance is attached than to all the rest-namely, the question-the great question of the Church Establishment in Ireland. I heard with great interest an observation which fell from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the county of Kildare, who said, as I understood him, that any concordat with Rome, which would regulate in any degree the ecclesiastical power of the Roman Catholic hierarchy would not be regarded as a beneficent measure, but, on the contrary, would be viewed with extreme jealousy and dislike by that body, and I also understood the hon. Member to say, that any endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy is not desired by the members of that Church. Mr. O'Ferrall had said, that any concordat with Rome, which gave the Protestant Government a power over the Catholic Church, would not be received or enforced by the spiritual or temporal power of that Church in Ireland. Sir James Graham: Now, I beg those who call upon the Government to make declarations with respect to measures of this kind, to observe, what caution such a statement as that made by the hon. Member for Kildare prescribes, and how delicate is the ground, on which we are invited to tread. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh has been quite explicit in stating his view of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that there ought to be two co-ordinate and co-existent establishments in Ireland, and some reliance was placed by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as by the hon. Member for Sheffield, on a supposed analogy with the Church establishment of Scotland. Now, I must say, that so far from seeing any analogy, I see the greatest possible differIn the passage which the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of ence. quoting from a speech of mine in the present Session of Parliament relative to the Church of Scotland, I said that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland rested on the treaty of Union. The Protestant Church in Ireland rests on the same foundation, The Union with Ireland never would have been carried with the consent of the Irish Parliament, unless the maintenance of the Protestant Church in that country had been secured by a fundamental article of the treaty, which is embodied in an act of the Imperial Parliament. I respect Presbyterian Church government in Scotland, because I am resolved to abide by the act of Union with Scotland. I uphold the Protestant Church in Ireland, because I am true to the act of Union with Ireland, and am not prepared to set at nought this solemn national engagement. This is a question which has unfortunately given rise to a serious misunderstanding between me and my noble Friend near me, and the hon. Gentlemen who occupy the opposite Benches, yet I do not understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite though they differ from us, agree among themselves in their views on this subject. The noble Lord, the Member for London says, that he is opposed to the overthrow of the Protestant Church in Ireland, that under all circumstances he would maintain the establishment in that country. Various plans have been broached by other hon. Members. The hon. and learned Member for Bath is for its immediate subversion, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, with a regard only for existing rights, contemplated the same result. [Mr. Ward expressed dissent.] I thought I understood the hon. Member for Sheffield to concur in the hon. Member for Bath's proposition, except as far as regarded present rights, and to say, that the option was between the maintenance of the establishment and that of the Union ; that the two could not stand together. [Mr. Ward: " My argument was, that that establishment must be fixed on the basis of population."] The basis of population!-that is, that as the Members of the Established Church are about one-eighth of the population, and the Roman Catholics nearly seven - eighths, therefore seven-eighths of the Church property should be transferred to the other party-a proposition which I think approaches as near subversion as it is possible to go. The hon. Member for Halifax does not go so far as to say that seven-eighths should be transferred; he wishes to take a slice of the property, but he did not specify effect the Emancipation Act, and that how much. [Mr. C. Wood: I did not say every measure affecting the state of soI would take any portion of the property.] ciety in that country shall be viewed with I understood the hon. Member to say, that an earnest desire to promote the improvethough he was not prepared to state the ment of all classes there. I have touched proportion, he was prepared to take some. upon the fixity of tenure; to that I cannot [Mr. C. Wood: I said nothing about it.] consent. I hold that the very term is Surely, then I am not mistaken in sup- replete with danger; but we will willingly posing that the hon. Member voted for the discuss any portion of the law, which reappropriation clause. The noble Lord the gulates the relation of landlord and tenant, Member for the City of London declares, and with anxious and unprejudiced attenthat he is desirous to uphold the Church tion we will consider any legislative meaEstablishment in Ireland, but surely I did sure, which without prejudice to the rights of not misunderstand him when I supposed the owner may improve the condition of the him to have stated on a former evening, occupier of the soil. On the question of Rothat he would transfer a portion of the man Catholic endowments I heard with great Church property to the endowment of the interest the opinion of the hon. Gentleman Roman Catholic Church. [Lord J. Rus- the Member for Kildare, whose authority sell I did not say so.] There appears is high upon this subject; and his declarato be a great deal of coyness on this tion proves the necessity for the utmost subject amongst hon. Gentlemen oppo- caution. With respect to the Protestant site; it is hard to understand what they Church Establishment itself-and I besay; it is easy to comprehend what they lieve that I speak the feelings of all my mean; but I am bound to state, that I Colleagues-I adhere to the decision that steadily adhere to the opinion which I the establishment must be maintained, and have frequently expressed in this House. that no portion of the Protestant Church I do not think the suggested change con- property can with good faith be alienated sistent with the act of Union, I do not for the endowment of the Roman Catholic think it consistent with good faith towards Church. Sir, I think we have arrived at the Protestants of Ireland, who had a Le- a period when it is far better that the gislature exclusively Protestant, and who opinion of this House should be distinctly, gave their assent to the union on the frankly, and openly avowed. I cannot faith of the Protestant Church being main- dissemble from myself that the crisis is tained. On every ground of policy, of one of urgency. The hon. Gentleman who good faith, and I may add of religious brought this question forward has remarked feeling, I for one, cannot consent to the that, though the limits of the law may be alienation of the Protestant property for observed, though there may be doubts as the endowment of the Roman Catholic to the question of the legality of the proChurch. I think it is of the last import-ceedings in Ireland, there is still one fact ance that the House should clearly indicate its opinion on this occasion. If the House entertains any doubt of the ability of the Government to administer the affairs of the country in the present crisis, I admit that the motion is legitimate for the purpose of eliciting an expression of opinion upon that point. This is no motion for inquiry; it has been scouted as such by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would be absurd so to treat it, and it is not so intended-it is brought forward to debate the policy of her Majesty's Ministers with regard to Ireland. I have stated the course which the Government will take. I have stated that justice and impartiality shall be strictly observed-that her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects shall enjoy according to their merits a full and fair share of the distribution of the patronage of the Crown--that we will carry into full" Opposition has its responsibilities." This The that must not be overlooked, viz., that in CHURCH ENDOWMENTS.] The Bishop of London moved the third reading of the Church Endowments Bill, and said he understood there would be some objections raised, but he should be best able to meet them when he heard them stated. Lord Cottenham said, that there had been substantial alterations in the bill since the second reading, to which he deemed it right to call their Lordships attention. The object proposed by the is no ordinary crisis. Great interests, national safety, and our position in the scale of nations are at stake. I say that it is the bounden duty of the Executive Government, exercising its dispassionate judgment, to pursue that course which in their consciences and their judgment they believe to be most conducive to the public safety in this extremity. If the House distrusts them, and thinks that other policy ought to be pursued, let them mark their want of confidence and manfully de-measure was to supply means for the clare it; but if the present Government endowment of additional ministers in large are to conduct the State in these perils, and crowded parishes, which for the purthey, must, beyond a doubt, possess the pose were to be divided into districts; confidence of Parliament-and the mea- and ministers appointed were to have sures they propose must meet with no certain portions of the ecclesiastical dues undue obstruction. [Cries of "What alloted to them. The effect must be to measures?" from the Opposition side.] I diminish the profits of existing encumhave no hesitation in saying, that one mea- bencies, and therefore to injure the rights sure of great importance is the Arms Bill, of patronage. There appeared no proto which so much opposition has been vision for reserving to the patrons of the already given. I say that it is one of the divided parishes the power of appointing, measures which I consider to be necessary either alone or in concurrence with the for Ireland-and I also say that, in this position of affairs, it is most desirable that bishops, the additional clergymen. Nor this House should indicate distinctly the securing to the patrons adequate compenwas there any efficient arrangement for course which it thinks ought to be taken-sation for such injury to their legal rights. any hesitation will aggravate the danger a hundred fold. If, therefore, the sense of this House is in favour of her Majesty's Government, I hope its expressed confidence will enable them to triumph over every difficulty. But I say this-and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House-I repeat it, if we falter-if we hesitate to repress the rebellious spirit that has shown itself in Ireland, the glory of this country is departed-the days of its power are numbered, and England-all Conquering England-will be numbered with those nations whose power has dwindled, and which present the melancholy spectacle of fallen greatness. Debate adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES. BILLS. Public.-1a Episcopal Functions. 3 and passed:-Limitation of Actions (Ireland). This The result must be, that while at present Private.-1 Northampton Improvement; Londonderry patron to lose half his right without the Bridge; Charles Joachim Hambro's Naturalization. 2. Tay Ferries; Inchbelly (Glasgow) Roads. Reported.-M'Culloch's Estate. tering: Bolton Water Works. people being secured additional privileges. Another important objection was that the statutes of mortmain were virtually disre 3a and passed:-Oxnam's Estate (No. 2); Liverpool WaPETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Campbell, from Edin-garded and repealed so far as they related burgh, and Leith, against the Charitable Pawn Offices to the subject-matter of this bill, a change Bill.-From Shepton Mallett, against the Abolition of of very questionable propriety, and cer Church Rates.-From the Parish Clerks of Manchester, for a Clause in the Church Endowment Bill, tainly not contained in the bill when it was read a second time. What he complained of was, that the bill deprived patrons and incumbents of their just and legal rights, but made no provision for securing them any compensation. The rights of the Crown were affected, but the Crown was represented in that House by her Majesty's Ministers; fand the mere fact that the consent of the Crown was necessarily given before the bill could be proceeded in proved his point, namely, that all patrons and others, whose interests were affected by the bill, should have been consulted upon the matter. The Bishop of London said, that if they waited till the consent of all the patrons was obtained, they might wait until the Greek kalends. He admitted that the patrons, by the law and constitution, had a vested right, but it so far differed from the property of other individuals, that it was in the nature of a trust. The bill did not touch the tithes; it merely took from the incumbent payment for duties which could not now be effectually performed; and it was no innovation, for their Lordships had already passed enactments affecting the vested rights of patrons and incumbents without making provision for compensation. Measures of this kind had been passed when the exigencies of the Church were not so great as now, and he hoped, that the objections of the noble and learned Lord would not be permitted to defeat this bill, which was one of the most important that had been introduced within his memory. The bill would, in fact, carry out the very principle upon which parishes were endowed in remote ages, when the population of those parishes did not exceed, perhaps, 500, and had now increased to 100,000 or 200,000. With regard to the alternate presentation by the Bishop and the Crown, the reason of that provision was simply that the Bishop and the Crown provided the endowments. He, in his own diocese of St. Paul's, had given up presentations to the amount of 12,000l. a-year present value, but which, under the improved system, would be worth 30,000l. or 40,000l. a-year, and which he might have bestowed upon those he desired to favour, and was it to be said, that he, as Bishop of London, was to give up that amount of property, and yet not have the patronage of the new churches in his diocese? With regard to the effect produced by the bill upon the statute of mortmain, the prin ciple of the alteration was substantially contained in the bill as sent up from the House of Commons, and the amendments in committee had been merely made for the sake of perspicuity and clearness. When the Mortmain Act passed, the state of society in this country was very different from that now existing, and every year the Legislature was called upon to pass bills excepting particular institutions from the operation of the statute, as in the case of St. George's Hospital, for which an act had been passed to enable a gentleman to leave it property to the amount of 20,000/. a-year. He did not mean to say, that they should on this ground pass a general measure of this kind in favour of the Church; but the bill would afford the greatest security against abuse, by providing that no endowment should take effect which had not been previously approved of by the ecclesiastical commissioners, and by her Majesty in council. The bill would only extend to the ecclesiastical commissioners of England and Wales the powers which had been possessed for a century by the governors of Queen Anne's bounty, who may receive tithes, money, estates, or hereditaments, to any amount, for the augmentation of small livings; and by the 43rd Geo. 3rd, the Mortmain Act was not to apply to the governors of Queen Anne's bounty. The possession of these powers had been, there was not a shadow of doubt, most beneficial to the Church and the country. He could not think that any danger of abuse need be apprehended from granting the powers proposed to be given by the bill to the commissioners: but if they should do anything contrary to the law, there was the still further security of the assent of her Majesty in Council, who would be guided by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether it was advisable to give effect to the endowment or not. For these reasons he trusted their Lordships would not refuse their sanction to this bill, or materially alter its provisions, which would be most beneficial to the Church of England, and a source of spiritual and moral improvement to those populous districts which were now a shame and a disgrace to the country. Lord Campbell said, there was one clause of the bill, the eleventh, to which, as it now stood, he must offer his most strenuous opposition, as interfering dangerously with the law of mortmain. The |