'M^W'. ... ^*mi)k' mm ^j^m .^r ;^V*'^'> yn; vj- \W»w^l /wvwv CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A COLLECTION MADE BY BENNO LOEWY 1854-1919 AND BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY Cornell University Library BX5550 .013 1868 Case of the Established Church of Irelan olin 3 1924 029 455 825 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029455825 THE CASE THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IRELAND. JAMBS THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. BISHOP OF OSSOBT, FEEWS, ASH LBIGHLIN. THIRD EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX. Mtbingtonsf, WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON; HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, DUBLIN. 1868. ADVERTISEMENT TO THIRD EDITION. Since this pamphlet first appeared in July last, the ques- tion which it treats has advanced very much faster and farther than either the friends or the enemies of the Church in Ireland then anticipated. And many of its friends will, I am sure, be of opinion that, if it be not now useless to discuss the question further in any way, it, at least, cannot be of any use to put forward again any thing that was written upon it at any of its earlier stages. I should probably be of the same mind, if there were to be no change in the tribunal by which the case is to be finally tried. But in the next Parliament, for which, as it seems, the final decision of the question is to be reserved, the House of Commons is to be chosen by new and wholly untried con- stituencies, and may be expected to be a very difierent body from that in which the question has been so suddenly and so violently pressed on ; and in which there has been through- out an exhibition of such determined hostility to the Church in Ireland, as it would be hopeless to endeavour to abate, either by facts or arguments. In what respects the new House will difier from its pre- decessor, and how far, in particular, it is likely to take a A 2 IV ADVERTISEMENT TO THIKD EDITION. different view of the Irish Church question, it would be presumptuous to attempt to settle. At least, I have no means of judging, which would make it any thing short of great presumption in me to attempt to settle it. But however uncertain that must remain for a time, there seems to be no room for uncertainty as to the present duty of the friends of the Church. An appeal is to be made on her behalf from the Reformed House of Commons to the same august Assembly re-reformed. And, as in the case of the old appellant from Philip "in a state of vinous exhilaration," — to borrow a delicate euphemism from Miss Seward, — it is of infinite importance to the Church that, at the re-hearing of her case, her Judge should be really sober. And to secure this g^eat object, — to secure that the new House of Commons shall come to the consideration of the question with better information and less violent prejudice than the present House has brought to it, — the friends of the Church ought to do all that in them lies to supply, for the use of the constituencies by which the next House is to be chosen, distinct statements of the facts of the case, and detailed corrections of the gross misrepre- sentations of it which have been perseveringly circulated. This pamphlet was originally intended to do both these oflBces for the present Parliament, and for the English public gene- rally. Besides publishing again the true state of the Church with regard io work and remuneration, which has often before been given to the public, it contains examples of the extra- vagant mis-statements of both, by which the public mind in England has been so widely misled and so violently prejudiced. It is distinctly asserted at the outset, that, of all the subjects that have engaged public attention in these countries during the present century, the Established Church in Ireland is the one ADVERTISEMENT TO THIRD EDITION. T with regard to which the grossest and most extravagant mis- representations have been circulated and believed. And I cannot but think, upon full reconsideration, that enough has been brought forward in the body of the Pamphlet to justify this strong assertion. I fear that what I have written has produced but little effect upon those for whom it was originally intended, but I have some hope that the new constituencies, though not less ignorant perhaps than the old, may be less determinedly prejudiced, and may therefore be more open to the facts and arguments which are to be found in the following pages. In this hope, I issue another edition of the pamphlet ; and have added an Appendix, in which some of the points are treated in Notes more fully than they could have been, easily or properly, in the text. May, 1868. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Preface ..... . . xi Two questions involved in the Irish Church Question . 1 Reason for reversing the natural order in considering them . ib. First question : Is the actual Establishment on so ex- cessive a scale, that it ought to be considerably reduced ? ib. Misrepresentations which have led to a false impression on this question 2 1 . Rapacity and rigour of the Clergy in collecting Tithes 2, 3 Proved unfounded by Parliamentary Inquiry . . 4 2. Exaggerated Statements of the Wealth of the Church 5 First put forward in Parliament by Mr. Hume . . ih. Bemarks on Mr. Hume's Errors continued in note A, Appendix ........ (1) Corrected authoritatively by Lord Althorp ... 6 Subsequent reduction of Church Incomes . . . ib. ■ 3. Reduced Income alleged to be too great for the work 7 Verbal Mis-statements on this subject, Lord Macaulay . ib. False Numerical Statements still more misleading , 8 Examples of both kinds from Mr. Bernal Osborne (Hansard) 9 — 17 His Mis-statements sustained by the " Times," in gross and in detail ........ 17, 18 Further Examples of the Misrepresentations in the "Times" in note C,- Appendix . . . . (11) Mis-statements circulated by Earl Russell . . . 18 — 21 Aggravation of the offence . . . . . .21,22 All the calumnies against the Church, though corrected, reiterated . • . . . • . . . . 22, 23 Vlll CONTENTS. PAGE Ti'ue State of the Case frequently published but con- tinually ignored ....... 23 Restated once more ....... 23, 24 Objection : Comparison with the Church in England shows that Parochial Staff might be reduced one-half 25, 26 Important difference between cases, overlooked in the Objection ........ 26 Remarkable instance in illustration of the difference . 26, 27 Greater Church population in English parishes compen- sated for by greater parochial area in Ireland . . 29 Illustration in foot-note ..... ib. 30 31, seqq. Second question : Ought the Establishment to be main tained in any form or on any scale ? General Objections in the Times to its maintenance apart from all abuses in detail ..... Objection 1 : Irish landowners forced to pay largely to maintain a Clergy whose Services they cannot use, and whose Churches they never enter . . . 31 False as matter of fact ...... ib. Mistaken in principle as to the nature of Tithe Rent- charge 31, 32 Further explanation of this point in note H, Appendix (56) Objection 2 : Church revenues kept up since 1834, while Church population is much diminished . . 32 Answered from leading Article of the day before, stating that the revenues diminished at a greater rate than the population ••..... 33 Objection 3 : Established Church, last relic of Pro- testant ascendancy, and the only tangible grievance that can palliate political discontent in Ireland ... ib No justification, even if true, for setting aside prescrip- tion of 300 years, confirmed by legislation during that time, and finally by the Act of Union ... 34 Testimonies to the evil consequences of violation of the Church's rights. SiE Robert Peel. Foot note ••..... Mr. Gladstone. Foot-note • . . , Roman Catholic testimony, that the Established Church is not the only or the chief i-elic of an oppressive Ascendancy . ^^q 35 37 CONTENTS. IX PAGE 1 . Fenians give it no place amongst the grievances of the country ......... 40 2. Remarkable declaration of the Priests of Meath that the state of the law upon land is a far weightier grievance ........ 41, 42 3. Declaration of TA« Tablet that the real grievance is the wealth and station of the Protestants in the country . 44 Another relic of ascendancy in the law determining the succession to the throne ...... 46, 47 Objection : The fact that the Church Establishment is for the Minority decisive against its maintenance answered ........ 47, 48 1. It is not the Church of this Minority while the Union subsists ........ 48 Testimony of Sir James Graham. Foot-note . ih. Objection : Act of Union may be repealed like any other Act . ib. Distinction limiting the right of Parliament to deal with it, though not taking away its power ... 49 Distinction applies specially to the Church and its rights ib. Testimony of Sir James Graham. Foot-note . ib. Earl Grey's Argument to prove that the compact of the Union is not binding ...... 58 Argument leads legitimately to repudiation of National Debt 51, 52 2. Even if the Reformed Church were the Church of the Minority, State bound to establish it, as the Church which holds the largest portion of truth with the smallest admixture of error ..... 54 Testimony of Mr. Gladstone — Speech on Appropriation Clause, Essay on Relation of Church and State . ib. Macaulay's Review of that work does not invalidate its leading position ....... 55 Case of Church in Ireland offers, according to Mr. Glad- stone, a legitimate application of the true principle of a Church Establishment 55, 56 Plea against a reference to his opinions, as formed when he was a boy, and changed since he became a man . 56 Answered 56 — 59 Specimen of his reasoning in support of his altered views 59 — 62 X CONTENTS. APPENDIX. PAGE Note A, p. 6. — Further Remarhs upon Mr. Hume's plan of Church Reform . . . . • ( 1 ) — ( 9) Note B, p. 10. — A Charge of Misrepresentation answered ........ (9) — (11) Note C, p. 17. — Further Examples of the Misrepre- sentations in the " Times" ..... (11) — (28) Note D, p. 23. — Unions of Parishes in Ireland . (28) — (39) Note E, p. 24. — On the Abuses in the Church in Ire- land arising from Anomalies in the distribution of its Revenues ... .... (39) — (47) Note F, p. 29. — On Parish worh in Ireland (in con- tinuation of foot-note, p. 29) .... (47) — (51) Note G-, p. 30. — On the Bishops' Incomes . . (52) — (56) Note H, p. 32. — Explanation of the Statement about Tithe Rent-charge (56) — (58) PREFACE. A GKEAT deal of the matter of this pamphlet was collected to be used in the debate on Lord Russell's motion on the 24th of June. But having been, from various causes, unable to bring out on the occasion more than a small part of what I had prepared, and that part having been made still smaller in the newspaper reports of what I said, I have thought it advisable to put it into its present shape, and to publish it as a contribution to the defence of the Established Church in Ireland. Since it was in the printer's hands, Lord Russell has pub- lished a corrected report of his speech in support of his motion. I have read it carefully, having heard the speech but very imperfectly, and I cannot find any thing of im- portance in it which is not answered, directly or indirectly, — and, I think, answered satisfactorily — in the following But, in a Preface which he has prefixed to the report, he makes a point, which, though not new, seems to deserve some notice, from its great importance, and from the con- fidence with which it is put forward. If I had met it without a name, I should have thought it too transparent a fallacy to require a serious answer : but as it has evidently misled the noble author, it seems necessary to say something to protect his readers from being in like manner led astray by it. The point occurs in an answer to a statement of Lord Xll PKEFACE. Derby's, whom he quotes as asserting that the Church Eda- blished in Ireland has as much right to its property as the Duke of Bedford has to Covent Garden and Woburn Abbey. Lord Russell's answer to this is : — " If this objection is meant to place the right of the present Archbishop of Dublin, during his life, and that of the present Duke of Bedford, during his life, to property formerly held by the Roman Catholic Church, on the same footing, I fully admit that right. But who are their heirs ? The heir of the Duke of Bedford is known to the law, and will succeed as a matter of course. The heir of the Bishops and Clergy of the Church Established in Ireland is the State. If the State chooses to dispose of the property in a manner different from its pre- sent appropriation, it has a full right to do so." Now, the first remark that I have to make upon this is, that the heir of the Duke of Bedford only succeeds as a matter of course, if the present settlement of property is main- tained. And that if it be maintained, the appointment to the See of Dublin will take place equally as a matter of course, and the person appointed as the Archbishop's successor will possess the rights and income now enjoyed by him no less certainly and no less as a matter of course, than the Duke of Bedford's heir will possess Covent Garden and Woburn. But that, on the other hand, if the settlement of property be dis- turbed, so that the Archbishop of DubKn's successor does not enjoy the rights which he himself enjoys, it will not be very long n matter of course that the Duke of Bedford's heir, or at least his successors, shall enjoy Woburn and Covent Gar- den, even if property held by a different title continue to pass to them. But this point is really of minor importance, for the whole argument about heirs seems to be founded upon a mistake as to the meaning of Lord Derby's statement. His comparison was between the rights of the Duke of Bedford, and the rights of the Church,— not of the Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy, but of the whole Church in Ireland. PEKFACJi. Xm This makes a most important difference. I grant, that if the Ecclesiastical persons alone were concerned, it might be very reasonable to say, — These men have no right or title to the incomes which they enjoy beyond their own lives ; and provided the same amount is secured to them for that time, they suffer no injury or injustice, if a different appropriation of their incomes is made, when they are taken away. But this is putting out of sight the important fact that they are not the Church, but a part, and a small part of it ; and that their incomes are not given to them for their own benefit and enjoyment, but to secure their services for the larger part of the Church ; and that after they are taken away, the Church still exists with the same wants and the same rights as before. Their benefit is not the end of the Establishment of the Church, but only means to secure the end, which is the benefit, and especially the spiritual benefit of the laity. The Church is endowed, and the Clergy are paid out of its endowments, to secure to the laity, old and young, the blessings of a stated ministry, celebrating the public services according to the pure ritual, and giving instruction, exhortation, and warning according to the sound doctrine, of the Reformation. It is to secure this end that the Church is endowed and established ; and if any portion of its income were diverted from its proper objects, the injury would be inflicted upon the Church at large. So that it is a mere evasion of the real question, to plead, as is so con- stantly done, that no injury would be done to any one by taking away, in the manner proposed, the Church revenues in whole or in part, for that no one would have any claim upon what was taken away. ' Every parish clergyman, for example, would be left in the undisturbed possession of his income up to the day of his death. This is all that he has any claim to. Neither he nor any individual representing him can allege that he is wronged because his income is turned to other purposes afterwards, — whether to give edu- cation to all without religious distinction, or to lower th« XIV PREFACE. poor-rate, or to lighten the national debt, or to pay Roman Catholic priests. Who is injured by this new disposition of the Clergyman's income ? From whom that possessed it, is it taken ? From whom that had a right to it, is it withheld ?' These confident questions are easily answered. It is to be admitted that no individual was in possession of this income, and that no individual had a right to possess it. But many individuals — all the parishioners, in fact, in the particular case — had a right to the benefits which it before secured to them, and which it was appropriated to secure to them and to their children. It is to them, and not to any individual clergyman, that the wrong is done. And this applies to the whole Church. It is on the part of all its members, and not on that of the Bishops and Clergy, that the attempt to despoil the Church in Ireland is resisted, as a violation of the rights of hundreds of thousands — rights which the State is bound to preserve to them, not only by every principle of justice, but by the most solemn engagements. And I may ask, is there any vested 'right in the Empire which is clearer, or to the maintenance of which the State is more distinctly and solemnly pledged, than the right of every member of the Church in Ireland to the enjoyment of all the spiritual benefits which he has hitherto derived from the Established Church, and the right to them, not only for his own life, but for his children and their descendants' ? And no more than this is needed to expose the delusion which lurks under the fair profession of respecting vested rights. Every scheme for despoiling the Church, either in ' It may be thought that this is tantamount to maintaining that whatever be the reasons for changing such an appropriation of funds, it can never be changed, as the vested interests pleaded for can only be preserved by leaving things as they are. But this is not what is meant. What is pleaded for, is not that these vested interests shall never be set aside, but that they shall not be left out of account in considering the question, — that it is not to be settled on the supposition that the only vested interests to be con- sidered are those of the Bishops and Clergy. PKEFACE. whole or in part, is ushered in by an ostentatious profession, that under all changes vested rights are to be preserved in- violate. But it always turns out that nothing more is meant by mated rights than the rights of the existing Bishops and Clergy to their respective incomes for the remainder of their lives; and that the rights of the laity to the services of Bishops and Clergy — these vested rights of the laity, not only of the present generation, but of their successors through all generations to come — these far more important rights, are not to be respected, but violated : and that, in fact, the vested rights of the Bishops and Clergy are to be preserved, as a bribe to them to acquiesce in the violation of the vested rights of the laity ! I trust that the Bishops and Clergy will never be found base enough to aid even passively in committing such a wrong; and I trust that if they were, the laity are not weak enough to allow themselves to be so wronged. If we were ready, for a mess of pottage for ourselves, to barter the birthright of our people, I trust that they would set us aside and assert their own rights. And I trust, moreover, that in the mass of the people in England there is still enough of a sense of justice and of the fear of God, — and enough too of value for the great blessings which they themselves enjoy in the E,eformed Church of the land, — to secure their effectual aid in preserving the same blessings and privileges to their fellow- Churchmen in Ireland. The state of opinion and, even more, the state of feeling, with reference to the Reforma- tion, which one too often comes upon in England startles and alarms every one who still thinks and feels as he ought with reference to that great event. And at times one is tempted to fear that England is more likely to surrender for herself the blessings and the privileges which it brought to her, than to aid in preserving them for Jreland. But such cases, which are but too frequent among the higher classes, and even among the Clergy, are rare as we go down in society. I believe that the heart of the country is still, sound, XVI PREFACE. and that the mass of the people have a just horror and dread of all from which that great work delivered the nation, and a just value for all that it restored to the Church. And it is to their strong attachment to the principles of the Reformation, and to their right appreciation of its results, that I look chiefly among human moans for the maintenance of the Reformed Church both in England and in Ireland. Plerumqiie Clerus erravit ; Sacerdos mutavit sententiam ; Divi- fes cum scBcuK istius terreno rege senserunt ; Populus fidem propriam reservavit. — S. Amb. Expos, in Ps. cxviii., Ser. 17, §17. I have no misgivings as to the sufficiency of the defence which I have offered for the Established Church in Ireland, but I am well aware that it falls very far short of doing full justice to the case. It probably is chargeable with defects which I do not see : but I am sure that I see in it a great many. I have, indeed, advisedly added to them, by omitting what I was prepared to say upon not a few important points, to avoid inconveniently increasing the size of the pamphlet or delaying its publication. And for the same reason I have omitted for the present all the Notes I intended to have added in an Appendix. I am quite sure that the friends of the Church wiU pass a very lenient judgment upon the nianifold imperfections and defects which they cannot but see in what I have said in its defence. But I fear that they will think — that many of them at least will think — that I should have done more wisely for the Church, if I had made it more an object to conciliate its enemies. I do not think so. I do not think that the motives by which the assailants of the Church are animated leave them accessible to the influence of soft words. If I did— if I thought that the interests of the Church required that its enemies should be addressed with hated hreath and whisper- PKEFACE. XVll ing humbleness, — though I could not do this good office for it myself, yet I should have been very careful to avoid every thing that was calculated to" deter those who could, from imdertaking it, or calculated to throw any hindrance in the way of its being done effectively by them. But, as I said, I do not think it would avail. When Hector sees his terrible foe approaching, he thinks for a moment of propitiating rather than resisting him : but the thought is but for a moment, and he dismisses it in touching words, which no one that has read them is ever likely to forget : Ov /Aev ■JTMS vvv icrrlv aTro Spuos ovS' otto ircrpijs TttI oapi^e/x£j'at, arc Trap^ei/os ■^tOeo's tc, irapOei'O's ^ifleds r, 6apit,erov aXXt^Xouv. — X. 126 — 129. And so I believe it is with us. ' The time for such amenities is past, and the friends of the Church must not think of soothing its enemies, but of resisting them as best they can : ^iKrepov avr epiSi ^vv6\avve/j,ev. And however formidable the prospect of the struggle is, I cannot look to it with the same despondency with which many of the friends of the Church regard it. I am . not ignorant of the strength and the determination of its enemies, and of the comparative weakness of its friends. But I feel that its fate depends neither upon its friends nor its enemies, but upon Him who is above all, and who will do what seemeth Him good. And in His hands we may be well content to leave the issue, 1867. THE CASE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHUECH m lEELAND. In what is commonly called The Irish Cliurch Question, there are two distinct, though connected, questions involved. The first is : Ought any branch of the Eeformed Catholic Church to be established in that country? And the second,— sup- posing the first to be answered in the affirmative — Is the actual establishment on so much too large a scale that it may and ought to be considerably reduced ? Both these questions have been actually raised. And it would appear that they ought' to be considered in the order in which they have been now stated. For until we have decided that an institution ought to be maintained, it seems to be premature to attempt to settle any of the details con- nected with it. This is no doubt true in the abstract. But in the par- ticular case with which we have to do, th^re are good reasons, I think, for taking the questions in a different order. For the prejudice which a long course of calumny, chiefly connected with the second question, has raised against the Church in Ireland is so wide-spread and so violent, that until something is done to remove it, it would be hopeless to expect anything like a fair consideration of the first question. Those who have been persuaded to look at the Church as a mass of flagrant abuses in detail, will hardly consider fairly the question, whether it ought to be maintained or not. I shall begin, therefore, by endeavouring to expose some of the grossest of the misrepresentations by which this common impression has been produced. And I will venture to say distinctly at the outset, that of all the subjects which have engaged public attention in these countries during the present century — I believe I might take a far wider range both in place and time — the Esta- B 2 2 THE CASE OF THE blished Church in Ireland is the one with regard to which the grossest and the most extravagant misrepresentations have been circulated and believed. With many, this will, no doubt, pass for common-place exaggeration : but I trust that the following pages will satisfy all who take the trouble of reading them that, strong as the statement is, it is simply and literally true. Ifec meus hie sermo est. "What I have said is in substance, and almost in words, the testimony borne more than thirty years ago by the Ministerial leader in the House of Com- mons, a member of a Government certainly not friendly to the Church, and himself never charged with undue partiality towards it. I shall have occasion to return to this remark- able declaration. But the exaggerations to which it referred had special reference to the revenues of the Irish Church, and before I say any thing of that class of misrepresentations, I must say a word upon an earlier class, affecting the Church in a more important point, and under which it suffered long and severely. For several generations, not England only, but all Europe, rang from side to side with the outcries which the rigorous enforcement of the legal rights of the Irish Clergy extorted from sufferers and sympathizers in our unhappy country. Not only in the harangues of mob orators at home, but in the more deliberate misrepresentations which were intended for a higher class in other lands, the exactions of — " The covetous parson, for his tithes distraining," always held the foremost place among the agencies to which the wretchedness of the Irish peasantry was traced. We shall see how conclusively it was proved that the clergyman was really the least exacting of the Irish peasant's creditors, and that the tithe was really the lightest of all the burdens that he had to bear. But this authoritative vindication came late. And meanwhile calumny, though often refuted by the friends of the Church, was doing its work: and, occasionally, it was unhappily aided by circumstances. From time to time — it could hardly be otherwise — some instance of real severity would occur in the collection of Tithes, and this not only afforded a new text to the enemies of the Church, but they were able to point to it as a specimen ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IKEI.AND. 6 — a very mild specimen of course — of the way in whicli the rights of the Irish Clergy were enforced. That this, as re- garded the general conduct of the clergy, was a gross calumny, was well known by all persons of moderate intelli- gence in Ireland, and by none better than by those who put it forward most vehemently and perseveringly. But they did not intend it" for the intelligent, but for a very different class, in their own country. And in England, and still more upon the Continent, they counted with just confidence upon the utter ignorance of the state of Ireland which prevailed, even among those who, from their position and education, might have been naturally supposed to have some information upon it. It was not surprising that their unceasing exertions should have been attended with considerable success, both at home and abroad. Those whom they addressed at home were really suffering, and they were very ignorant and very ex- citable ; and when agitators, lay and clerical, who had long done their utmost to make the Church an object of hatred to them, both upon religious and political grounds, pointed to it as the main cause of their misery, it is not surprising that they should have been violently inflamed against it. Such mis- direction of popular feeling, I suppose, might sometimes find a parallel even in a country of more sober temperament and more happily circumstanced. It would not, I believe, have been always impossible to raise a mob in Kent, to wreck Tenterden Church, if the Goodwin Sands were increasing- more rapidly than usual. But the difference of the two cases is, that I do not suppose that many of any class above such a mob would regard this proceediag as evidence that the steeple was really the cause of this increase of the Sands. But there can be no doubt that, in the case of the Irish Church, the exasperation of the people against it was received by very many in England as a strong confirmation of the justice of the charge against it, as the prime cause of the misery of the country. But, however that may be, it was at last shown that, what- ever had given rise to it, the impression was utterly ground- less. And by one of those compensatory processes which one so often sees in the providential government of the world, the outrageous violence of the calumnies under which THE CASE OF THE tlie clergy had so long suffered was one of the chief means of bringing about their vindication. For though the exas- peration of the people against the Church was artificial in its origin, it was real in its nature, and terribly real in its effects. And the atrocities to which it led made successive Govern- ments, however they differed on other points, equally anxious in the cause of peace and order, and of common humanity, to bring such outrages to an end. At length a compulsory composition for tithes was adopted, by which a fixed acreable charge on the land was substituted for a charge which varied yearly with the character of the season and other circum- stances. It was a very important measure ; but my only con- cern with it here is, that in the process to which it led, the actual receipts of the clergy for seven years were ascertained and put on record. And it was proved before a Select Com- mittee of the House of Commons in 1832, by the highest au- thority in Ireland, Mr. (now Sir R.) Griffith, that the whole amount of the Tithe Composition was less than one- sixtieth of the produce of the land — that is to say, less than one-sixth of the amount to which the clergy had a clear, imimpeachable legal right ! So that it was proved indisputably, and is now imperishably recorded, that the Irish Clergy, who had been held up to popular indignation throughout England and upon the Continent as monsters of rapacity and rigour, had really exercised the rights of property with a degree of lenity and forbearance not merely unequalled but unapproached by any other class of proprietors in the realm ! When the real state of the case was thus established by Parliamentary inquiry, and published, it furnished a ready and decisive answer to any attempt to trace the miseries of the Irish peasantry to the exactions of the clergy. Whether those who before had never ceased to reiterate such charges in the most violent form, however satisfactorily they were refuted, would not have returned to them notwithstanding, cannot be known, for the Composition for Tithe was soon after converted into a Eent-charge upon the land, payable, not by the tenant, but by the landlord. Thenceforward the occupants of the land had only to deal with the proprietors from whom they re- ceived the land, with a right to its entire produce, for which, even the most ignorant of them would understand that they would have to pay the same, whether the Established Church ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. were in existence or not. ^ And when they ceased to have any- direct dealing with the clergyman, the means of inflaming their minds against him were in good measure taken away. Thenceforth the popular charge against the Church was not the rapacity, and rigour, and cruelty of the clergy, but their enormous wealth. And upon this subject its enemies went on publicly reiterating, without fear or shame, such extravagant exaggerations as no moderately prudent man would venture to put forward upon any other subject in which the public took the slightest interest. Out of doors, the Church had been long fearlessly pro- claimed, as indeed it is still from time to time, to be i/ie richest Church on the face of the earth ! And though most sober-minded hearers would feel that such heated statements ought to be received with considerable deduc- tions, they still produced a very undue effect. For no one who was accustomed himself to keep any measures with truth, could be prepared for the extent of the deductions which were required to bring the exorbitant exaggera- tions in which our popular orators systematically indulged on this theme to any approximation to the actual state of the case. In Parliament, the same course of exaggeration began, I believe, in the year 1823, when the well-known economical reformer, Joseph Hume, undertook to prove rigorously the enormous wealth of the Church in Ireland, with the view of inducing Parliament to bring it within more reasonable limits. His demonstration was verj' simple and esisy. The Church revenues he set down at 3,200,000/. per annum. Andthe.proof of the correctness of this estimate consisted of two items only. The revenues of which he took account consisted of See Estates and Tithes. The former he valued at 2,500,000/. per annum ; the latter at 700,000/. The sum which he set down for the Tithes exceeded the actual amount derived from that source of Church revenue by little more than 200,000/. per annum. And if he had confined his exaggerations within such limits, it might have been doubted whether he was quite qualified to carry on the warfare against the Church on the time-honoured plan. But the other item was quite enough to remove all doubts on that head. For the value which he assigned to the Bishops' lands was more than twenty 6 THE CASE OF THE times the amount that the Bishops had ever derived from them ! [Note A, Appendix.] The work which was so boldly begun, was carried on so con- sistently for the following ten years, as to draw from Lord Al- thorpthe remarkable testimony to whichlreferred at the outset. In preparing a measure for regulating the Church m Ireland, he had been led for the first time to inquire carefully into the statistics of the Church. And though he ended in believing that the revenues of the Church were too large, and accordingly brought in a Bill which had the effect of re- ducing them considerably, he confessed that, urdil he had looked narrowly into the subject, he had himself greatly exaggerated the amount of the revenues of the Irish Church Establishment : while as to the current representations of its wealth, he says, " I can say conscientiously, that a greater exaggeration has prevailed on this subject than has prevailed on any political topic which I recollect." And in the progress of his speech, before he states his plan, he gives the corrected estimate of the revenues of the Church, which his own inquiries had enabled him to make, and adds — " I have to go into these details before entering upon the consideration of the measures which I am about to propose, and to press these facts upon the consideration of the House at this time, in consequence of the grossness and the general belief of these exaggera- tions, in order that gentlemen may not come to the dis- cussion of so important a subject without knowing what the true calculations are with respect to these points." This testimony from such a quarter was calculated to restrain, in some degree, the extravagant exaggerations of the wealth of the Church in which its enemies were accus- tomed to indulge. And subsequent changes which took place in the Church still further discouraged such mis- representations. The clergyman's right to the tithe was transferred to the proprietor, who, in return, was bound to pay to the clergyman 751. per cent, of the amount, being allowed to retain the remaining 261. per cent, for his trouble and possible loss in the collection. The clergyman's income was thus diminished by one-fourth; and, if it amounted to 300/. per annum it was subject to a tax of 21. 10s. per cent., which gradually rose for higher incomes up to 161. per cent, as the maximum. ■ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IKELAND. 7 These changes were not made without long debates, which made them generally known. And when it was notorious that the income of the Church, which Lord Althorp's state- ment had brought so far below the popular estimate, was still further reduced, as I have described, the charges against the Church were once more changed ; and its enemies have been since generally disposed to rely more upon the relative than the absolute exorbitance of its revenues. The dispro- portion between the work to be done and the remuneration received for doing it is the point upon which the recent assailants of the Church have enlarged most, and which they have most perseveringly reiterated, as sufficient of itself utterly to condemn the Church. It is sometimes candidly admitted that the income of the clergy is not very great ; but, on the other hand, it is said that it ought to be remembered that they have nothing to do, and that any payment for doing nothing is excessive. It seems generally to be felt, however, that it is hardly wise to rely on this extreme way of stating the case, and the more common mode of arraigning the Church is, not by asserting that the Bishops and clergy are paid for doing nothing, but that they are paid exorbitantly for doing very little. "Is there," the late Lord Macaulay (1845) says, " a set of Bishops and clergy upon the face of the earth, who receive so much for doing so little ?" and dissatisfied with the exaggeration embodied in this question, he subjoins in a still finer phrensy, " Is there upon the face of the earth a set of Bishops and clergy who receive half as much for doing twice as much ?" How this confident question ought to be answered will, I hope, appear before we go much further. But, meanwhile, I may say, that I do not think that it is of these rhetorical exaggerations that the Church has most to complain. No one receives them as literally true, and though the abate- ment which is made for their extravagance is, as I said, generally far short of what it ought to be, yet some abate- ment is always made, and some uncertainty is generally felt about the exactness of the remainder. The Church is mueh more seriously aggrieved by the falsification of statistical returns, by means of which such general exaggera- tions are sustained. For a misrepresentation, when it takes O THE CASE OF THE a numerical form, is much more likely to pass unquestioned than when it is conveyed in words. When a speaker is inveighing vehemently against an abuse, one easily under- stands that he is liable to be betrayed into some exaggera- tion : but when he takes to arithmetic, and states specific numbers, it does not occur to most readers or hearers to doubt his accuracy. Every one knows that strong general statements, made under the influence of strong feelings, often greatly misrepresent the true state of the case, without any design or consciousness of deceiving. But numerical mis-statements cannot be made in the same unconsciousness, and therefore are not counted upon and allowed for in the same way. And this specially applies to such mis-statements with reference to the Chiirch in Ireland. For successive inquiries have ascertained and recorded the statistics of our branch of the Church so fully and exactly, that there is scarcely any detail connected with it, which may not be made out with perfect accuracy, by any one who cares enough about the truth of his statements, to take a very moderate amount of trouble to secure it. Under such circumstances, hearers and readers are seldom disposed to revise numbers which are brought forward to sustain general statements. It is not only that, if the numbers be not correct, the writer or speaker must be aware of their inaccuracy, but that the truth is so accessible to every one else, that, setting principle apart, it would be generally presumed that, as a mere matter of prudence, a man would take care not to make mis-statements which were so easily detected and exposed, and for which the excuse of excitement or haste could hardly be alleged, and would not be admitted, if it were. In this way numerical mis-statements are much more likely to escape detection than verbal ones. But they are still liable to be detected. And that being the case, the fear- lessness with which they have been employed by the enemies of the Irish Church — to an extent absolutely imparalleled so far as I know, in the history of controversy — seems very wonderful. In other cases even the most unscrupulous exaggerators confine themselves to general assertions, and eschew details. But one of the distinguishing features of the warfare against the Church in Ireland is, that its assailants ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 9 never seem to feel that they have any need to exercise such caution. They are just as bold and confident in details as in generals. However wide of the truth their general charges against the Church may be, they never seem to hesitate to sustain them by a bill of particulars. Nothing but examples can convey any thing like an adequate conception of the extent of the misrepresentation which has been ventured upon in both ways. I must, therefore, give some examples, to confirm and illustrate what I have stated. I shall only give statements which are to be found recorded in Hansard, and of which it is therefore certain, that they have been actually put forward in Parlia- ment, to make a case against the Irish Church. The general mode of carrying on the attack is by exhibit- ing, in different connexions, the contrast between the numbers of the Church in Ireland and those of the Church in England. Now that the facts of the case supply materials for such a contrast to the disadvantage of the Church in Ireland, no candid supporter of that Church will deny. And if its assailants were content with presenting the actual numbers on both sides, or any thing like them, and leaving the contrast to speak for itself, no one could say that we were unfairly treated. Even if it were pressed to the utter- most against us, we could not complain. But it is heightened and aggravated by exaggerations and extenuations, so gross and extravagant, that if the proof that they have been actually ventured upon were not easily accessible to every one in the community, I should not venture to state them publicly, because I could not expect to be believed. To listen to the invectives against the Church in Ireland as a monstrous, unparalleled, unapproached abuse, which no reasonable man can defend, you would suppose that its enemies would rely on the case as it actually is, and that they would feel quite sure that upon a fair exhibition of it every right-minded friend would fall from its side. This, however, is not their mode of carrying on the warfare. Small as the Church population in the dioceses and parishes in Ireland is— and all its friends confess with regret that it is small — its enemies do not trust to it as it is. They reduce it still lower to fit it for their purposes. They divide the actual numbers in particular cases by two, by four, by 10 THE CASE OF THE five, by ten, by twelve, and even by twenty, before they venture to use them! And the really large numbers in England are treated in the same way. I do not mean that they are multiplied to such an enormous amount, but that they are multiplied so as to make them very much greater than the truth; not from any desire, as will easily be believed, to strengthen the case of the Church in England, but to heighten the contrast between it and the case of the Church in Ireland, and so to weaken the latter. It is absolutely necessary to give some instances in support of this statement. But I should hope that, startling as it is, a very few will be enough to prove that it is literally true. "We may begin with the contrast between the Church population of English and Irish parishes, though in the speech from which I am about to quote, the contrast between the dioceses in the two countries occurs first. It is easy to ascertain exactly the population of an Irish benefice. For by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Return to the House of Comoions, there are in Ireland 1510 benefices, and by the Report of the Census Commissioners it appears that in 1861 there were 693,000 members of the Church in Ireland. The average population of an English parish cannot be ascertained with the same exactness, for the statistics of the Church in England are not recorded in the same way. But it does not require any precise knowledge on that head, to enable us to form a tolerably just esti- mate of the fairness of the following statement upon this subject, which is to be found in Hansard (3rd Series, Vol. clxxi.), in a celebrated speech made by Mr. Bernal Osborne upon the Irish Church, in 1863: — "In England there is one clergyman to every 2612 people, whereas in Ireland there is one to every 325." This would give 490,750 as the whole Church population of Ireland, while it would give to England — supposing the number of parishes to be only 10,620 -above twenti/sevcn millions and a half! This reduces the Church population of Ireland by 202,250, —nearly one-third of the entire. [Note B, Appendix.] How much it adds to the Church population of England, I cannot say with any exactness. I am sure that I would not willingly diminish the true amount by a single unit, even for the object ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 11 of softening the contrast which its large numbers present to our small ones. I can say, and every well-wisher of the country wiU echo the prayer, " Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold ! " But no friend of the Church in England can think that a grossly ex- aggerated statement of its numbers canreally add to its strength, and more especially when the exaggeration is put forward, as I said, not to do credit or give strength to the Church in Eng- land, but to discredit and weaken the Church in Ireland. And that this was the speaker's true motive for ascribing to the English branch of the Church a number far beyond, — more than double, — the highest number ever claimed for it by its most ardent supporters, will hardly, I think, be doubted. But the statements with respect to the dioceses in the two countries throw the misrepresentations concerning the parishes entirely into the shade. At the outset of the speech from which I have taken the foregoing statement, a doubt is raised as to whether the gross number of Church inhabitants in Ireland is 670,000, or 690,000. The dispute has been since authoritatively settled, as I said, in favour of the larger number. But we may put the question entirely aside for the present, and, for argu- ment's sake, fix the number at 600,000. It is plain that upon an average, this number would give 50,000 as the average Church population of an Irish diocese. But in the speech to which I refer, it is fixed at 5000 : and, throughout, the number is spoken of again and again as 6000, and the true number is never even once mentioned ! I am aware that the first impression of every one who hears this statement will be that it is a weak thing to notice what must be a mistake of the reporter in taking down the number from the speaker's lips, or a mistake of the printer in reading off the reporter's manuscript. And if there were any good ground to suppose that it might be the result of a mistake in either way, I acknowledge that it would be un- pardonable trifling, to put it forward. But I think it is demonstrable that this extraordinary statement is not to be accounted for in either way— either by supposing, a mistake on the part of the reporter, or on the part of the printer, — and that it admits of no account, except that it appears in print just as it was uttered by the speaker. 12 THE CASE OF THE In the first place, though 50,000 may, perhaps, be mistaken for 5000, by one who sees it written down, no such mistake is likely to be made by one who hears it spoken. For, though the numbers are like each other in appearance, they are not at all like in sound ; and it is hardly credible that in four different places in a speech (the number occurs so many times, at least, in the speech in question) a reporter could have set down 5000, if it were 50,000 that had been uttered. But there is a still more conclusive proof that it was 5000 that was really spoken. For it is said, " A small parish in England with a population of 5000 is looked after by a Rector, and probably a couple of Curates. In Ireland 5000 people make a diocese, with a Bishop receiving about 5000/. per annum." Now as it is impossible to suppose that any one would speak of a small parish in England of 50,000, it cannot be doubted that 5000 was the number actually uttered by the speaker. That is to say, instead of the average actual population of an Irish diocese, he puts forward throughout, less than one-tenth of the true number ! And this figures again and again, as the average Church popu- lation of a diocese in Ireland, for which a Bishop receives from 4000J. to 5000/. a year ' ! ' Thus it is said, " "Why should these Bishops, with only 5000 people in their dioceses, get from 4000Z. to 5000/. per annum ? " Again, to enable the House to judge of the wealth and luxury of the Irish Episcopate, the speaker read an auctioneer's adver- tisement, which appeared in a Dublin paper in 1850, of the effects of one of the body who died, as he said, full of wealth and worldly honours. He attached great importance to this document. He says, indeed, that " such an advertisement impugns the existence of the Irish Church," — whatever that may mean. It certainly showed that the individual had made ample provision for faring sumptuously every day. But it would have been better understood how far the case was likely to be a fair specimen of the general scale of an Episcopal household in Ireland, if it had been known to his hearers as well as it was to the speaker, that the Bishop in question, besides having been long in possession of a wealthier See than now remains to the Church in that country, was the second son of a rich marquis, who had only two sons, and who left him a larger private fortune than is generally possessed by a younger son of a noble house, even in England. — But I only refer to it because the orator winds up his charge against the deceased prelate with the state- ment, " The bishop had under 5000 souls in his diocese." By the ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 13 But it will probably be said, ' Still, if the error cannot be laid upon either reporter or printer, is it not evidently to be ascribed to carelessness or haste in the speaker : or, at least, is it not plain, that it cannot be reasonably ascribed to design ? He must have known that a falsification so gross would probably have been detected upon the spot, and that at all events it must be soon corrected and exposed.' This may be more easily and satisfactorily answered by an appeal to facts than by argument. The speech in question was ably answered at once, and many of its exaggerations were clearly pointed out. But the extravagant diminution of the Church population of an Irish diocese, of which I have been speaking, was not among the mis-statements that were noticed. When the speech appeared in print, it was criticized in various publications severely in detail. But in some way, this extraordinary misrstatement apparently was not detected. And so far as I know and belieVe, the reiterated mis-state- ment, which reduces the average Church population of an Irish diocese to less than one-tenth of its actual amount, was nowhere noticed until I pointed it out to my Clergy, in a Charge delivered in the month of October in the same year, and published early in the following year ^. An eminent authority is often quoted for the maxim, that a mis-statement (I believe he generally used a shorter word) is worth circulating, if it escapes detection even for a day. And here was a specific numerical mis- statement, which seemed to justify a great deal of the most violent general declamation against the Church in Ireland, and which had free course, not for a day, or days, but for months. And how very few are there, of those whom it misled in that time, who will ever Census report, it appears that in 1861 there were in the diocese (Clogher) 65,166 members of the Established Church. And as it was one of the dioceses which had declined most in numbers between 1834 and the date of the last Census, we may be tolerably sure that it contained at least that number in 1850, — the date of this advertisement, — so that whereas, in order to give an addi- tional sting to his story, the speaker deliberately stops to assert that the Bishop of whom it is told had less than 5000 souls in his diocese, the fact is, that he had in his diocese more than thirteen times that numher ! ° And I may add, that up to this present hour, I have not seen or heard of any public notice of the portentous exaggeration of the number of an English diocese, to which I draw attention below. 14 THE CASE OF THE see the exposure of it, or ever know that it has been proved to be a monstrous fabrication ! I have said that the small numbers which the Church population of Ireland supplies are every where contrasted with the large numbers of the Church in England ; and I have acknowledged that this is a natural, and, in its general conception, not an unfair line for the assailants of the Church to take. How fairly the general conception is carried out, my readers are, in part, able to judge from what I have stated : that is, they know that, instead of the average Church population of an Irish diocese, one-tenth of that number is put forward. And it might be supposed that this process would make the contrast tolerably safe for the enemies of the Church, —that the contrast between one- tenth of the true Church population of an Irish diocese, and the true Church population of a English diocese, might be sufficient for their purposes. But they do not trust the case to the effect even of this contrast. Strong as it is, they make it still stronger, before they use it. And having divided the smaller number by ten, to make assurance doubly sure they multiply the larger number, not in so high a ratio, but in one sufficiently high to make the contrast still more effective. It is said, "In England there is one Bishop to 410 parishes, com- prising congregations of 1,500,000. In Ireland there is one Bishop to 118 benefices, comprising congregations of 5000 souls." That is, while, as before, the Church population of Ireland would appear to be sixty thousand, tha,t of England would he forty millions and a half^! This is an example, the effect of which would, I think, be weakened by any comment upon it ' . ' Some persons toss about millions with great magnanimity. Addison, I remember, in his " Freeholder," tells of a conversa- tion which he had with a French Abbe, upon the comparative greatness of France and England, in the course of which they came to the population of the two countries. The Abbe asked What was the population of London ? TJpoa which, Addison, being willing, as he says, to do all the honour that he fairly could to his country, replied that it was computed by some as nearly a million. The Frenchman received the statement without indicating any surprise. And when Addison in turn asked what was the population of Paris, he replied, in an indifferent tone, " About ten or twelve millions." * A little before, the hon. Member had said, " Comparing Ire- ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 15 I could add to these instances. But it is unnecessary. They ought to be quite enough to establish the general state- ment which I made of the unbounded licence which the enemies of the Church allow themselves, in altering the statistics of both branches of the Church, to strengthen the case against the Irish Branch. I therefore pass over other examples of the same mode of dealing with numbers. But there is one of so extraordinary a character, that I am tempted to spend a few moments upon it. Even after dividing the Church population of our dioceses by ten, it continues too large for the purposes of our enemies, and they take some trouble to make out a still smaller specimen of an Irish diocese. In immediate connexion with the contrasts just quoted, it is said, "The united dioceses of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh, in which there are about 686 Protestants, land with England, we find that there are seven English dioceses, each of which has a much larger population than the whole of the Episcopalians in Ireland." And it may perhaps be said that, in speaking afterwards of the dioceses in England as comprising con- gregations of 1,500,000 souls, the speaker only meant to refer to the seven dioceses which he had before specified. This may be said. But my readers will agree with me, I think, in regarding it as very improbable. They will see not only that the passage which I have quoted in the text professes to be a comparison between the two countries on the whole, but that in fact, if this were not its meaning, it would scarcely be pertinent to the speaker's purpose. Every one understands the use which a comparison between the average Church populations of an English and an Irish diocese might be supposed to serve, in connexion with his argument. But it is very hard to conceive the purpose of the comparison, if, in striking the averages, you take the whole of Ireland on the one side, and only seven abnormally populous dioceses out of all England on the other : supposing both averages to be ever so correctly struck, one cannot conjecture what con- clusion they could be thought to warrant. But even this supposition, were it admitted as regards the two things intended to be compared, would not relieve the state- ment of the charge of gross exaggeration as regards the numbers for England. For if any seven dioceses in England contain, on an average, each a Church population of 1,500,000, these dioceses must contain altogether ten millions and a half of Church mem- bers. And if there be seven dioceses in England, which contain ten and a half millions of Churchmen, it may be asked how many are left for the twenty remaining dioceses, and how many on an average would the remainder give to each P C 16 THE CASE OF THE have a Bishop and the usual staff. And the Bishop actually receives 4000/. a year for looking after those 686 people." The fact here stated must have startled all who heard it. It was hardly credible. But the statement was so distinct and circumstantial, that it could not well be doubted by any, beyond the few who had by experience learned that no state- ment that was made by the enemies of the Church in Ireland was to be received without examination ; — that indications of truth, which might safely be trusted in other cases, were constantly fallacious where it was concerned. And the pre- sent is certainly a curious example of the incredible lengths to which the enemies of the Church will go, where there is a prospect of injuring it. There never was such a united diocese in the Reformed Church in Ireland as Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh. These sees, in fact, could not have been united before the • Irish Church Temporalities' Act was passed, for they were up to that time in different Provinces. But they were too small to stand alone, and each of them was in its own Province united to a larger diocese — Kilfenora to Killaloe, in the Province of Cashel; and Kilmacduagh to Clonfert, in the Province of Tuam. And so matters stood until 1833. All four were then united under one Bishop. And it is unnecessary to say that it is as Bishop of the whole four dioceses, and not of the two smallest of them, that his income is received. Now the population of the whole united Dioceses is small, but it is more than three -and-twenty times the population of the united diocese which has been erected for the purpose of creating a prejudice, or exasperating the prejudices already existing, against the Church in Ireland ! But there is something yet behind, in this extraordinary proceeding, which shows still more clearly how deliberate it was. The actual diocese over which the Bishop pre- sides is the united diocese of KilMoe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, and Kilmacduagh, and so it is always written when his title is given in full. But as he is commonly called the Bishop of Killaloe, if the population of that diocese were given as the number of people for looking after u-hich he was paid 4000/. a year, though it would be a great misrepresenta- tion, it would be so far venial, that it might be supposed to have been the result of haste and inadvertence. But the same ESTABIJSHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 17 account can hardly be admitted of what has been actually- done, which is this : — the second and the fourth of the four dioceses are taken out and given as the Bishop's diocese, omitting the first and third, which together contain more than two-and-twenty times the number in the two which are extracted, to provide him with a diocese of 686 souls ! And this being done, to put the case beyond all possibility of doubt, it is added : — " And the Bishop actually receives nearly 4000/. a year for looking after those 686 people." If there be in the whole history of party warfare a falsifi- cation at once so gross and so deliberate, I must confess that I am as yet unacquainted with it. And that great and most unscrupulous power, the Times; not only af&rmed expressly almost every one of these mis- statements, including this notable one concerning *' the united dioceses of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh'" in detail, but put its imprimatur on them in the gross, aa facts which furnish the true representation of the case of the Established Church in Ireland, and as forming the basis of future legisla- tion ! These are the statements from which very many in Eng- land have derived their views of the Church in Ireland. And this being the case, it cannot be surprising that the pre- judice against that institution is wide-spread and strong. In the article which afBrms (by anticipation °) the extraordinary fact of the united dioceses of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh, it is said, " No Institution can long survive repeated ex- posure." And it would certainly be very hard for anj' in- stitution to survive long such exposure as the Church in Ireland has undergone in speeches in and out of Parliament, ' " What are we to say of so-called dioceses like Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh, the former of which contaius 251, and the latter 435 Churchmen.but which have between them an ecclesiastical income of more than 370OZ. ! "—Times, May 19, 1863. And in the same way, though it does not state that the Church population of an English parish is 2612, and that of an Irish parish 325, it makes the equivalent mis-statement, that the population of an English parish is eight times that of a parish in Ireland. For additional examples, see Note 0, Appendix. « The article was pubUshed May 19, 1863. The speech to which I have referred was not delivered till June 26 in the same year. c 2 18 THE CASE OF THE and in the columns of party prints, and very especially of the Times itself, which has pursued the ohject of writing it down, not only with an utter disregard of truth and fairness, but even of decent consistency. In other cases, those who are under little restraint from either of the former considera- tions, find it necessary to show some respect to the last. But the enemies of the Irish Church feel themselves able to dis- regard all ordinary rules, and the Times does not fear to make one charge against it one day, and the very next day one entirely inconsistent with it. But even those who do not go quite so far, allow them- selves a licence, with reference to the Established Church in Ireland, which they would hardly think of taking or grant- ing with reference to any other subject whatsoever. And I think that an eminent statesman has lately furnished as striking an illustration as could be desired of the different measures by which men regulate their proceedings with re- ference to this subject and all others. In 1865, Lord Russell reprinted an Essay on the British Grovernment and Constitution, which had been originally published in 1823. Many changes had of course taken place in the long interval which had elapsed from the first publi- cation of the Essay ; and the noble author's plan was to bring his work up to the present time, partly by an in- troduction, and in part by occasional notes. He was led to speak in the Essay, of the Church, as one of the sources of the influence of the Crown, which possesses, as is well known, a large amount of Church patronage. And having given a detailed statement of the revenues of the English Branch of the Church, of which I may say in passing that I do not believe that it would be countersigned as per- fectly exact by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Eng- land, he proceeds to the Irish Branch. Of this he says, " The Church in Ireland is still more richly endowed. There are in Ireland four Archbishops and eighteen Bishops, whose united income is estimated at 185,700/. a year. The Bishop of Derry has 15,000/. a year, the Bishop of Elphin has 12,000/., the Bishop of Eaphoe 10,000/., and none are imder 4000/. a year. But besides this acknowledged income, the revenues of the Irish Bish(yps, drawn from fines, is ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 19 enormous ; their landed property is immense ; leases are for twenty-one years ; and fines are taken every seven, or even every three years, thus becoming a kind of triennial rents." And he then goes on to give from Mr. Wakefield the annual value of the estates of some of the sees, if let at a fair rent. There is in this statement an amount of ignorance about Church property which seems to be very extraordinary in one who has so often in the course of his political life been brought into contact with the subject. Having given 185,700/., on the authority of Mr. Wakefield, as the income of the Archbishops and Bishops, he speaks of this as their acknowledged income, and states that there is besides, an enormous supplement, derived from fines, which it seems to be thought was kept back, because there was something not quite fair or honourable about it. But this is a total mis- take, and one for which I do not think Mr. Wakefield, is to blame. That writer gave exaggerated estimates of Church incomes in his day, but he was not entirely ignorant upon the subject. The sum which he set down was therefore meant, no doubt, to include fines. He must have known, indeed, that whatever were the income of the Bishops, the greater part of it was derived from fines ', and that there was no more concealment, or reason for concealment, in respect of the one part than of the other. The renewals are executed under the authority of an Act of Parliament, made for the very purpose of regulating the Ecclesiastical land- lord's power in this matter ; and under it, they are not only effected septennially and triennally, but — what Lord Eussell would, of course, regard as a monstrous abuse,— biennially or annually, if the Bishop and tenant wish : there being a power of receiving the surrender of the old lease, and granting a renewal, at the same rent, at any period at which more than one year of the whole term remains unexpired. And, moreover, contrary to what seems evidently to be Lord E-ussell's view of the case, it is for the interest of the tenant, not of the Bishop, that renewals should be frequently effected. The sum stated as the income of the Bishops was & good deal in excess of the truth, even at the date ' In some sees, as in my own, the fines are about equal to the rent. In Armagh they are more than double the rent. And on the whole they exceed the rent in the proportion of five to three. 20 THE CASE OF THE of the first publication of the Essay. The investiga- tion of Lord Althorp fixed it at 130,000^., which the later and more exact inquiries of the Revenue and Patro- nage Commission reduced to 120,000^. But this is not my main concern with the statement. It is this, that though at the time that Lord Russell published this ex- aggerated statement of the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland he perhaps had no means of correcting it, yet, at the time that he re-published it, not only were the means of correcting it within his reach, but he must have known at that time what a gross misrepresentation of the actual state of the Church it was. He must have known that there were no longer four Archbishops, but two ; that there were no longer eighteen Bishops, but ten ; and he ought to have known that, by official returns obtained by the House of Commons three or four years ago, it was certified that the gross income of the Archbishops and Bishops was 80,000/. and their net income 56,000/. ; that is to say, that the number of the Archbishops stated by him was double the number that the Church then had ; that of the Bishops, nearly double; and that what he stated as their income was more than twice their gross annual income, and more than three times their net annual income, in 1865 ! And the author sent forth this statement in this latter year, without one word to intimate that any change had taken place either in numbers or income since the statement was first made, or that it needed any correction at the date at which it was re-issued ! It will probably be said, that there is nothing so extraordinary in all this,— that the Irish and their concerns are of great im- portance to themselves, and that they always seem to think that they must be of just, as much importance to others ; but that as a matter of fact they are not : and that though it would be very strange if an Irish Bishop, writing about his Church, should forget the great changes which had taken place in it between the years 1823 and 1865, it might very well happen that they were not so distinctly present to the mind of an eminent English statesman, upon whom the cares of this great empire rested. There is, perhaps, some truth in this, but it hardly reaches the case. For these weighty cares did not so fill the mind ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN lEELARD. 21 of the noble author as to prevent him from noticing changes which had taken place in the interval, which will hardly be thought of more importance than those which the Irish Church had undergone. Thus he informs his readers, for example, in a note (p. 209) that he has heard with pleasure " that the masters of our public schools have agreed upon an improved Latin Grammar (1864) ^" I have no quarrel with this note. It may perhaps be quite right to provide such information, both for the present generation, and for posterity. But such minuteness on one head makes omissions upon others still more misleading. And I cannot but think that if the cares of State did not prevent the noble lord from supplying such informa- tion with respect to the changes in education, they might have allowed him time for another brief note, to say that since the above statements were first published with respect to the Church in Ireland, both the Irish Bishops and their income had undergone considerable reduction. So much at least might have been said, even if he had not time to add the details, which yet I think might not unreasonably be expected : viz., that his original statement, preserved in the text, doubles the actual number of Archbishops, nearly doubles the actual number of Bishops, and trebles their actual income! This proceeding was noticed, if not by others, at least by a good many friends of the Church in Ireland, and public attention was called to the unfairness, of it by diiferent writers, and in different ways. It was hardly possible that Lord Russell could have been ignorant of the comments which were passed upon this part of his work, and it soon ' Lord Cairns, in his excellent speecb, animadverted upon this rather minute note in connexion with the noble author's silence upon Ecclesiastical changes. And there are others which suggest similar comments In the same connexion. Thus his lordship notes (p. 210), with regard to a plan suggested in the text, that " this is done to some extent at Wellington College (1864)." And again (^Ibid.), " all the improvements suggested in this chapter are either made or making, and the process will be greatly accelerated by the excellent report of the Public Schools Committee." And, having given in the text the statement of the Civil List, he very properly informs his readers at the foot of the page (p. 299), that " al] these statements apply to the period 1821 — 1823." 22 THE CASE OF THE appeared very clearly that they had reached him, and had produced some effect upon him, though not precisely the efFect that would probably have been anticipated. A new- edition was issued in the following year, so that we may sup- pose that the whole of the edition of 1865 had been then spread over England and the Continent, and had borne every where, under the authority of the noble Lord's name, this very great misrepresentation of the Established Church in Ireland. The misrepresentation was not repeated in the new edition. But I cannot but think that the original offence was aggravated, because it was made clear that the author was conscious of it, but was not prepared to atone for it. There was not a word of regret for having so misrepresented the Church ; not one line to correct the misrepresentation or to undo its effects ; not a line to intimate that it had ever been committed ! All mention of the Church was clean dropped out. And so, no doubt, in many parts of England and in many parts of Europe, the readers of the edition of 1865 implicitly believe, upon the noble Lord's authority— how could they doubt it ? — that the Church in Ireland has twice as many Archbishops as it really has, nearly twice, as many Bishops, and that the income of these Prelates is three times the amount of that which they really enjoy! There can hardly be a more striking illustration of what I have been anxious to impress upon my readers by the other examples of misrepresentations which I have given, — that upon the subject of the Irish Church men allow themselves a licence which the)'' would not think of taking or granting upon any other subject whatever, and that statements with regard to that much-maligned Institution ought to be re- ceived with distrust, and subjected to strict examination, even when they come in a shape and from a quarter which, upon any other subject, might be felt to give sufficient security for their accuracy. It may not unnaturally be imagined that these gross misrepresentations have so long survived, because the friends of the Church — perhaps from thinking them too extravagant to do any mischief — have been somewhat careless about cor- recting and exposing them. But this is certainly not the case. Many of the misrepresentations which have been most ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN TKEI.AXU. 23 diligently circulated have been publicly and thorougbly ex- posed. But they have been regularly reproduced after a short interval, and put forward with as much confidence as if they had never been proved to be grossly untrue. And again and again the true state of the Church has been published in full detail. But again and again, when the assault upon the Church has been renewed, all such state- ments have been set aside as if they had never been made. And this being the case, it might seem that the defenders of the Church had expended their time and labour to very little purpose ; and that for the time to come they may as well let all such mis-statements pass unnoticed. But this would be a hasty conclusion. They have never been able indeed to put the enemies of the Church to silence ; but it cannot be doubted that they have in various quarters done something to undo the mischief that such misrepresentations had caused, and to deprive them of the power of doing more. This is perhaps as much as the defenders of the Church have hitherto accomplished, and as much as they can expect to accomplish hereafter. But that even so much may be hoped from their labours, is quite enough to make it their duty to come for- ward in its defence, in the same way, as often as the like mis- representations of the case of the Church are repeated. And having exhibited and exposed some of the grossest of the false statements of the case of the Church, which have been confidently made in Parliament and elsewhere, I shall once more give distinctly the true state of the case. The number of Church benefices in Ireland ', as returned to Parliament bj' the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is 1510. The Church population (as fixed by the Census of 1861), 693,357, and the net income of the parochial Clergy, 393,833/. The average population of an Irish parish is therefore 459, and the average income of an Irish parish is 260/. per annum. Such is the true state of the Established Church in Ireland. And, at first sight at least, it does not seem to afford any good ground for the charge which is so often ° Many of these benefices consist of two or more parishes — sometimes many more — which have been united into one, on the ground that separately they do not afford either sufiScient em- ployment or sufficient means of support for a Clergyman. Note D, Appendix. 24 THE CASE OF THE made against the Irish Clergy of having nothing to do, and receiving large incomes for doing nothing. But it is said that on a question of this kind, averages are really very delusive ; that a case may be made to wear a fair appearance by means of a well-chosen average, which, when fairly and fully considered, proves to be altogether unsound. I may say in reply, that whether an average be delusive or not, depends entirely upon its relation to the position which it is brought forward to sustain. In the case before us, if the charge to be answered now were, that the revenues of the Church are injudiciously and unfairly distributed — that some wio fill laborious posts are insufficiently remunerated, while not a few who have little or nothing to do are in the enjoyment of considerable incomes, ^ — if this were the charge against the Church, I grant that such an average as the foregoing would be utterly beside the purpose, and only not to be called delusive because it could not delude any body. For it is plain that all that is stated of the average income, and average population of an Irish parish, might be perfectly true, and the charge perfectly true notwithstanding. I have no doubt that this charge is one whicb ought to be considered '. But it is not the one which I am considering now. And when the allegation is, that the revenues are ex- cessive for the work to be done — and that is the charge which I am considering — I must maintain that a proper, and the proper answer to it is, that each clergyman employed has a fair amount of work, and that the revenues are not more than enough to give a moderate income to each of them. I. think that the average just stated furnishes a satisfactory proof of both points. But I am aware that about one of them some doubts wiU be entertained by some who are neither wanting in candour nor in intelligence, and who are not disposed to judge the Irish Church harshly. No such persons will, I think, maintain that the average income which the Church revenues would give to the Clergy is excessive, or that any saving could either in justice or policy be eiiected by reducing it. In whatever way the provision which is to be assigned to a beneficed Clergyman is to be measured,— whether by his qualifications, or by the expense and time and labour which it has cost to obtain them, or by ' See Note E, at the end. ESTABLISHE]) CHURCH IN IRELAND. 25 his social position, or by his reasonable wants,— on whatever principle the income which he is to receive is to be meted out, scarcely any one, I am sure, will think that 260^ per annum is an excessive remuneration for his services. But some even candid persons will probably think that the Clerical staff is more numerous than it need be. And they will derive a confirmation of this impression from a comparison with the state of things in England ^. There are no means of arriving at the same accuracy in Ecclesiastical statistics for the English branch of the Church as in our own, but we must be safe in taking the Church population of an English parish to be, on an average, double that of an Irish parish. And it may not unreasonably be asked. Why should this be the case ? Why should not an Irish clergyman be able to do as much as an English clergyman ? That is. Why should not the population of their parishes be made equal ? Let that be done, and the parochial clergy in Ireland will be reduced to " I have left out of consideration two important facts, which would make this comparison much more favourable to our Branch of the Church. One of these is, that the supplement to the parochial system, both as regards clergymen and revenue, which is furnished by proprietary chapels, supported wholly, and by district churches, almost wholly, supported by pew-rents, is vastly greater in proportion in England than in Ireland, where it is really very inconsiderable. And the other is, that, re-inforced as the parochial clergy are in this way, they are still quite insufficient for the work left to them, and that a great part of the work which belongs to the National Church remains in consequence undone. Vast masses of the population lie beyond the Church's care, and of necessity are left with scarcely an effort to bring them within its range. I do not speak of those who on principle reject the services of the clergy, who are said to amount to seven millions, but of those who do not belong to any denomination of dis- senters, but who never attend the public services of the Church, and are as much beyond the pastoral care of the clergy as if they lived in a distant land. These are said to amount to five millions of what is usually counted the Church population of the country. {Besults of the Irish Census of 1861, by Eev. A. Hume, LL.D. and D.C.L.). And if this be true, or any thing like the truth, it is plain that it makes the comparison between the English and Irish branches of the Church much more favourable to the latter than it appears in the averages stated above. But as it would not be easy to ascertain exactly how far the result would be altered, I have contented myself with a statement of the case which certainly does not err in being too favourable tp the Church in Ireland. 26 THE CASE OF THE one-half; and it may be supposed the revenues which go to their support will be reduced in the same proportion. Here is then a considerable reduction. Can there be any- reasonable objection to it ? This seems a fair question. But it is easily answered, and the answer is, that there could be no objection to such a scheme, if we could distribute all the members of the Church in Ireland in Fourier's Phalansteries, or Owen's Parallelograms. But we cannot. And the objection to the scheme is, that if it does not assimie that we can, it puts out of sight how very differently they are actually disposed of, and that it is accord- ing to the actual disposition of them, and not according to the more convenient and economical one which might be easily conceived, that they must be provided for. It is here that the great difference actually lies between the two cases which are compared. And the fallacy of the plan con- sists in leaving this difference entirely out of sight. It is plainly impossible to determine the number which it would be reasonable to place under the pastoral care of a clergyman, unless we know the circumstances under which his people are placed, and especially the extent and nature of the area over which they are distributed. It is evident that if the flock under his care be confined within narrow bounds,— if it form part of the dense population of a town, for example, — he might take charge of two, three, four, or five times as many as he could reach to, if dispersed over a wide and rough area. Now in this respect the two countries are so utterly different, that it would be absurd to compare the labours of an English and an Irish parish, merely by considering the Church population of each. I am tempted here to state a fact that fell under my own knowledge, as it affords a striking illustration of this difference, which not only goes beyond the experience, but be- yond the imagination of Englishmen. A college friend of mine was collated, a great many years ago, to a parish in the diocese of Killala, a short time after he was ordained. He was considered a very fortunate youth in obtaining pro- motion so early. And if his good fortune were to be measured by the extent of the domain over which he ruled, it could hardly have been exceeded, at least at this side of the Atlantic. The parish in question was moderately endowed, ESTABIJSHEl) CHURCH IN IRELAND. 27 but it actually exceeded in area the whole county of Dublin by above 10,000 acres'! It was a union of two parishes, and when my friend had held it for about six years, the union was dissolved. But even after the division, the members were of rather unmanageable extent. The larger was greater in length, and breadth, and area,, than the smallest county in Ireland, Louth, and considerably greater than the smallest English county, Rut- landshire^ ! I do not give this as an average case. It is no doubt a remarkable, though by no means a unique one". But it serves to show how very blindly Parliament might be proceeding in coming to a conclusion with respect to the work of an Irish parish, from considering merely the Church population, without taking into consideration its extent, and ' The benefice was a union of two parishes, Kilcommon Erris, containing 203,396 acres, and Kilmore Erris, oontaining 29,493 acres. The whole union, therefore, contained 282,889 acres. The area of the county of Dublin is 222,709 acres. These numbers are given in that very useful work. Thorn's Irish Almanack, from the Ordnance Survey. * Kilcommon Erris is 30 miles long and 18^ wide ; its area, as given above, is 203,896 acres. Louth is 25 miles long by 15 in its greatest breadth, and the area 201,434 acres. Eutlandshire is 18 miles by 15, and its area 128,000 acres. The smaller parish was the one retained by my friend, and though it was of so much niore moderate dimensions than the other, being only 17 miles long by 5 in its greatest breadth, it had some peculiarities which made it very certain that no one who worked it honestly was eating the bread of idleness, — as will be seen by the following note, which appears in the Eeport of the Eoyal Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Patronage and Eevenue, 1832 — 1837, vol. iii., under the head of Kilmore Erris. — " Qlebe House : Condemned as unfit for the residence of the Incumbent, in consequence, as well of the dilapidated and imperfect state of the building, as of its inconvenient situation, being three miles distant from the church, in an insular part of the parish, and the access thereto at times very precarious, from an arm of the sea intervening between the glebe-hoiise and the rest of the parish The Incumbent is resident in the glebe-house, though condemned, owing to the difficulty of obtaining a residence in so remote a district." ' Ballinakill, in the diocese of Tuam, was 40 Irish miles long by 20 wide (i. e. more than 50 miles by 25, English), and compre- hended besides four islands, one of thera 17 Irish (more than 21 English) miles long. It is now divided, I believe, into six parishes. 28 THK CASE OF THE any other circumstances connected with its nature and con- dition, so far as they can be ascertained and estimated, which in like manner add to the labour of working it . Even this slight glance at some of the peculiarities of Irish parishes will suffice to show that it by no means follows that an Irish clergyman has but half the work of his English brother to do because he has only half the popu- lation under his charge. It would be, as I have already said, puerile to attempt to settle in the abstract what dif- ference of area is equivalent to a difference of population in a parish. There are many cases in England in which doubling the population would put it wholly beyond the power of a clergyman to exercise any pastoral care over a parish. And just the same may be said in regard to the extent of many parishes in Ireland. While, in the former country, in many cases, doubling the area of a parish, the number of parishioners remaining the same, would not add materially, or perhaps at all, to the labour of working the parish. And, in the same way in Ireland, doubling the Church population, the area con- tinuing the same, would leave the minister's work nearly the same. The question cannot, therefore, be answered in the abstract. But when it is stated that the average area of an Irish parish is four times that of an English parish, while, " The character of the ground and the nature of the roads, which are often closely connected, form an important element in such a consideration; but it is one which can be seldom accurately estimated and allowed for. The same maybe said, perhaps, of the following points, which however are very useful to be noted, as they give a general notion of special sources of difficulties, rarely to be met with, I suppose, in England. Thus, in the Report re- ferred to above, the length and breadth of a union, or at times of a single parish, are not given ; and the reason assigned is, in some cases, that the parishes which make up the union are not contiguous, or that the parts of the single parish are widely separated. Here is the case of a single parish, Derryvollan, diocese of Clogher, of which it is said in the Eeport, "The length and breadth of this parish cannot be stated, it consisting of two distinct portions, at an interval of six miles distant, with two detached town-lands in the space intervening." In Kilpeacon, diocese of Limerick, it is said that one of the three parishes of which the union consists, is" thirteen miles from the others. And in another, Kilflynn, diocese' of Ardfert, it is noticed, " The first four parishes are contiguous, and distant about thirty miles irom the remaining members of the' union." Intervalla vides humane commoda. ESTABLISHED CHIJECH IN IIIEI,AND. 29 as has been said before, the population of the latter is twice that of the former, I do not think that, speaking of the whole extent of both countries, it will be thought unreason- able to say that the greater parochial area in Ireland is at least equivalent to the greater parochial population in England'. And that therefore a parish Clergyman in Ireland has, on an average, to the full as much work as his English brother. Those who have been persuaded to look upon the Irish Clergy, with the exception of one here and there, as having almost nothing to do, will be very slow to believe this. But the proof is very plain and simple, and must at last satisfy all who are open to evidence upon the point. And when the true state of the case is once received in England, where every one knows that their parish Clergy are not under- worked but overworked, and that they are so far from being able to bear any diminution of their number, that they urgently require a large addition to it, — when it is under- ' I came upon an interesting illustration of this point in 1864. I met in London a friend whom I had not seen for a long time. He began his ministry in Ireland, where he was appointed early to a parish which he held for four years. He then removed to an English parish, which he lias held for twenty-five years. His Irish parish was not a large one — seven miles by three. It in- cluded a small town, but the great bulk of the Church population was distributed over the rural part of the parish. His English parish almost consists of a country town. There is a rural dis- trict, but it is of small extent, and the great mass of the Church population is in the town. The population under his care in England is more than four times the number of which he had charge in Ireland. But he told me, notwithstanding, that he found the English parish far easier to work than the Irish. And he gave a reason for the fact which must commend itself to every one's judgment. The duties in the church were about the same in both. But the pastoral care of the Irish parish required much more time and labour. The visiting through the week, from house to house, is a light thing, where the houses are contained within the limits of a town of no great extent, compared with the visiting of a smaller number of houses scattered over a rural parish, some several miles from the glebe house, and some several miles from each other. And the difference made itself specially felt in the visiting of the sick. Five minutes take him to the bedside of any of his present parishioners, and when his work is done, five minutes bring him back again to his study ; while in his Irish parish a very few sick calls — sometimes a single one — ■ provided occupation for a day. Note F, Appendix. 30 THE CASE or THE stood in England, I say, that our parish Clergy have as much to do as theirs, it will he felt that it is no more feasible to reduce their numbers than to diminish their income. And I hope this is enough to say in support of the only disputable point of the two which I have laid down as the result of the average work and the average income which the number of our Church population and the amount of our Church revenues give to a parish Clergyman in Ireland. I trust a sufficient proof has been given that the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland admit of little, if any, diminution, if indeed that Establishment is to be maintained at all. But that is a question which remains to be settled. It is the question which comes first in the order of thought ; but I have already given the reason why I felt it to be advisable to keep it back, until I had examined some current statements concerning the statistics of the Church in Ireland, which, so long as they were believed, seemed likely to offer an insuperable obstacle to the fair consideration of the question concerning its main- tenance. And having, I hope, cleared away some of the grossest of these misrepresentations, and done something to establish the truth in their stead, I shall proceed to the ques- tion. Whether the Irish Branch of the united Church ought to be maintained as the Established Church in that country. It is necessary to make some attempt to settle this question. Eor though the enemies of the Church are even yet slow to avow the design of overthrowing it absolutely, and some of the bitterest of them from time to time disavow the design, yet their arguments continually, and it can hardly be thought un- consciously, tend to nothing short of this conclusion. And we are at times expressly told, indeed, that improvements in detail would only make the matter worse, by making the Church a more specious monopoly ; and so tending to per- petuate its existence. They would leave, it is said, the great " I have only considered the case of the Clergy. That of the Bishops is a distinct and a less important question. For no reasonable person is hkely to think that any reduction can be made, either in the number or incomes of the Bishops, which would leave any considerable surplus out of the 55,000Z. per annum which is the amount that the Archbishops and Bishops now receive. See Appendix, Note G. ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 31 objection which lies against the Church still untouched. What the great objection is, however, seems to be far from settled. In the columns of the Times it appears in one form one day, and in a diflferent form the next, reminding one of the wolf's accusations in the old fable, which proved nothing except that, right or wrong, he was not to be defrauded of his meal. It is necessary to look at some of these attempts — we could hardly go through all of them — to show that, even if the friends of the Church succeeded in refuting, one by one, all the accusations which have been brought against it in detail, there are still decisive reasons in principle or policy against maintaining it. Thus, it is said in one place, "Alter and patch the arrange- ment as you will, it is impossible to get rid of the anomaly of the State extracting large revenues from the Irish landowners for the maintenance of a clergyman they cannot use, and whose church they never enter." — Times, Nov. 2, 1863. Now, considering that the great majority of the land- owners are notoriously members of the Church, — a fact of which the Times seems sometimes aware', — it does not appear why they can never use the clergyman's services, or enter his church. This, however, may be passed over as merely put in to aggravate the case against the Church, without much con- sideration as to how it squared with the facts. It is more important to deal with the assertion that the revenues of the Irish Church are extracted by the State from the Irish land- owners. And I must deny that these revenues, be they small or great, are extracted from the landowners in any other sense than that in which it might be said, that the revenues of the landowners are extracted from the occupiers of the land. Rent is paid to the proprietor by the occupier. ° On the 9th of October, in the same year, it was said in the same journal, in reference to the changes made by the Irish Church Temporalities Act : " In order to keep from sinking an Institution so vitally connected with the union of the two cotmtries, it was found necessary to sacrifice a third of the bishops and a fourth of the revenues of the Church, and to transfer the burden of the tithes from the tenants, who are mostly Eoman Catholics, to the landlords, who are mostly Protestants." D 32 THE CASE OF THE but no one speaks of it as a gift, or a benevolence, or as an impost laid upon him by law, for the benefit of the pro- prietor. It is a consideration for value received in the land which belongs to the landlord, but of which he has granted to the tenant the occupation and use. And in like manner Tithe Eent-charge is paid by the proprietor to the parish clergyman, not as a voluntary contribution t.o his maintenance, nor as an impost laid on him for that purpose by the State : it is a consideration for the Tithes, which were the property^ of the Church, but were transferred to the landlord, and are enjoyed by him. And how little reason he has to complain of the arrangement under which he makes this pay- ment is very well known. The composition for Tithe repre- sented, as has been said, less than one-sixth of the value of that portion of the produce of the land to which the Church had an undoubted legal right. And no one can doubt that of the remaining five-sixths of that portion, much more had gone to increase the rent than to add to the profit of the tenant. But, however that be, the fraction of the rights of the Church which the Tithe-composition represented, was ascertained and secured by law to the Church. And one- fourth of the amount of this Composition was allowed to the landlord for receiving the whole from his tenants, and paying over three-fourths to the clergyman. So that, for every 751. that he pays in Rent-charge, he has received 100^. This is the only sense in which the revenues of the Irish Church are extracted from the landlord. [Note H, Appendix.] And again, referring to the re-distribution of the revenues, with a view to getting rid of offensive anomalies, " All this may be very well in its way," it is said, " but it does not meet the objection that an aggregate income which was considered ample in 1834, when the members of the Established Church were more numerous, is too large now that they have considerably fallen off." — Times, May 20, 1863. This is a very distinct statement, that while the Church popidation of Ireland had fallen off considerably in the interval between 1834 and 1863, the revenues of the Church continued the same. But we are spared the trouble of considering what ought to be said in reply to this statement if it were true, for the Times itself bears conclusive testimony ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN lEELAND. 33 to its falsehood, and that at no more distant period than the very day before, on which we find the following statement in a leading article : — " The facts are shortly these : — The number of members of the Established Church in 1834 was 853,160. In 1861 it was 691,872. Its revenues in 1834 were 865,525/. In 1861 they were 580,418/." Now the most casual glance at these figures shows, that if the Church population diminished during the interval referred to, so did the revenues. But any one who takes the trouble of looking more closely at the statement will see, that the rate of diminution of the revenues was considerably greater than that of the population : that, in fact, while the population diminished considerably less than one-fifth, the revenues diminished very nearly one-third ! Self-contradictions quite as broad, no doubt, may be found in different articles in the Times, but they have been generally at longer intervals. I should doubt indeed that upon any subject whatever, except the Irish Church, it would venture to contradict itself so directly in the space of four-and-twenty hours. Again, it is said : — " Whether it be defensible or not, the Church in Ireland is a relic of an oppressive ascendancy, the rest of which has been abandoned, and is the only tangible grievance that can palliate political discontent." — Times, May 10, 1863. This cuts short all argument, for it transfers the case from the domain of reason to the wider and less defined one over which sentiment rules. It is in vain that we show that the Irish Church Establishment offers no reasonable ground of complaint to the Eoman Catholics of Ireland; that neither they nor any class in the community contribute one farthing to its support ; that it is not too richly endowed for the work that it has to do for its own members ; and that besides what it does for them, it is in various ways beneficial to the country, far beyond the limits of its own pale ; and moreover, that it is the firmest bond between England and Ireland. All these and such-like argu- ments for the maintenance of the Church do not touch the strength of the case against it. Whatever be its merits or claims, it is an institution which wounds the sensitiveness of the Homan Catholic people of Ireland ; and moreover, it is D 2 34 THE CASE OF THE the only thing now which can cause any dissatisfaction or dis- content. How can a high-minded people, who have succeeded in effacing one by one all the other memorials of their sub- jugation, rest contentedly as long as this galling one remains? And, on the other hand, will not a warm-hearted, honourable, and grateful people become peaceful, contented, and loyal, when this solitary lingering relic of an oppressive ascendancy has been taken away, and no tangible grievance that can palliate discontent remains ? Supposing, for the present, all that is asserted and all that is implied in this appeal, as a matter of fact, to be undoubtedly true, still I should hope there are few of those for whom it is intended, who would be prepared to act upon the conclusion to which it points, by sweeping this offence away, in order to restore peace to our perturbed land. Peace is a great blessing, no doubt, but wise and honest men look a little at what is to be paid for it, before they decide upon pur- chasing it. It is proposed to deprive the Church of possessions which it enjoys by a prescription of three hundred years. It would be easy, on good grounds, to carry the origin of its rights far higher. But this would raise disputes at the outset, and I prefer taking a date, the origin of its rights, about which no question can be raised; Nor has this been a silent prescription. During the entire of that long period, the whole course of legislation has recognized the status of the Church, protected its property, and enforced its rights, as the Church hy law established. And when the union of the two countries was perfected by the union of their respective legislative bodies, then the civil union of their Churches, —which had been united from the English Conquest in doctrine, discipline, worship, and government, and, from the Council of Constance down, had been often, in solemn public acts, acknowledged as one Church,— was effected also. And by one of the fundamental Articles which embodied the conditions of the union it was solemnly enacted, " That the Churches of England and Ireland as now by law established be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be and shall remain in full force ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 35 for ever, as the same are now by law established for the Church of England." Now, however clear the title to property may be, and however long it may have been enjoyed, whether by a public body or by an individual, it may, no doubt, be forfeited. But could a body, whose title to its property v/as so unim- peachable, and whose tenure of it was so long, and which was not accused of having forfeited it, be deprived of it by the State without shaking the foundations of all property in the country ' P And would public confidence in the stability of property be restored, when it was stated that the property was not taken away in this case because it belonged to other owners, but because the feelings of the Roman Catholics were hurt by its being held by its present possessors ? But there are rights even more important than the rights of property, which would be violated by such an act. It is not jnerely the Ecclesiastical persons, among whom the Church revenues are distributed, who claim rights connected with the property of the Church. Such rights of the clergy are conferred upon them only to secure their services to the laity. The lay members of the Established Church have a right, recognized not only by ecclesiastical, but also by civil law, to aU the benefits of a stated ministry : and so have their descendants to the end of time. The law of the land not only recognizes this right as actually existing, but gives the laity the means of enforcing it *. In taking away the ' Sir E. Peel, speaking in 1833, not of the disestablish- ment of the Church, but of the abstraction of a portion of its revenues by the Appropriation Clause, says : " If long possession and the prescription of more than three centuries were not powerful enough to, protect the property of the Church from spoliation, there would be little safety for any description of pri- vate property, and much less safety for that property which was in the hands of lay corporations." " Thus, by 57 Geo. III., cap. 99, for England, extended by 5 Geo. IV., cap. 91, to Ireland, licences of non-residence are put under stricter rules ; and other exemptions more strictly defined and limited, than they were before ; and by § iv. all parish ministers, not having such licence, or other exemption as is allowed in the Act for the purpose, are punishable by heavy fines (beginning with one-fourth, and going up to three-fourths of the annual value of the parish) for non-residence beyond three months, divisim or conjunctim, in any one year. And these 36 THE CASE OF THE endowments of the Church, this right, in which so many- hundred thousands in the present and in every succeeding generation, are so deeply interested, and in defence of which so many would wilKngly lay down their lives, would be swept away. And the iniquity of this act, by which the Church was robbed of its property, and of what is so much more valu- able, would seem to receive every aggravation of which such an act is capable, when it is remembered that the iState, by which it was committed, was not only bound by the duties of its office to protect all the rights of its members, but that it was specially bound by an express and solemn engagement to protect the rights of the Church. It is hard to conceive a public act of the State more solemn and sacred than the one by which the two countries, the two legislatures, and the two Churches were united ; and hard to conceive how the faith of the State could be more solemnly pledged to the maintenance of the union of the two Churches (with which we are more immediately concerned) than it is by the terms of the Article already referred to, and by making it one of the fundamental Articles of the Act of Union. And it would therefore be very hard to conceive how the State could be guilty of a greater breach of faith than it would be, if it abandoned the maintenance of the Church, just when the assault was made upon it, which this Article was intended and was understood to pledge it to resist. That the State could not perpetrate this great wrong without fines may be recovered by any parishioner in the courts of law. This Act is very often misunderstood by clergymen, as if it con- ferred upon them the right of absenting themselves from their parishes for three months annually; whereas, it does not confer upon them the right of absenting themselves for one hour. It leaves untouched all the powers which the Bishop possessed pre- viously of enforcing constant residence by ecclesiastical censures, up to actual deprivation. But it is intended to guard against his allowing these powers to slumber too long. It does not interfere with his discretion in passing over the absence of a clergyman without licence until it amounts to three months. But it empowers the laity then to assert their own rights, if the Bishop fails to secure them ; and it even takes measures to insure, so far as it can, the exercise of the powers which it bestows, by giving to the person or persons, who shall inform and sue for the same, the entire amount of the penalty incurred, with all the costs of the suit. ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 87 bringing after it the most injurious consequences, has been distinctly declared by eminent statesmen, of widely different ^iews upon other subjects, who have not hesitated to express their conviction that these evil consequences would probably reach to the dismemberment of the empire; and that, at all events, if the Church in Ireland were overthrown, the best security for the continuance of the Union would certainly be taken away^. We ought to be ready to sacrifice a great deal to preserve or restore the great blessing of peace. But we are not war- ranted in securing it, or any other earthly blessing, at the cost of our own principles or duties, or of any thing of any kind which does not belong to us. And, unfortunately, of all that the State is urged to sacrifice in this case, there is nothing really its own, except duty and principle. It is urged to sacrifice the rights of property of a large body of its subjects, and even more sacred and more valuable rights, which it is bound by its duty to God and man, and, more- over, by a solemn engagement and promise, to guard. And it is promised that if it will but make this double sacrifice, Ireland shall enjoy peace. I trust that if those who offer this engagement could be relied upon for its fulfilment, the State would refuse to pay a price for the boon which it has no right to paj'. But the truth is, that the sacrifice would not secure permanent peace, or even a truce for a month. ' The testimonies to which I refer have been very often quoted both in and out of Parliament. And if I do not set them down here, it is not from any doubt that they are fully entitled to the weight assigned to them, but because attention has been so repeatedly and so recently called to them that I cannot sup- pose my readers unacquainted with them. I will give but oue testimony here, which has been less made use of than some others. Speaking on the Appropriation Clause, March 31, 1835, Mr. Gladstone said : — " The most important consequences would attend the- motion before the House. In the first place, it would enfeeble and debase, and then altogether overthrow the principle on which the Chiu-ch Estabhshment rested. The noble Lord invited them to invade the property of the Church in Ireland. He con- sidered that there were abundant reasons for maintaining that Church : and if it should be removed, he Micved they would not be abh long to resist the repeal of the Union, and then they would become fully aware of the evil of surrendering the principle which the noble Lord called upon them to give up." 38 THE CASE OF THE The Times, as we have seen, describes the Church Esta- blishment in Ireland as " a relic of an oppressive ascendancy, the rest of which has been abandoned, and as the only tan- gible grievance that can palliate political discontent." But it is very certain that it speaks thus without any warrant from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and that, on the contrary, they are prepared, whenever they think it expedient, to name other relics of the same kind, and grievances which they regard not only as tangible, but as much more important than the grievance of the Church Establishment in Ireland. There is another remnant of the same state of things which is often proclaimed as a grievance, and which is no less dis- tinctly traced to the oppression of a foreign power ; that is the imposition of " an alien proprietary." And indeed, under the view which the Times advocates of the grounds on which the Roman Catholics have to complain of the Church Esta- blishment as a grievance, it is hard to know what element that institution contains to chafe and gall the Roman Catho- lics of Ireland, which does not exist in at least as large a measure in the actual state of things as regards the land of that country. If the sting lies in the maintenance by law of a system which the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not allow to continue for an hour, if they had the power of bring- ing it to an end, surely it is to be found no less in the settlement of property in that country. If the grievance which the Church inflicts be, as it is often said, that it is a memorial of the conquest of the country, and of the domi- nation of race first, and of religion afterwards, surely the maintenance of the settlement of property is clearly a griev- ance of the same kind. The Roman Catholics of Ireland see a great proportion of the property of the kingdom held by a title which marks it as the fruit and reward of ser- vices rendered more or less directly to the object of main- taining the English rule and connexion, services which, it is needless to say, constitute no merit, but a deadly offence in their eyes. And they see a considerable number of these proprietors living in England, and so connected with that country by property and other ties, as to make it certain that they will always continue to reside there. Is not this state of things an offence to the Roman Catholics of Ireland ? Is it not a remnant of former ascendancy ? How long would ESTABI,ISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 39 it remain unaltered, if they were set free to do as they pleased; that is, if they were not constrained by superior power to submit to the law which upholds it ? But it is not merely in the original legal title to property in Ireland, but in the laws by which the exercise of the rights of property is regulated, that the Roman Catholics find a grievance. They regard them as enacted by a foreign legis- lature, in the interest of the landlord and not of the tenant ■". This is the state of things which has given rise to what is called the Land Question, and whatever place that question may hold in an English list of Irish wrongs and grievances, there can be no doubt that it stands far above the Church * The following is an extract from a letter which appeared in the Dublin papers early in the year 1865. The letter was addressed to a Eoman Catholic dignitary by the late Alderman Dillon ; of whom I have nothing to say except that he was a leading member, and, I believe, secretary of the Ifational Asso- ciation, a society formed for the redress of Irish grievances, under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, and number- ing all the Eoman Catholic Bishops among its members. " The fact of the almost universal disaffection of the Irish people, repeatedly stated in the recent debate, and stated for the first time in the House of Commons, without condemnation or con- tradiction, is calculated to excite serious and salutary reflections. It has had an effect already in the comparatively civil tone adopted by certain speakers, whose tone on former occasions was very different. A little further development of events, and a little deeper study of the Irish difiBculty, will lead to results of greater importance. In the course of the debate referred to it was asked by more than one English member — What has the Grovernment done against Ireland ? and — What can the Government do for her ? I shall venture to answer those questions in a few words. jSy a series of invasions, conquests, and massacres, the English Government succeeded, a couple of centuries ago, in ploMting upon the necks of the Irish people an alien proprietary and an alien Church. Ever since that time the ingenuity of the law and the power of the sword have been unsparingly and continuously exerted in adding to tlie security and aggravating the bitterness of that wasting yoke. Statutes upon statutes have heenpassed to enable the English landlord to grind down, to rob, and to exterminate the Irish tenant, and to compel the Irish Catholic to maintain the English Protestant Church. And whenever the so-called rights of the landlord, or of the Church, were in peril, the whole force of the Government was exerted to sustain them. This is what the English Government has done, and is doing, against Ireland." 40 THE CASE OF THE Question in the minds of the mass of the Eoman CathoKcs of Ireland. With the Hierarchy and priesthood, and the lay- men who depend upon them for position and influence, and therefore reflect their views and feelings, and act under their direction, the Church often figures as the prime grievance of the country, and will continue to hold that place until it is overthrown, or until all hope of its overthrow is abandoned. But whatever may have been the case formerly as regards the mass of the people, it is now widely difierent. Some of the most discontented and disafiected give no place at aU to it among the wrongs of their country. And even those who still keep it on their list assign to it a much lower place than it formerly held there. Public attention has been frequently called to the fact that the Church does not appear among the causes which the Fenians have put forward from time to time in justification of their attempt to deliver their country from the tyranny of England by force of arms. And the Times itself bears unwilling testimony to the general oblivion which prevails in Ireland with regard to what ought to fill all classes there with burning indignation. Every efibrt has been made in its columns to stir up the Eoman CathoKcs of Ireland to a crusade against the Church by representing it as an insult, a badge of conquest, the maintenance of which must banish peace from the land. But these well-meant appeals to the two strongest feelings of the Irish mind, national pride and hatred of English rule, have been made with little effect, though enforced by assurances from time to time that if only the people of Ireland showed that they felt as they ought under this intolerable indignity, and unitedly and resolutely demanded to be released from this galling bur- den, the English people were ready to answer the demand. But all has been in vain, and this great agitator has been obliged to confess with great bitterness that after all, the Irish Church Establishment is the Englishman's, not the Irishman's great Irish grievance. And so it is to appease English, not Irish indignation against the Church Estabb'shment in Ire- land as an insult to the Irish, that Parliament is called upon to do away with that Church ! It may be very right to comply with this caE upon other grounds, but it would be hardly wise to do so, under the notion that thereby the ESTABLISHEP CHURCH IN IRELAND. 41 " only tangible grievance that can palliate political discon- tent " would be taken away. If the State were, by such confident misrepresentations, to be led to commit this great wrong, under the expectation of quieting Irish discontent, the Irish Roman Catholics would cer- tainly hereafter be able to defend themselves from the charge of having beguiled it into the act, by holding out the hope that it would thereby pacify the country. There have been many very distinct warnings that a few more important grievances remain behind. And though I am dwelling too long on this point, I must find space for one of these warnings, which is very remarkable in itself, and is rendered still more remarkable by the source from which it proceeds. It is from an Address of the Tenant Right Society of the County of Meath to the Humane and Patriotic Inhabitants of that Coiiniy. " If the Government likes to conciliate and pacify the Irish mind, now in such a state of wild commotion, we frankly believe it has it in its power to do so by granting to the industrial property of this country as large and as satis- factory a measure of security as that enjoyed by the landed property of Ireland. When the right of the whole people to any thing vitally concerning their existence is clear, it should be secured to them by Government, if it be a Government at all. I'he one — the great — the sole question for Ireland, is the land question. Other agitations, —such as that against the Established Church, — are got vp for party purposes; would infuse an clement of bigotry into the already sufficiently disturbed relations between landlord and tenant ; would effect the ruin of thousands of tenants, and precipitate that social catastrophe which u-e are anxious to avert." The Tenant Right Society was inaugurated, we are told, early in November, 1865, at a meeting of the Priests of the county of Meath. This meeting was attended by the Bishop, the Most Rev. Dr. Nulty, and the society is stated to be formed in accordance with a resolution passed at a county meeting held in the April before. The Address from which the above quotation is taken was issued at an adjourned meeting, held later in November, the Roman Catholic Vicar General in the chair. It was passed by acclamation ; and is authenticated by the signature of the Chairman, and of the seci'etaries, both Roman Catholic 42 THE CASE OF THE priests. This is to be received, therefore, as the unanimous testimony of the Eoman Catholic . priests of the county of Meath. They with one voice distinctly and pointedly dis- courage the agitation against the Established Church, as one got up for party purposes, and calculated to injure, not to serve, \he occupants of the soil, and to produce disastrous effects upon our social system *. * I directed attention to this very important declaration in a speech delivered at a meeting in aid of the Church Institution, on January 23, 1866 (published by the Institution under the title of The Ohwch in Ireland, our Duty in rega/rd to its Defence. Eivingtons, 1866), and I added some further remarks, which I think it desirable to reprint here. "Some persons are so surprised acd perplexed by this unex- pected proceeding, that they are slow to admit the great import- ance of this demonstration, because, as they say, they cannot understand it, and that they suspect there is something behind which we do not see. But even if we did not understand it, in the sense of seeing clearly the motives under which these men cast away the weapon which they have so long and so vigorously used, it would, I think, be very unreasonable not to recognize its great importance. For whatever may be doubtful, it is very clear that they must really believe all that they say in disparagement of the agitation for the overthrow of the Established Church. They must know that the sentence which they publicly pass upon this agitation, will render it impossible for them ever to take a part in it again ; and that it must be a great hindrance to its being carried on effectively by others. And they must know that it will bring ill-will and discredit upon them from the large class of politicians whose trade it will so materially damage. All this must have been known to them ; and when in the face of all this they deliberately and publicly make this declaration, can it be doubted that they believe what they say ? Assuredly this ought to be clear, whatever else may be doubtful. " But I must say for myself, that however little I might have been able to anticipate this proceeding, I find no difficulty at all in accounting for it, now that it has actually occurred. Of all the evils, real or imaginary, that this country has suffered and is suffering, the diminution of the population by emigration (to whichever class it may belong) doubtless is the one which touches the priests most nearly. All the warmest and best feelings of their nature must be wounded deeply, year after year, as they part with those to whom they are bound so closely. And it is but natural, and can hardly be thought blamable, that such feel- ings should be quickened by the injury which this emigration inflicts upon their own interests and influence, and upon the interests and influence of their Church. And in whatever de- gree they feel this emigration to be the most grievous of all ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 43 But there has been since a still further disclosure of the views which are entertained of the nature and extent of the grievance which the state of property in Ireland inflicts upon the calamities that they have to dread for themselves and for their Church, in the same degree are they concerned in dis- covering the real causes of it, and removing them if possible. They know very well that of all the many thousands who leave the Irish shores year after year, there is not even a single one driven from his country by the Established Church, whe- ther as an exactor, or oppressor, or a badge of conquest, or a memorial of ascendancy, or in any other capacity whatsoever. And they know that, could they bring about the spoliation of the Established Church, though they might thereby drive a good many Protestants out of the country, they would not keep a single Roman Catholic here who would be otherwise prepared to go. They know this very well ; and, upon the other hand, they know that if they could bring about the changes that they desire in the relation of landlord and tenant, thousands would be withheld from emigration, — however little they might eventually benefit by the changes as a class. This they know, and they therefore desire that all the energies that they can command should be directed to efiect the changes to which they look with hope, as abating the evil that they feel most and dread most. And they know that, while the agitation against the Established Church, supposing it to be in the end more successful than it is likely to be, would only procure something upon which they set little value, it would have the effect of distracting and thereby weakening the energies which they desire to concentrate upon an object which they feel to be of vital importance. And they pro- bably apprehend that if both objects are prosecuted, as here- tofore, the one nearest to their hearts will suffer materially, for that many a trading politician, whose services they have a right to command, will be disposed to compensate for some slackness in the cause in which they are really interested, by zeal in that to which they are comparatively indifferent. In this way, I think this proceeding, which has caused, and not unnaturally, so much surprise, may be very intelligibly accounted for. " But whether or not this be the true account of the motives under which it has been given, their testimony remains deli- berately recorded, that agitation against the Established Ghitrch is got up for party purposes, that it is calculated to widen and em- hitter the divisions of the coimtry, and in the end inflict deep injury upon the occupants of the soil ; and that there is hut one question in the settlement of which Ireland is really interested, and that is the land question. " I suppose it can hardly be necessary that I should disclaim any agreement with the authors of this Address, either in their views of the evils of the relations between landlord and tenant actually 44 THE CASE OF THE the Eoman Catholics in that country. In the Tablet, a lead- ing Roman Catholic journal, the following candid statement appeared, by which it will be seen that the monster grievance under which Ireland suffers, is that so much of the soil belongs to Protestants ! and that as long as that grievance remains unredressed, tranquillity can never be restored, even though all others, including the Church of the minority, were taken away 1 — " We have always thought that it could be shown that, if the Irish Church Establishment were abolished to-morrow — if its churches, lands, and rent-charges were applied to secular purposes or even to Catholic purposes — or if, leaving the Protestant Establishment alone, the Catholic Church were endowed by the State, and put on a footing of perfect equality of wealth and privilege with the Protestant Church, we should only have dealt with one feature, with one symptom of the disease, and should not have reached the seat of the disorder. The wound of Ireland is, that whereas the great majority of the population of Ireland are Catholics, such a large proportion of the soil of Ireland belongs to Protestants, and that Protestants form such a large portion of those classes which, by superior wealth and superior advantages, are raised in social station higher than the rest. " This we believe to be the root of the Irish evil, and it lies deeper, far deeper, than the Irish Protestant Church Establishment. We are perfectly convinced, and on evidence than which demonstration could scarcely be more conclusive, that if the Legislature were to confiscate to-morrow every acre of land and every shilling of Tithe Rent-charge now belonging to the Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland, and were to deprive the Protestant Bishops and Clergy of every legal privilege which they now possess by virtue of their existing in this country, or in the remedies whxh they would apply to the evils which they denounce. I have not referred to this remarkable document as containing sound, or wise, or safe views upon our social system, but as furnishing one of the most significant and decisive of the proofs which may be given of the truth of the statement which I made — that is, that whatever place the maintenance of our Church Establishment may have had among the causes of discontent and disaffection in this country in times past, it holds a very subordinate place among them now, where it holds any place at all " (pp. 20 — 23). ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 45 belonging to the State Church, they would not have abated the Irish grievance, or cured the Irish disease ; they would have only caused a change in the form of words by which the complaints of those who feel aggrieved now find ex- presaion "." It used to be said, " Surely in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." And unless the world is so changed that the saying has become obsolete, as many sayings in the same Book are supposed to be, I think that these candid declarations ought to enlighten some of our landed proprietors, who seem to have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the Church Establishment in Ireland is the great object of hostility to our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that if only it were made a peace-offering, all discontent would cease, and that thenceforth they and their tenantry would be harmoniously united in the discharge of their respective duties in the land ! But whatever may be the effect upon them, I trust that these publications will not be lost upon the Members of both Houses, that they will see that they do nothing to secure peace by sacrificing the Church, unless they follow it up by settling the Land question to the satisfaction of the priests and the people. And that even then, tranquillity is as far as ever from being established, unless they banish the Protestant proprietary from the country ; or at least reduce them from a ' majority to a minority, and lower their social position gene- rally throughout the kingdom. That while this is left un- done, whatever else is. done, they will not have abated the Irish grievance, or cured the Irish disease ; they will only have caused a change in the form of words hy which the complaints of those who feel aggrieved now find enrpression. Some will choose still to believe the Times, speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. But I trust there will be not a few who will feel that it is rather wiser to listen to the Roman Catholics speaking for themselves. Though I have said so much — many will probably feel too much — upon this subject, I do not feel that I ought to be ° This appeared early last year, and it was quoted by me in the speech referred to in the preceding note, but I am unable to make a more exact reference, as I took it from a Dublin paper, in which the date of the Tablet from which it was extracted was not given. 46 THE CASE OF THE prevented from making what I feel to be a very important addition to it. The foregoing grievances are, as we have seen, distinctly stated by Roman Catholics. But there is another of which they do not speak, but which cannot, I think, be prudently kept out of sight, if the Legislature, having re- moved all the disabilities which gave Eoman Catholics just cause of complaint, is now to engage in the harder task of redressing their imaginary wrongs, and of soothing their wounded sensibilities : I mean the laws which regulate the succession to the throne in the United Kingdom. If we are looking for relics of ascendancy, here is surely one of no small dimensions. Could there, indeed, be an enactment founded upon views and feelings, with reference to the Ro- man Catholic religion, which are more opposed to those that Roman Catholics themselves entertain ; or one which it is more certain that they never would have allowed to pass, if they had had the power of preventing it ; or one which it is more certain that they would at once repeal, if they had the power of repealing it ? It not only excludes all Roman Catholics from succeeding to the throne, but takes away from the reigning sovereign the right which is left to the meanest subject — the right of becoming a Roman Catholic, or of marrying a Roman Catholic : or, at least, annexes to the exercise of the right no less a penalty than the for- feiture of the Crown. Such an Act is founded upon such views of the nature of the Roman Catholic religion, that it cannot be doubted that Roman Catholics would earnestly desire to efiace it from the statute-book altogether, indepen- dently of any consideration of its practical effects, and even if it could be demonstrated— as it is well-known it cannot be — that it never has had and never can have any practical effects. Looked at in itself, indeed, it is so opposed to the principles of toleration, and, therefore, to the true principles of Protestantism, that nothing short of its absolute necessity for the preservation of the civil and religious liberties of the nation could justify such a restraint upon the freedom of conscience of any individual, high or low, in the realm. It is upon the existence of this necessity, as proved by experi- ence, that the enactment is expressly founded in the Act of Settlement. And it is only because the people of England are deeply convinced that this necessity still exists, that the ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IKELAND. 47 enactment is maintained'. But if all relics of ascendancy, and all badges of conquest, whick are calculated to wound the sensibility of Roman Catholics are to be taken away, here is one which seems to have urgent claims upon the considera- tion of Parliament, and which will certainly be pressed upon its attention, if it once enters upon a course of legislation, upon the principle on which it is called on to take the Church in Ireland out of the way. There are other attempts to determine what is the great oh- Jection against the Established Church in Ireland ; but those which I have noticed have taken so much more space than I calculated upon, that I must pass over the rest, with the excep- ■ tion of one which seems to be more relied upon than any other, and which involves a variety of very important considerations. It is often said, that the bare fact that the Church is the Church of the minority, is enough to condemn the mainte- nance of it, as a violation of the duty of the State, and of the common principles of justice. This opens the whole ques- tion of the duty of a State with regard to the establishment of a Church, and the endowment of other religious bodies. This is a question which could not be fully discussed within ' Various proofs might be given of the strength of this con- viction, and of the extent to which it prevails in England ; but, considering the quarter from which it comes, I think the following declaration will be felt, without more, to furnish very satisfactory evidence of the fact. Defending the Commission issued in 1834 to inquire into Church Revenues and population in detail, with a view of finding a surplus for the purposes of the Appropriation Clause, Lord Brougham said, that, " Supposing there was a surplus fund, it should, first of all, if not exclusively, be applied to the purposes of religious and moral education in the principles of the Esta- blished Church. The source from which the fund came naturally indicated the objects to which it should be directed. As to the Catholic Church Jicming one single fraction of a farthing of the fund, no opponent of the Commission would more strenuously oppose such a proposition than he himself, — if such a proposition could for a moment be conceived. No greater curse could befall the people of Ireland — no greater danger could arise to the liberties of Ireland and England — than any thing that could tend to install the Catholic as the Established religion of that country. Liberty would not ie safe ; and in his opinion, as a Protestant, religion in such a case would be no better off than liberty." 48 THE CASE OF THE any moderate limits; but it has fallen so directly in our way, that it is necessary to say something of the true prin- ciples on which the solution of it rests, and to indicate, at least, some of the leading reasons in support of them. Before I state, however, what I hold to be the true view of the question, I must protest against the statement that the Church in Ireland is the Church of the minority. This can only be maintained by repudiating the fifth article of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, to which I have already referred; in which the union of the Established Churches of England and Ireland into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, is enacted ; and it is declared, that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall he deemed and taken ■ to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union. That this article of the Union is really repudiated when the Established Church in Ireland is treated as a separate Church, and not as an integral part of the United Church of England and Ireland, cannot be doubted ^. This is not, I believe, denied, but it is treated as a matter of little importance. It is said that, after all, the Act of Union was an Act of Parliament, and that it is as much within the competence of Parliament to alter it as any other Act that it has ever passed. Now, I do not deny that the Act of Union is an Act of Parliament ; but I think it cannot, with any degree of fairness, be treated as an ordinary Act. It was passed under circumstances which can never recur again, and it was attended with effects which can never be undone. The smaller and less powerful legislature sacrificed its indepen- dence, and consented to be merged in the larger and more powerful one. But it made this sacrifice upon certain con- ditions, to which the larger body solemnly and deliberately » Sir James Graham, speaking in 1835 on the Appropriation Clause, says, in answer to the argument derived from Paley, in favour of establishing the Church of the majority : " My answer is, that so long as the Union subsists, the Protestant religion is the religion of the majority." This answer seems to admit Paley's unsound principle, but it makes the speaker's views very clear upon a question on which his authority is of much more weight, viz., that it is only by repudiating the Union that the Established Church in Ireland can be treated as the Church of the minority. ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 49 subscribed. And this being the case, an alteration of the Act, in which these conditions are embodied, involves con- siderations of good faith, which do not apply to the alteration of an ordinary Act of Parliament. I do not maintain that the Imperial Parliament is thereby deprived of the power of altering this Act, but I do maintain that its right to alter it is very materially limited. I shall make no attempt to define these limits in the abstract, but I think it must be clear, that if they exist any where, it is in the particular case with which we are concerned. For I have remarked before, and no one who is acquainted with the history of the times can doubt it, that if the friends of the Church had not been perfectly satisfied that the Church in Ireland was as secure as the Church in England to which it was united, the Union would not have been agreed to by the Irish Parlia- ment. So that it may be said to have been effected only because the faith of the Empire was pledged to the mainte- nance of the union of the Churches. And can it be said, that, whatever be the power of Parliament, it has a right to annul this condition, as it does when it deals with the Church in Ireland as the Church of a minority ' ? It is plain that one fundamental article of the Union cannot be set aside in this way without invalidating the other funda- mental articles also, and so invalidating the Union itself. This cannot be denied as a matter of reasoning, but it is pretty clearly intimated, if not distinctly said, that it is really of no practical importance, for that the maintenance of the Union does not depend upon compacts and conditions, or Acts of Parliament, but upon the determination and the power of England to maintain it. This, however, is not a mere question of power, but of public right and public morality. I do not doubt the power of England to maintain the Union, or question her right to " This is not an Irish Churchman's argument. In the speech quoted above, Sir James Graham says, " It appears to my mind that this was the moving consideration to the weaker party upon the very face of the contract. Such being the case, is it just, is it decent, before even a generation has passed away, while many are still alive who were parties to this contract, that the Commons of England should annul the main moving consideration, which led to the completion of the Union, and induced the inde- pendent legislature of Ireland to enter into it." E 2 60 THE CASE OF THE maintain it : but I do deny her right, at the same time, to violate the conditions upon which it was concluded. And can there be a more open violation of all the principles of good faith and honesty than when the stronger of two con- tracting parties says, ' I feel that the compact which we have made is one which ought to be maintained. I think it is advantageous to you ; I am sure it is advantageous to me ; and I am resolved to maintain it. But as to the conditions upon which it was concluded, that is quite a different ques- tion. I have altered my views about some of them. Objec- tions which did not occur to me at the time, have since forced themselves on me. Circumstances indeed have altered, so as to make it more diflacult and inconvenient to carry some of them out than it was when I consented to them. These must, therefore, be set aside. With respect to the others, I shall abide by them as long as circumstances do not alter my view of them in the same way. But how- ever that may be, under any circumstances, and under all circumstances, I am. resolved to maintain the bargain.' It seems hard to conceive a more flagrant defiance of the principles of morality, honesty, and honour, than such a vaunt would exhibit. And I should find it hard to believe that a State can so disregard and violate the principles of morality and good faith with impunity. Nemesis is often slow in her movements, but she is not the less sure. And the following seems to be one of the many unexpected ways in which her work may be done in the present case. This imperious mode of thrusting this condition aside has not been satisfactory to all who are determined to get rid of it, and reasons have been alleged to justify the repudiation of it. Lord Grey brought forward a motion last session upon the state of Ireland, with a very special reference to the Established Church there. And in noticing this article of the Act of Union, as apparently offering some hindrance to the mode in which he was disposed to deal with that Insti- tution, he gave as a reason for disregarding it, that the Irish Parliament by which the compact was made was only the representative of a small part, not of the entire Irish people ; and that it had therefore no right to bind the nation. It is plain that all that I have said of the inconvenient consequences of getting rid of the fifth article of the Union ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 51 arbitrarily, applies no less to this mode of getting rid of it by reasoning. But this latter mode extends a good deal furtber, and requires that sometbing additional should be said upon it. For does not Lord Grey's description of the Irish Parliament apply to the Parliament of England, and to the Imperial Parliament, at least up to 1832 ? This is a question which was answered by anticipation by Lord Russell in bringing in the Reform Bill in that year. He states at the outset that "no man in his senses believed that that House" (he was speaking in the House of Commons) " was a repre- sentation of the Commonalty of this country'." Lord Grrey's argument is thus fruitful in consequences which he probably did not anticipate. Up to the Reform of the Representation in 1832, then, the House of Commons was not a representation of the whole Commonalty of England, but only of a part of it. Many high authorities would extend the period to which this description of the House of Commons applies to the present day. But we may be content with using it to the year 1832, up to which it is actually applied to that branch of the Legislature by Lord Russell, speaking in his own name, and on behalf of his colleagues. From some period before that date, which it would perhaps be hard to fix, but which certainly would go higher than the beginning of George the Third's reign, down to the year above mentioned, the Parlia- ment — whether English or Imperial — was incompetent to make laws to bind the people of England. It is hard to say how far the effects of this disability would reach, or rather where they would end. But I need only spsak of one of the consequences of it, which cannot, I think, but be felt to be of very great importance. During the whole of the period stated. Parliament was plainly as incapable of making a compact on behalf of the people of England as the Irish Parliament at the time of the Union was of making a compact on behalf of the Irish ^ And speaking in the same way, for the whole Ministry as well as for himself, he states this fact as the ground on which they regarded the people of England as entitled to the Reform of Parliament as a right. For no free people ought to be bound by laws which they have not a share in enacting. They can only act by their representatives. And if they be not represented in Parliament they have really no share in enacting the laws. 52 THE CASE or THE people. But this period comprehended the whole time of the war of the French Revolution, during which such an enormous addition was made to the National Debt. One of the effects of this great increase is to lay upon the manu- facturers of England a much heavier weight of taxation than is borne by those of other nations with ,whom they have to compete. Hitherto the natural resources of the country, and the industry and skill of the people, have enabled them to bear up successfully under this burden, and in spite of it to keep their place of superiority in the markets of the world. But various causes are in operation which may make a great change in their position. And if, as may well be, they find it impossible to maintain their wonted superiority, and very hard even to keep on an equality with the manufacturers of the Old and New "World, whom they formerly so far distanced, they are much less likely to ascribe the change to causes for which they are themselves to blame, than to those the blame of which they can throw upon ethers. One of the most obvious of these latter is the load which the National Debt lays upon them. And in seasons of depression, and distress, and discontent, they are little likely to want counsellors who will urge them to repudiate an obligation which was laid upon them by a Parliament which had no right to contract any engagements for the Nation. And if they proceed to act upon this counsel, how can Parliament resist the violation of the engagement to the public creditor, if it suffers itself to be led by this argument of Lord Grey, to deprive the Church of Ireland of the security which the fifth article of the Union was intended and was supposed to give to it, and to treat it as a separate Ohurch, and not as an integral part of the United Church of England and Ireland ^ ? ^ A very intelligent Eoman Catholic, Mr. A. E. Blake, who knew both countries well, in his evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, which has beeu very often referred to, savs, " The Protestant Church is rooted in the Constitution ; it' is established by the fundamental laws of the realm ; it is rendered, so far as the most solemn acts of the Legislature can render any institution, fundamental and perpetual. It is so declared by the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. I think it could not now be disturbed without danger to the general securi- ties we possess for liberty, property, and order; without danger ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 53 But I must add, though I am well aware how unpopular the view is, that, even if it were right to consider the Church in Ireland apart from its connexion with the Church in England, the fact that its members are very few compared to those of the Roman Catholic Church in the former country, would by no means warrant the conclusion that it ought not to be, as it is, the Established Church of the country. It is a false view of the duty of the State in this matter to regard it as bound or warranted to establish the Church of the majority. And if the Church in England, conscious of the strength which its numbers give it, were to be be- guiled into making them the ground of its right to be chosen and upheld as the Established Church of the country, it would commit a fatal mistake. Numbers supply an Esta- blished Church with a popular argument in defence of its position. And they enable it for a while to sustain itself with no better aid than that which a popular argument can give, or even to dispense altogether with the aid of argument. But this cannot last. Before long it must be seen, that all that a preponderance of numbers can do is to justify a cor- responding preponderance of the advantages which are en- joyed bj' the different sections of the community. It never can justify a monopoly of advantages by the more numerous section. However great may be the inequality in the numbers, the inequality of all the advantages of an Establishment on one side, and none of them on the other, infinitely transcends it. Such a foundation for an Establishment, therefore, cannot bear examination ; and no cause which is made to rest upon a foundation which will not bear examination canbepermanently maintained. And if the friends of the Church rest its defence upon its numbers, they will find when it is too late that they have been building in the sand, and that, however stable the to all the blessings which we derive from being under a lawful Government and a free Constitution." This is a remarkable declaration. And is not the significant warning which it contains strongly enforced, when it is found that an acute enemy of the Church can only justify its overthrow upon a principle which, — not to follow it out further into its results, — ^leads legitimately to a violation of public faith that would pro- duce more wide-spread misery, distrust, and alarm, than any thing that has been done since the Revolution ? 54 THE CASE OF THE edifice may appear, it will certainly fall when the time of trial comes. And what, then, I may be asked, is the true and firm ground on which to found a Church Establishment ? I have endea- voured in another publication to give what I hold to be the true answer to this question, and to support the answer by what I hold to be sound arguments ^ But instead of quoting from myself, I prefer giving the answer in the words of a distm- guished author, orator, and statesman, which will carry much more weight than my own. In the year 1835, in speaking upon the Appropriation Clause, Mr. Gladstone said that "there was no principle upon which the Church Establishment could be rightly or perma- nently upheld, but that it was the Establishment which taught the truth The Grovernment, as a Government, was bound to maintain that form of belief which contained the largest portion of truth with the smallest admixture of error. Upon that ground the Government of this country maintained the Protestant, and declined to maintain the Catholic religion "." It is well known that these views were afterwards given to the world in an elaborate Essay upon The State in its Rela- tions with the Church, in which they are very fully explained, and supported with great acuteness and eloquence. The work was the product of a very gifted and highly culti- vated mind, applied with great earnestness to the solution of ' The question formed one of the subjects of a Charge de- livered to my Clergy in 1848. And what was said then on that question, and one closely connected with it, was published last year by a friend in a separate pamphlet, under the title of Observations on the Duty of the State with reference to the Ustahlishment of the Ghv/rch, and to the £!ndowment of other Beligious Bodies. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co. London: Eivingtons. * Mr. Gladstone went on to say, "that the noble lord invited the House to give up that ground. The noble lord, and many who sat around him, told that House, that with the truth of religion they had nothing to do. Their argument was this ; no matter what the religion, no matter whether it be true or false the fact of its existence was sufficient — wherever it exists it has to be recognized. It was not the business or the duty of a Government to endeavour to influence the belief of a subject ; but God forbid that the House should assent to such a doctrine !" ESTABLISHED CHmCH IN IRELAND. 55 the very interesting question which he took in hand. It underwent a severe ordeal. For the late Lord Macaulay put forth his strength in a critique whicli was intended entirely to overthrow the author's theory. And I do not know that any work of that distinguished writer exhibits his various powers of reasoning, sarcasm, and illustration more strikingly. But, for its main object, I cannot but consider it a failure. That it makes some successful points against the Essay, it would be uncandid to deny. But I think they were only such as the accomplished author gave occasion to, by his desire to lay the foundation of his views deep in philo- sophical abstractions ; and that by taking a more direct and simple mode of supporting them, he might, without alter- ing them in substance, have avoided furnishing an opening for the objections which Lord Macaulay has pressed with most apparent success against them. I do not think, however, that any thing that this lively and acute critique contains really touches the substance of the argument on which the conclusion rests. And I hold firmly by the conclusion, that a State is bound by its duty to Grod and to the people whom He has confided to its care, to choose as the Established Church of the country from among the various religious com- munities which exist in it, the representative of the Catholic Church which holds the truth and teaches the truth. This distinguished Writer considers distinctly in his work the case of the Established Church in Ireland ; and maintains that, notwithstanding its peculiarities, it is a sound application of the true principle of an Establishment. This conclusion is expressed by him with his usual eloquence in the following passage. " Upon us of this day has fallen (and we shrink not from it, but welcome it as a high and glorious, though an arduous duty) the defence of the Reformed Catholic Church in Ireland, as the Religious Establishment of the country." And having stated the numbers of the Roman Catholics and Protestants as they stood at the date at which he was writing, which present the case of the Church more unfavourably than the actual numbers would, he goes on to say : " How- ever formidable at first sight these admissions, which I have no desire to- narrow or qualify, may appear, they in no way shake the foregoing arguments. They do not change the nature of truth, and her capability and destiny -to benefit 56 THE CASE OF THE mankind. They do not reKeve Government of its responsi- bility, if they show that that responsibility was once unfelt and unsatisfied. They place the Legislature of this country in the condition of one called to do penance for past offences ; but duty remains unaltered and imperative, and abates nothing of her demands on our services." It will be said, I suppose, for it has been said, that it is unfair to claim Mr. Gladstone's authority for these views, which were formed and published when he was a boy, or little more than a hoy, considering that he has seen reason, in the maturer exercise of his judgment as a man, to alter them, and, as regards the Church in Ireland at least, to come to the opposite views. It would, no doubt, be unfair to quote his views from his earlier publication, if the fact that they have undergone a change were concealed. But he has taken very good care that that shall not be a secret to any one. And this being the case, I do not feel that a friend of the Church in Ireland is debarred from quoting, as I have done, from his earlier work, the evidence which it furnishes of the views which he held at the time that it was published. His testimony in favour of the Church in Ireland is too valuable to be given up quietly to those who wish to rob her of the advantage of it, even if he should be himseK in the number. I must therefore say a word or two on this attempt to depreciate its importance. I cannot admit that it is at all fair to set aside his testi- mony on the plea, that the views to which I have referred were the speculations of a boy. The work in question was published in 1838, when the author was twenty-nine years of age. It was evidently the fruit of much reading and much thought, — nine years' thought, he says, — and it un- doubtedly expressed the honest convictions of his mind at the time. The subject wias reconsidered carefully by him during the following two years, with the aid of friendly and of hostile criticism. And in 1841, when sending out a fourth edition, he was able to make the following statement: "The lapse of time, and the opportunities it has given for reflection, and the remarks of those friendly to my general view, and of those opposed to it, have brought out with much clearer consciousness the confession I made two years and a half ago, with a strong but less determinate conviction of its truth." And he notes ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 67 very carefully, that whatever corrections his work had under- gone, they had done nothing to alter its spirit and intention and the principles on which its whole argument was con- structed, but that these were altogether unchanged. Now I cannot admit that a work which was written at the first with such preparation and deliberation, and which was so carefully and thoroughly reconsidered, ought to be set aside as the unpractical speculation of a boy, because the author was but twenty-nine at the first publication of it, and but thirty- one, when a fourth edition of it, very diligently revised, was sent forth. In one of Cowper's playful letters, he gives a leaf from the diary of an Antediluvian, which shows amusingly that a day before the flood might be spent in the same round of trifling employments, petty cares, and light vexations, in which so many days since that event have passed. One of the troubles of the diarist is, having to spend part of the morning in mending his arrows, the feathers of which had been spoilt by having been played with by his youngest son, a hoy of thirty years of age. This suits the date very well, but I do not think that we postdiluvians are in the habit of speaking of each other as boys, when we have reached the age of thirty. I know of nothing involved in the question, What is the duty of a State with reference to a Church Establish- ment ? which the mind is not as capable of considering and settling satisfactorily at the age of thirty, as at a quarter of a century later. And even if the intellectual difierence between these two stages of life were more favourable to the later stage than I think it is, I cannot but think that it would frequently be more than counterbalanced by a moral difference, which commonly acts in the opposite way. For it is impossible, I think, to doubt, that, as a man goes on in life, he is, speaking generally, more under the influence of the causes which do most to disturb the judgment and, however unconsciously, to warp the reasoning powers, than when he was younger. In many cases life is but a progress in selfishness from the beginning ; and in such cases the man in mature manhood furnishes no contrast to himself in early youth. He is only more advanced,— more steadily devoted to the object of his life,. whatever it be — gain, or ambition, or pleasure — and wiser in the pursuit of it. But there are some very different cases, in which the contrast between the 58 THE CASE OF THE two periods is violent and painful. I know, indeed, no sadder spectacle, than that of a man of high gifts, under such in- fluences, disappointing, as life advances, all the promise of his earlier years, gradually withdrawing his great powers from the worthy objects to which they were dedicated in his youth, and concentrating them upon soqie lower aims, — exerting them at the bidding of the hard taskmasters to whom at last he has bound himself, and with new associates, employ- ing them to overthrow some great cause which they were formerly devoted to maintain, — " Like captive Samson, making sport for all, "Who fear'd his strength, and triumph in his fall ! " But it is enough for my purpose to say, that, upon such a question as Mr. Gladstone's work proposes to consider and settle, I know of no reason for preferring the views which are arrived at by a man amidst the distractions of political life, and under a full measure of all the disturbing influences which they bring to bear upon the mind, to the views which the same man had formed, at the age of thirty, after wide reading, deep thought, under calmer circumstances, and in perfect freedom from any bias from ambition or interest. It will probably be said that ail this sounds very well, but that if the circumstances were reversed we should have a very difierent representation of the case. If this eminent states- man had declared against the Church in Ireland in an earlier work, and had seen reason in the progress of life to change his views, and were now one of its supporters, we should hear a very different estimate of the value of his earlier and his later opinions : and aU the added weight that belongs to the ripeness of judgment and the calmness of maturer years, would be confidently claimed for his testimony in favour of the Church. I cannot deny that under the circumstances supposed, some, perhaps many, of the friends of the Church in Ireland would be likely to put forward this distinguished individual's later views as entitled to more weight than those which he had formed at an earlier period in life. But I think that they would find no difficulty in giving good reasons to justify the claim. They could say: 'Here is a man who, by the exercise of eminent powers in public life, has attained a ESTABLISHED CHTJECH IN IRELAND. 59 foremost place amongst British statesmen. His eloquence, industry, and energy seem to liave placed within his reach the highest object of an Englishman's ambition — the first place in the Grovernment of his country. In the balanced state of our great parties, nothing could be so calcu- lated to insure^ the attainment of this object of honour- able ambition as the support of the Boman Catholics of Ireland, and nothing would so certainly secure this sup- port as a declaration of hostility against the Established Church of that country. Yet you see he has resisted this strong temptation, and having been led to form views upon that subject different from those which he had formed when starting in political life, he has not hesitated manfully to avow them, though he thereby casts away the support that would have insured him the prize which he no doubt ardently desires. You cannot doubt then that his present convictions have been arrived at honestly, for they have been formed under the strongest motives to come to a different conclusion. And they therefore can claim without any abatement, all the authority which belongs to the genuine fruit of larger ex- perience and riper judgment.' All this could be said under the circumstances supposed. If any thing like this can be said under the actual cir- cumstances of the case, I acknowledge that Mr. Gladstone's recent declarations against the Church in Ireland are entitled to more weight than his former testimony in its favour. All that I have been saying has reference only to the authority which belongs to opinions. It does not touch in any degree the force of the arguments which may be em- ployed in their support. Every one has acknowledged the acuteness and strength of the reasoning in the celebrated work on The State in its Relations to the Church. But so far as I have seen, the arguments which the author has brought forward in support of his altered views, though more eloquently and forcibly expressed than the stock arguments on the same side, have made but little addition to them. And I must say that the addition, so far as I have seen, is not calculated to efface the impression of those by which his earlier views were supported. In 1841 it was perfectly clear to him that the Established Church in Ireland rested upon the only foundation upon 60 THE CASE OF THE which a Church Establishment can be rightly or permanently- upheld. He had no doubt that it was established in the dis- charge of the highest duty of the State, which is bound to establish and to maintain that form of religion in which it finds the greatest amount of truth with the smallest inter- mixture of error ; and this was then the legitimate ground upon which the Government had established the Protestant and declined to establish the Roman Catholic Church. But now he sees no less clearly that the Established Church in Ireland cannot be supported on the ground of truth. Why? Has it fallen from the truth, or ceased to teach it ? No, I do not find that that is alleged. Nor, so far as I know, has it been openly stated that what in 1841 was the true and only ground for maintaining an Established Church is now changed, and that it is no longer that it holds and teaches the truth. But then, Maynooth is supported by the State, and that renders it impossible to support the Esta- blished Church in Ireland on the ground of truth. You cannot maintain the Established Church on the ground of truth, and at the same time maintain a priesthood who teach the people that the truth is not to be found in that Church. This is certainly a curious specimen of reasoning. I find it very hard to believe that it imposed upon the very acute mind of its author. But it is stiU harder to believe that he would have used an argument which was calculated to de- prive hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen and fellow Churchmen of their most valuable and most valued rights, unless he really thought that it was a sound one. I am therefore, as the less of two great difficulties, constrained to believe that this argument was really employed bond fide. And certainly, if it were, whatever else it proves, it does prove very clearly that a quarter of a century may pass over a man's head, and pass in the successful cultivation of rhetoric, with- out any advance in the humbler but more exact art of logic. If the State maintains the Established Church on the ground of truth, it cannot, it is said, maintain a priesthood which teaches that the truth is not to be found in that Church. But is this the case ? It cannot, I grant, maintain both on the ground of truth. But why, supporting one on the ground of truth, may it not support the other upon some different and lower ground? If the State maintain May- ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND. 61 nooth on tlie ground of truth, I grant it cannot maintain the Irish Branch of the United Church on the ground of truth. But who has ever said or thought that Maynooth was maintained on the ground of truth ? And if it be not — if it be maintained on the ground of public policy, or of expediency ; or upon some notion, right or wrong, of justice, political or natural ; or because the faith of the country is pledged to its maintenance*; or upon the common notion, that when the State has fulfilled its primary duty in establishing the true Church, and when a considerable number of its members will not avail themselves of the provision which it has made for giving them what it believes to be the best and soundest religious instruction, it is only discharging a lower duty of its parental office, when it aids such persons in making a provision for their religious wants in the form in which they will receive it— if Maynooth be maintained on any of these grounds, how is the State thereby prevented from establishing and upholding the Reformed Church on the ground of truth ? Now I do not say which of these is the right view : indeed I do not wish to be understood to admit that any of them is right. It is enough that one or other of them is entertained by a majority in both Houses of Parliament, and I believe, by a great majority of the people of the land. But amidst all the diversities of opinion which may exist as to the question, on what grounds Maynooth ought to be sup- ported, I do not suppose that there is any one, within the walls of either House, who is not himself a Roman Catholic, who thinks that it ought to be supported on the ground of truth. And as to the fact of the ground on which it is actually supported, — with which the argument is a great deal more concerned,— I do not think that there is an individual within the walls of either House, or outside, be he Roman Catholic or Protestant, who would maintain, that the support which is given to Maynooth by the State, is given on the ground of truth. And, I repeat, that if the support which that Insti- tution receives from the State be not given on the ground of ' This is the ground on which Mr. Gladstone justified the vote in its favour in 1841, though with the strongest feelings against the principle of the grant. Chwch and State, vol. ii. pp. 300 — 305. 62 THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IKELAND. truth, but upon some other, no matter what other ground, it does nothing to show that the State may not, or that it does not, support the Churcli on the ground of truth. And with this I may dismiss this argument, which has been put forward with so much confidence, and, at the same time, bring my subject to a close. I am conscious that I have omitted a great deal of what ought to have been said. But I hope tbat I have said enough to relieve the Churcb in Ireland from the violent prejudice wbicb tbe persevering misrepresentations of its enemies have raised against it in many a candid but uninformed mind, and which, so long as it exists, is an effectual bar to a fair hearing of the case of the Church. And having done this, I cannot but hope that its case, which I have endeavoured to present simply and truly as it is, will commend itself to the judgment of all moderately fair and intelligent men. APPENDIX. CONTENTS. PAGE Note A, p. 6. — Further Bemarhs upon Mr. Hume's Measure of Church Reform .... (1) — (9) Note B, p. 10. — A Charge of Misrepresentation answered ........ (9) — (11) Note C, p. 17. — Further Examples of the Misrepre- sentations in the " Times" ..... (11) — (28) Note D, p. 23. — Unions of Parishes in Ireland . (28) — (39) Note E, p. 24. — On the Abuses in the Church in Ire- land arising from Anomalies in the Distribution of its Revenues ....... (39) — (47) Note F, p. 29. — On Parish Work in Ireland (in con- timiation of foot-note, p. 29) .... (47) — (51) Note G-, p. 30. — On the Bishops' Incomes . . (52) — (56) Note H, p. 32. — Explanation of the Statement about Tithe Rent-charge (56) — (58j APPENDIX. Note A, p. 6. FURTHER REMARKS UPON MR. HUME'S MEASURE OF CHURCH REFORM. It appears by the " Summary Digest," annexed to the first Report of the Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage in Ireland, that, on an average of three years, ending Dec. 31, 1831, the gross amount of the Annual Rents payable to the Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland (omitting shillings and pence) was 45,250^., and the gross amount of the annual Renewal Fines was 75,422/. ; the total amount of their gross income, therefore, was 120,680/. ' — somewhat less, as I said, than one-twentieth of the sum stated by Mr. Hume. His statement, it is true, included the lands of Deans and Chapters ; and, therefore, their income ought to be added to the above sum. The addition will not materially alter the case. It appears, by the Second Report of the same Commis- sion (Summary Digest), that the corporate income of the Deans and Chapters, and minor Cathedral Corporations, and the aggregate of the incomes of all the individuals composing them (deducting the incomes enjoyed by them as Incumbents of parishes with cure of souls — which appear in the parochial • revenues — and some other items in their income derived, not from land, but from different other sources) would fall short ' This included agents' fees, and made no allowance for in- terest upon the sums expended upon See houses, whether repay- able or sunk altogether : and when such charges were deducted, as they ought to be, the residue, forming the net income, would be 102,052L B (2) Note A. of 23,000/. per annum. Adding this to the Episcopal income before stated, the amount would be 143,680/., which was the gross income derivable from land by the Archbishops and ~ Bishops, and by Deans and Chapters, and by aU minor Cor- porations connected with Cathedrals in Ireland, being still less than one-nineteenth of the sum stated by Mr. Hume. Indeed, even if the value of all the glebe lands in Ireland (95,260/., which is included in the income of the Parochial Clergy) were added, the whole income derived by the Church from land would not amount to one-tenth of Mr. Hume's estimate. The estimate is found in both his speeches — that of 1823, in which he began the attack, and that in 1824, in which he followed it up. And in both he gives (from The Clerical Guide, he says), a list of the Ecclesiastical staff supported by these revenues — a document which ought not to be passed over in silence. The greater part of the Hst presents correctly enough the state of the Church at that date, which, as every one knows — every one at least who has not derived his in- formation from Lord Russell's reprint of his Essay on the British Constitution — was very different from its present state. But there are two items in it which furnish curious evidence of the kind of acquaintance with the Church in Ireland, which qualified a man to set up as a reformer of its abuses. In both the lists, 178 Rural Deans figure in the staff which derive their pay from the Church Revenues, and in the later list there is an addition of no less than " 512 Minor Canons '." As to the Rural Deans, I presume the number is right. But if it had been generally known that, though the office which they hold is a very important, and often a very troublesome one, there is no emolument whatever of any kind attached to it, Mr. Hume would probably not have given them a place in his list, or even if he had, they would not have appeared to his hearers ' The later list (1824) begins in a way which shows strikingly the habitual unfairness of the enemies of the Church in Ireland. It is said that, in addition to their many advantages, the Pro- testants "possessed an exclusive clergy of 1289 persons, having," &c. Mark, " an exclusive Clergy " ! So that one of the offences of the Irish Church was that its Clergy were not of different re- ligious denominations, but of one exclusively ! Is there any other subject on which men could exercise such flagrant injustice un- consciously ? Note A. (3) 80 monstrous an abuse as they probably did. But as to the other item referred to, it is very hard to guess where it was supposed to be found. The Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage could discover in 1832-34 only four Minor Canons, and only nine Canons of any denomination in the Church. It would appear, therefore, that in his laudable anxiety to provide an Ecclesiastical staff somewhat commen- sxirate to the enormous revenues which he had made out for the Irish Church, Mr. Hume, or The Clerical Gvk/c, added no less than 508 Minor Canons to the very moderate number with which the Church had been previously content I Few, I should think, will be disposed to doubt that Mr. Hume's Ecclesiastical statistics were entitled to a place even in such a slight sketch as I have given in the text of the course of misrepresentations which have raised the strong prejudice that prevails to so great an extent in England against the Irish Church. If, however, there were reason to believe that his errors had passed away with himself, I should be content with the glance which we have taken at them, and should make no further attempt to revive the recollection of them. But whatever may be thought of the rest, it seems very certain that his ignorance of the circum- stances and mode of management of Church lands, which was comparatively venial in his day, has survived to ours, in which there is not the same excuse, or indeed any excuse, for it. There seems good reason to believe that it has lately brought forth again some of his crude speculations about the improvement of the Church revenues. And to remove exist- ing misapprehensions, and to prevent the extension of tliem, I think it expedient to dwell a little longer on this early essay at Church Reform. Mr. Hume did not lay claim to the merit of accuracy for his estimate of the Church revenues. He said, on the contrary, that " with respect to the exact amount of the public pro- perfi/ absorbed by the Chiiroh in Irela,nd, it was impossible to estimate it, unless access were had to the Bishops' Courts ". ' AVhat notion Mr. Hume had of "the Bishops' Courts," it would not be easy to say ; but lie wfis corlaiuly under a, false impression in supposiug that tlioro was any ditficulty whatovor in obtaiuing aoooss to tliom, and equally mistaken in thinking that they contained any thing which could throw any new light upon any question concerning the revenues of the Ch\ircli. B '2 (4) Note A. No man who was not in the secrets of the Bishops' records could get at the real amount of the property, even wUhin a million." His account of the way in which he arrived at the value which he assigns to the Church lands, is, in sub- stance, that his chief authority was Mr. Wakefield, but that he combined with him all others that he could command. The calculation was, that there were 14,000,000 acres in Ireland, worth about 14,000,000^. per annum. Two-elevenths of the land were held by the Clergy, whicli, at the foregoing rate, would amount to more than 2,500,000/. * There was some ground at the time for Mr. Hume's com- plaint of the difficulty of obtaining accurate information as to the incomes of the Irish Bishops, for there was then no authentic statement of them. But the Royal Commission, appointed in 1832 to inquire into the Ecclesiastical Revenues and Patronage (Ireland), began its work with the Bishops, and obtained early in the following year a great deal of important information concerning Episcopal incomes, including a Rental of each see, containing all the particulars as to the extent and rent of every holding under each Bishop that the Rentals of other landlords do. All this information, together with full and exact particulars of the same kind concerning the property of Deans and Chapters, and the incomes from Tithe and Land of the parochial Clergy, is contained in their four Reports, which were published in 1833, 1834, 1836, and 1837, and have been ever since consulted and studied by every one who was at all concerned to obtain accurate information about the financial statistics of the Church in Ireland. The Irish Church Temporalities' Act, which was passed in ' I have not Wakefield's work within reach ; but he is quoted in the " Edinburgh Gazetteer," 1822, for a much higher estimate of the extent of Ireland, viz. 20,437,934. The actual acreage, as ascertained by the Ordnance survey, is 20,815,460 acres, the annual value of which, according to Griffiths, is 13,245,235Z. And as the Eeports of the Ecclesiastical Kevenue and Patronage Commission show the whole extent of Church lands, — held by Bishops, Deans, Dignitaries, Prebendaries, Chapters, and Parochial Clergymen, — to be 821,837 acres, the Church lands of all kinds would amount, not to two-elevenths, but to less than one twenty-fifth of the whole. According to Mr. Wakefield's valuation of \l. per acre the value would be 821,837Z., and according to Mr. Griffiths' valuation 529,809?., the higher sum being a good deal short of one-third of 2,500,000?. Note A. (5) the year 1833, laid a tax upon Episcopal incomes, to be paid, for Church purposes, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ap- pointed at the same time. This would bring at once to their knowledge any change that might take place in the income of every See in any year, arising from the Renewals being more numerous or fewer than the average. The Commis- sioners have therefore the means of making an accurate Return of the Episcopal Incomes ; and they did make such a Return to the House of Commons, by its order, in 1864. So that, as I said, the misrepresentations which were venial in Mr. Hume's time, are without any excuse at the present day. Mr. Hume, in 1824, might plead in excuse of any exaggera- tions of the Bishops' incomes that he put in circulation, that lie had no means of ascertaining them accurately. Whether he would have repeated the offence in 1865, if he had lived to that year, cannot be known. But we can be very sure, that, if he had done so,' he.could not have availed himself of the same plea ; and that, if he had been acquitted of having put forward the mis-statement, to create a prejudice against the Church, knowing it to be false, he must have been held guilty of what was only in the next degree criminal and dis- creditable, — of having put it forward, considering only its fitness to do its work, and utterly careless whether it were true or false, — for if he had felt the least interest on that point, he not only could have easily ascertained that it was grossly exaggerated, but could easily have enabled himself to correct it, and to state the true amount to a farthing. And what has ' been said of Mr. Hume in 1824 and 1865, is true of Lord Russell in 1823 and 1865, with certain aggra- vations of the unfairness in the noble Lord's case, which I hav^ pointed out, p. 20 — 22. Mr. Hume did not think that the Ecclesiastical persons who absorbed this vast extent of public property actually derived from it an income to the amount of his estimate of the value of the lands. His notion appeared to be that every Bishop, on his accession, had the See estates to lease, and that if any of them did not derive the whole annual value from them himself, it was only because he had chosen to let them at low rents to some of his family, and that amongst them all the income was enjoyed. He says, — " No matter, then, whether this sum went to A. B. the Bishop, or C. D., his son, or nephew, or relation, who held (6) Note A. under him. Some one belonging to the Clergy got that which belonged to the Church." Hansard, 2nd series, vol. XV., p. 542. And the practical conclusion would seem to be that there can be no injustice in resuming the "public property," which these family parties are enjoying in the different Dioceses throughout the land. I need not discuss either the morality or the policy of this plan, on the supposition that the case is truly stated, for the fact is that it is entirely misrepresented. Between the Bishop and the occupants of the See lands there are the immediate tenants, and sometimes their sub-tenants of different orders deriving from them. The immediate tenant holds for the most part at a small rent, and except in some special cases which we need not notice, he holds under a lease for twenty- one years, which may be renewed at any time while there is more than one year of the term to run. The Renewal Fine would be of course matter of agreement between the Bishop and the tenant ; but the usage is — in all the Dioceses except Armagh, in which the terms are still more favourable to the tenant — that eight per cent, compound interest is allowed for money paid as fine. The result is that if he renews annually, the tenant pays one-fifth of the interest which he has in the land, for the renewal. And I suppose that there is no other case in which the head landlord allows so large a share in the value of the land to those who immediately derive from him. In some instances, formerly, a Bishop refused to renew in the case .of one or more tenants. But this mode of pro- ceeding—which was called running the Bishop's life against the lease — could not, from the nature of the case, be often adopted, for the average age of a Bishop at his appointment rendered it very unlikely in general that he could win the race, and for the chance, he must give up all the annual renewal fines ; that is, fully half his income. If he did sur- vive the unexpired term, he could make a beneficial lease to any member of his family (directly or indirectly), but he must reserve to the See one-half the value of the land. The result would be a permanent rise in the rental of the See by the difference between the new rent and the old. But the income of the See would not be raised by the same amount, because of course as the rent was raised, the interest of the Note A. (7) tenant was lessened, and the renewal fine also lowered : so that the income might possibly not he raised at all ^ The proceeding, however, was very seldom adopted, and the power of resorting to it was taken away virtually by 3 & 4 Gul. IV. cap. 37, and 4 & 5 Gul. IV., cap. 90 (Irish Church Temporalities' Acts), which gave the tenant the right to obtain from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a perpetuity of the land held by him. The perpetuity could only be granted upon a lease fully renewed, or upon the payment of all renewal fines, which, according to the custom in the particular case, ought to have been paid for the renewal. The rent of the lands conveyed in per- petuity is the rent paid under the old lease, together with the annual renewal fine ; so that the income of the See was secured from diminution, but on the other hand it could never thereafter be raised ; for if a Bishop refused to renew unless the fine were increased, the tenant might apply to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a perpetuity. And they would treat his lease as full, when he had paid the amount of the customable fine on the actual lapse. Even before this Act, interests held under the See were re- garded as permanent property by those who held them. They were so dealt with in wills and family settlements. And if Parliament had been persuaded bj'^ Mr. Hume to take posses- sion of the See lands with a view of turning them to profit for public purposes, setting aside the interests of the immediate tenants, it would not only have inflicted a grievous injury on that numerous and most respectable class of Irish landholders, but would have violated what they regarded as the rights of property, and what was regarded in the same light by a great majority of the Irish public*. Such a proceeding ^ When the old rent and the tenant's interest were equal, the income was unaltered ; while, if the former were greater than the latter, the income would be diminished. But, as both those cases were very unusual, the income of the See was generally increased when the Bishop succeeded in the race. " As to the notion which Mr. Hume seems to have entertained that the immediate tenants were mostly, if not always, sons or nephews of the Bishops, who had become possessed of the pro- perty by the favour of their Episcopal relations, every one who knew any thing of the See lands in Ireland knew that it was (8) Note A. would have been a violent and a very difficult one at the time, and it was afterwards impossible. For the Legislature affirmed the soundness of the view of the nature of such property, and by the Acts to which I have referred gave to all who held terminable leases under the See the right of converting their tenure into a perpetuity, at the same rate at which they before held the lands, supposing that they renewed annually. The right has been acted upon extensively. And wherever a tenant has actually obtained a title under the Act to his lands in perpetuity, he could no more be disturbed than any landed proprietor in the kingdom. But it would seem hardly, if at all, less violent and unjust to take the right of purchase away from those who have" not yet exercised it. The prudential reasons why they have not done so were only such as they were left at liberty to act on. And they could not be subject to such a penalty for acting on those reasons without flagrant injustice. It would seem impossible, indeed, that a legal right which had been bestowed on this class, on the ground that they were in justice and public policy entitled to it, should be now taken away from the individuals of them who have not yet exercised it ; and that this should be done, not on the ground that they had violated any condition, on which the enjoyment of it had been made to depend by the Act which had bestowed it, but in order to enable the State to increase for its own benefit the income derived from these lands, in a way which Parliament had deliberately determined to be so contrary to the just rights of the immediate tenants, that the power of doing so ought to be taken away from the Bishops, who were in actual possession of it ! And yet, if the words in Lord Russell's Resolution which made it part of the instructions of the Church Commission, to report upon any entirely unfounded. And the foregoing explanation of the way in which leases have been made and renewed for many generations would show that it could not be the case to any considerable ex- tent. It is true that some of the immediate tenants in some Sees were descended from Bishops of some earlier day. But this was true only in comparatively few cases. And even where it was true, speaking generally, it would have been felt to he just as fair to deal with the estates of the house of Bedford as a part of the property of the Church in England, as to regard the inte- rests of those immediate tenants of the Irish Bishops as a part of the income of the Irish Church. JSToTE B. (9) measure by which Church property might be made more pro- ductive, had any definite aim, and were not merely thrown out ad captandum, they must have pointed at a revival of Mr. Hume's project. But this is a matter which may be left to be settled between the noble Earl and the immediate tenants of the Sees. It is they and not the Bishops who would be affected by the carrying out of such a scheme; and they are, fortunately for themselves, much better able to defend their own rights than the Bishops would be, if it were theirs that were invaded. Note B, p. 10. A CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION ANSWERED. This statement of Mr. Osborne's has been publicly de- fended as perfectly true ; and it has been maintained that it is only by misinterpreting what he said in the place, that he has been made to appear guilty of misrepresentation. I think it may be shown that this attempt to defend the particular statement is an utter failure. But if it were ever so successful, it seems strange that it should have been thought wise to put it forward, unless some justification could be offered at the same time of the other misrepresenta- tions with which Mr. Osborne was no less distinctly charged. This is but one out of several which were quoted from his speech. It was distinctly stated that throughout the speech, when he professed to state the average Church population of an Irish diocese, he stated not the true number, but the one-tenth of it. It was further stated distinctly that he not only so misstates the number in the average again and again, but that he makes the same misstatement in reference to particular cases — that is, that he not only states generally that an Irish Bishop gets from 4000/. to 5000/. per annum for superintending the care of 5000 souls ; but that he asserts expressly of one diocese nominatim, that it contained less than 5000 souls — the fact being that it contained above 65,000 ; — and of another diocese, that the Bishop actually received 4000/. a year for looking- after 686 people, whereas he (10) Note B. really has more than three and twenty times that number to look after (see ante, p. 11—17). He was at the same time accused, just as distinctly, of exag- gerating the corresponding numbers in the English Branch of the Church in the same way, for the purpose of making the contrast still greater and more disadvantageous to the Irish Branch than the truth would make it : and specific examples of both kinds of exaggeration were given. The object of these examples was to convey a more adequate conception than could be given by any general statements, of the extra- vagant misrepresentations by which the public mind has been perseveringly abused with reference to the Church in Ireland. And while all these charges are left untouched, it does not appear easy to understand what object can be supposed to be gained, either as regards the war against the Church, or the defence of the individual assailant, to prove, if it could be proved, that he did not, as I have alleged, in one particular instance, diminish the Church population of Ireland by one- third— Quid te exemta juvat spinis de pluribus una ? But, as I have already intimated, and now shall proceed to show, this cannot be proved. More than one writer has undertaken to show that in correcting an alleged mistake of Mr. Osborne's I have fallen into a very great one myself. My mistake, it is maintained, is, that in the passage which I quote and comment upon, I understand " one clergyman in Ireland " to mean one beneficed clergyman, whereas I ought to have understood the assertion as applying to every clergy- man in Ireland, whether beneficed or not. When this correc- tion is made, it will appear that if Mr. Osborne's statement is rot perfectly correct, it erred only in being too favourable to the Church. He took, as it seems, the number of clergymen in Ireland in 186-3 to be 2132, and that multiplied by 325 would give 692,900, nearly the exact amount. But it is asserted that the real number was 2172, which, multiplied by 325, would give 705,900, no less than 12,543 beyond the actual number, as ascertained by the Census. This brings the question to a simple and well-defined issue. To decide it, however, my readers ought to have the sentence before them. It is : " In England there is one clergyman to every 2612 people, whereas in Ireland there is Note C. (11) one to every 325." This is the sentence ; and I should sup- pose that every one must see that the two members of it so correspond, that, whatever be the meaning of owe clergyman in either of them, the same must be the meaning of the same words in the other. If, in speaking of England, the words mean one clergyman generally, then they mean one clergyman generally in speaking of Ireland. But if they mean one beneficed clergyman in the former case, the same must be their meaning in the latter. Now it seems plainly impossible to maintain that, as regards England, one clergyman generally can be meant. For as there are in England fully 20,000 clergymen, 2612 to each woidd give a Church population for the kingdom of above fifty-two millions ! This is, I presume, too monstrous an exaggeration to have been intended. It will be easier to most persons to suppose that the orator diminished the Church population of Ireland by a couple of hundred thousands, than that he in- creased that of England by at least forty millions. But if there are any who prefer the latter supposition — I have shown that the choice lies between them — it would leave the case in rather a better state for my purpose, for it is a still more striking example of the monstrous exaggerations on which the enemies of the Church have relied. I am content, therefore, to leave to the hon. Member's defenders to choose between these two explanations of his statement, or to devise a third, which shall bring it nearer the truth, and at the same time be itself defensible on any reasonable principle of interpretation. Until I see such an explanation, I shall continue to believe that my charge was well grounded. And I am inclined to think that I shall be left in the undisturbed enjoyment of this belief for a good while. Note C, p. 17. FURTHER EXAMPLES OP THE MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE " TIMES." I said (p. 17) that, besides affirming one by one some of the most flagrant of the extravagant misrepresentations contained in Mr. Osborne's celebrated speech against the Church in Ire- land in 1863, the Times adopted all of them in the gross, and (12) Note 0. put the stamp of its authority upon them, z& facts which ought to he laid by to he the groundwork of future legislation. Those who have read the specimens of Mr. Osborne's /acfe which I have given in the text will require no further evidence of the trustworthiness of the Times where the Churchun Ireland is concerned. But it seems desirable to give here some extracts from the article to which I have re- ferred, in which the leading journal came forward so decidedly as one of the hon. Member's compurgators. They are not needed to establish its readiness to authenticate and circulate as facts the most monstrous fictions, provided only they make against the Church in Ireland ; but they wUl, I hope, throw some additional light upon the spirit and temper in which it addresses itself to the Irish Church Question. In a leading article on the 30th of June, having announced that the debate on the Irish Church had virtually come to an end, by the adjournment which was carried the night before, the journalist proceeds thus': — "Nothing else was to be expected, for all that Mr. Osborne could possibly do was to tell his story, and leave it for consideration. It was worth his while to do this, and he has done it well. There is nothing about which we Englishmen know so little as Ire- land. . . . But if there is one thing more than another in Ireland which we don't ask about, and don't care about, it is the Established Church. A score of churches, if so many, are all that English tourists are ever likely to enter. The rest are as unknown as if they never were opened — and many are never opened, and have gone to ruin, as if they were used for the rites of some stupid and haneful superstition. Then if we don't go to them, they don't come to us in the way of report. The Protestants have nothing to say about their churches, tiU they are hard questioned, and the Roman Catholics appear to be very well satisfied with the existing state of things." Here follow some reasons, which would be well worth quoting if we had space, why the Roman Catholics refrain from publicly assailing the Establishment. And the article goes on : — " Hence it is that we neither see nor hear any thing about the Irish Establishment. It has the good ' I ought to premise tliat the Italics in the extract are intro- duced to direct attention to parts which seem particularly note- worthy. Note C. (13) fortune to be done in a corner, for Ireland is a corner. We are prepared for a few irregularities, for th.ere is nothing an Englishman loves so much as a good practical paradox that staggers the reason and defies the conscience. We can hear a few stories of the Irish Establishment without being much moYed. But when Mr. Bernal Osborne gets up and tells us all about the Irish Establishment, it breaks upon us with the force of a startling discovery. Se lifts vp the curtain, and shoivs us on that notorious stage such a scene of plunder, abuse, and waste as exists nowhere else in the world, except under the protection of England. The whole is as neio to England as one of those hideous revelations sometimes made by an enterprising philanthropist who penetrates into the realms of darkness and crime in the metropolis, and then tells us what he has seen. We might have guessed something of it ; we might have even heard of it all before, but the story is ever new." Raising the curtain sounds a very innocent operation, and it would be, in a general way, unreasonable to hold the man who performed it accountable for what it may unveil to view. But if it were he that had painted the scene or arranged the tableau vivant that lay behind, he could hardly complain if he were called on to account for something beyond the simple act of raising the curtain. When it is raised, it discloses the Churches in England and in Ireland in contrast, and the contrast is certainly astound- ing. But my readers are aware that it has been rendered more startling than it actually is by the gentleman who is described as raising the curtain. We have seen that, before he ventured to perform that operation, he divided the average population of an Irish diocese by ten, and multiplied that of an English diocese by three, so that the uplifted curtain might disclose the quotient and the product so found— the one-tenth of the smaller and three times the larger — instead of the true numbers ! And so of the other scenes and con- trasts which break upon the English with the force of a startling discovery ! But we must let the Times go on. " Just now there is nothing to be done but to publish the amazing details. This is the last day of June, and a select Committee would only meet to part But there is a time for learning and a time for acting; there is a time for collecting facts, and a time for forming theories and ascertaining principles. This 14) Note C. is an age of Collections. We are founding Museums every day. The Antiquarians give us a new Museum every year in glass, or metal, or wood, or embroidery, or ivory, and the dilettanti who have squatted at Bromp- ton have a city of curiosities. Not the least singular among them is the Irish Collection, not of bog oak, but of Church scandals as heavy and as old. Let us fill our shelves. Mr. Osborne himself, they say, could send many more contri- butions. So far from, exhausting Ms budget, he left his best stories at the bottom. He was oppressed by the thought that his hearers wanted to be off to the Guards'. Ball, and he scrupled to take advantage of their patience. He could have told of a Church reopened after the lapse of many years for a newly found congregation, not created by the great Missionary movement, but consisting of the single policeman sent to the station, who happened to be a Protestant. He could have told of a Church that had to be broken open for the revival of the service," 8fC. Even with the fear of the Guards' Ball before his eyes, Mr. Osborne contrived to bring out a sufficient number of his stories to satisfy most persons. But for those who thought them all too few and who longed for more, it was fortunate that the writer in the Times was on such terms with the hon. Member as to have access to the bottom of his budget, where it seems his best stories had been left. It is likely that the store is not even yet exhausted — at all events the original source from which they were drawn is as pro- ductive as ever. And if the Irish Church still survives, we may have a third series of these facts. Meanwhile those which have been given from the Speech and from the Article upon it ought to be instructive as evi- dence of the extent to which the enemies of the Church feel it to be safe to break through all the restraints which common prudence imposes generally in carrying on hostilities. And this disregard of such prudential limits is much more im- portant in the case of written than of spoken, slander. When those ribald inventions were heard or read in a House of Com- mons' Speech, no one thought that they were seriously meant to be believed. They were understood as intended to amuse an assembly very willing to be amused, and not unreasonable enough to confine those who purvey for its entertainment very rigidly within the limits of truth. But when thev are Note C. (15) transferred to the columns of the Times, and put forward there aa facts, a new element is introduced into the case. As long as the charges against the Church in that Journal were simply /a&e, they only exhibited the writers' enmity to the Church, and their utter want of principle. But when the writers disregard not truth only, but probability, there is plain CYidenoe in addition that they feel that calumny has so far done its work that the public mind is prepared to believe any thing against the Irish Church, however monstrous and extravagant. The extracts from the Times have been taken from articles published in the year 1863. Every year, almost every month since would furnish examples — some of them as striking as any that I have given — of the utter unscrupulousness with which the leading Journal has carried on this war. The reason why I have confined myself to that year is, that in it there was the most important debate that had taken place on the Irish Church for a good many years. It brought out a greater body of reckless misrepresentations, and particularly statistical misrepresentations, in Mr. Osborne's speech, than had ever before been ventured upon. It was in the prospect of this debate that the Times first openly declared war against the Irish Church ; and followed up the declaration by a course of active and bitter hostility. I was led in this way, not only to read with more attention the articles upon the Church in this country which appeared in the Times of that year than any before or since, but to lay aside a greater number of them ; and so I had at hand specimens of its attacks upon the Church in that year, whereas I should have had to look through the files of the paper to enable myself to give ex- tracts from -its leading articles in other years. Such a search would certainly have supplied a good many specimens of the same kind. But they would hardly have repaid the time and trouble that they would have cost. .For the object of giving such extracts was to prove the truth of the strong statement which I made at the outset (p. 2), viz., that " of all the subjects which have engaged public attention in these countries during the present century the Established Church in Ireland is the one with regard to which the (16) Note C. grossest and the most extravagant misrepresentations have been circulated and believed." And if any who have read the shameless falsehoods which I have quoted from various authorities, and specially from Hansard and the Times, are not satisfied that the statement referred to is " simply and literally true," I should have very little hope of convincing them by multiplying such extracts to any extent. Before I conclude, however, I will give one or two more passages, and the first shall be from a paper of another year which happens to be within reach. I laid it aside, for the sake of an article on the Irish Church which seemed to have some special claim to attention. So far as regards the gross- ness of the misrepresentation, however hard it might be to find a parallel for it elsewhere, it would be easy to match it among the articles on the same subject in the same Journal. But in point of style, it outdid every thing that had appeared on the same fruitful subject in the columns of the Times, or any where else, so far as I know. The Article to which I refer appeared on March the 30th, 1865. The opening sentences are a fair sample of what it is not too much to call the brutal insolence of its tone throughout. " It is the fate of every thing we admire to have its imitators. Man has the ape, the lion has the cat, the horse has the ass, the swan has the goose, gold has brass, and the Church of England has the Church of Ireland. There is always something to be said on both sides, for the higher member of the comparison shows the defects of the lower, and the lower would not enter into the comparison if it had not the look of the real thing, or some points of resemblance. The Church of England has every where to bear a burden of the most oppressive weight and bulk, and exactly so placed as to aggravate every one of its own galls, and frets, and sores." Then follows, as is often the case when the same subject is discussed, something upon these galls, in a comparatively reserved tone, but intimating very intelligibly what is before the Church in England, if ever the Irish Church is swept away ; and the writer is able to turn to that more important subject. " We are not disposed to admit that it is a mere question of magnitude, and that there is simply more of the same quality of offence in Ire- land than in England. The Protestants of Ireland are called the English garrison, and their Church is a garrison Note C. (17) Churcli. It is something very different from our Church, as any body may see. Go to church there. The building generally speaks for itself. It combines the most disagree- able features of a castle, a prison, and a mausoleum. Surrounded by monstrous, slovenly, unfinished, unkept tombs, surmounted by graduated battlements, with few and small windows, and thick limestone walls, it is itself a chamber of horrors. As you descend into it you feel that the water must have been pumped out of it that morning, and must be now oozing in again. The church is swept and garnished by the Commissioners, and is almost too clean. A scanty, well- dressed, and very silent congregation buries itself in spacious lofty pews. There is a fierce prayer for the Lord Lieutenant and the Church of Ireland, during ichich the whole congregation holds its breath in deadly silence, and then gives vent to its smothered feelings by joining audibly in the prayer that happens to follow, after which they subside." There are no doubt mean and squalid churches in Ireland, as indeed there are in England itself, in smaller proportion it is true as regards the number of churches in each country, but not, I believe, as regards the wealth of each. But however that may be, every one who is acquainted with both countries knows that, though an average English country church is. certainly very superior to an average country church in Ireland, it would really be as hard to find any thing corre- sponding to the above description in the poorer as it would be in the wealthier kingdom. But the misrepresentation of the Services in the churches in Ireland is of much greater importance, and it is, if possible, stiU. grosser. In fact, it is not merely that it is out- rageously false as a description of the way in which the services of the Church are generally performed in Irish churches, but I do not believe that there is a single church in Ireland, from one end of the kingdom to the other, in which Divine Service is performed upon any single occasion, from one end of the year to the other, in such a way as to afford any pretext for the scene which this writer ventures to present to the readers of the Times, as a faithful sketch of what they would see in any country church in Ireland that they happened to go into on any Sunday ! It was rumoured that this Article was from the pen of an English Clergyman. One would be very sorry to believe that C (18) Note C. even a single member of that distinguished body was capable of writing and publishing so scandalous a libel, more especially against the Clergy of a Church so closely connected with his own. But the English Clergy are a very numerous class, in which good and evil are mingled together as in the Church at large. And therefore, if the rumour were sup- ported by good evidence, it would be rash to reject it, merely on the ground of the malevolence and falsehood of the Article. But on other grounds it seems very hard to believe that it was written by a Minister of the Church, or even by a member of the Church possessing the kind of acquaintance with its public services, which a man can hardly fail to acquire by occasional attendance upon them. Look, for example, at what is said about " A fierce prayer for the Lord-Lieutenant." "What is the meaning of this ? There are certainly two forms of prayer for the Lord- Lieu- tenant in our Book of Common Prayer. But if there be any difference between them in point of fierceness or mildness, I am quite unable to discover which is the fierce and which is the mild one. And then again, What is the meaning of describing the congregation as giving vent to their smothered feelings, by joining audibly in the prayer " that happens to follow" ? Did the writer think that the Book of Common Prayer left it to the discretion of the Minister to determine the prayer that was to follow ? Or did he mean to intimate that, though the Prayer Book settled the point, such irregularity prevailed in Irish Churches that it was every where un- certain whether the Minister would read the prayer ap- pointed, or choose some other ? Which of these is the true way of accounting for this strange statement does not seem very important, the one being just as false in point of fact as the other. But I must give a further view of the interior of an Irish church on Sunday, as presented by this conscientious Re- porter : — " The sermon is in great part extempore, polemic, denun- ciatory, and sulphureous, and very like the last you heard, though a hundred miles off. In one remarkable feature they all agree, except of course, the sermon you would hear at the Castle. The preacher always alludes to hitter, active, highly Note C. (19) mendacious members of his own flock, utterly unforgiving, and equally past pardon. The question of rival communions itself gives way every where to some feud of a more present, more urgent, and more personal character. The impression this naturally leaves is corroborated out of doors ; for if you want to hear an Irish clergyman heartily abused, you must go, not to the priest or any of his faith, but to some member of his own congregation. But it is quite evident, from all one sees and hears in Ireland, that simply as regards the relations of a clergyman with his own people, putting Papists out of the question, the standard of clerical duty is very much lower there than in England. Here the clergyman may want energy, punctuality, and even devotedness, and so may neglect his duties against knowledge and conscience. The great bulk of the Irish clergy have no conscience at all about the matter. They have to perform certain services in due course and when called upon, and they seem to know of nothing more." My readers will feel, I think, that whatever else is to be said of this portraiture of The Parson Pkeaohing, it must be acknowledged to be the proper pendant of what may very appropriately be called " the counterfeit presentment " of The Parson Praying, limned by the same faithful hand. A libeller who is not restrained either by reverence for truth or dread of the law, is often kept within some bounds by the consciousness that his readers or his hearers know some- thing about his subject. But we saw in the beginning of this Note, p. (12), that the Times proclaimed that this last restraint is not in operation when the Irish Church is dis- cussed. It confesses, or rather, boasts of the ignorance which prevails in England concerning Ireland, and especially the Irish Church. " There is nothing about which we English- men know so little as Ireland But if there is one thing more than another in Ireland which we don't ask about, and don't care about, it is the Established Church." This flourish of the Times furnishes, I have no doubt, though very unintentionally, the true explanation of what often looked like desperate imprudence in the attacks upon the Church in Ireland which have appeared in its columns, a large proportion of which have been so daringly false as to be sure, so it seemed, to defeat their own purpose. Here, however, is a solution of the difficulty. Nothing but C 2 (20) Note C. an entire confidence in the utter ignorance of tlie case which prevailed among those for whom they wrote could induce men of common sense to put forward such extravagant in- ventions. And here we learn, on the best authority, that those who put them in circulation, if they did not invent them, actually wrote under this happy assurance. Of the Irish Church Sermon, I need only say that it is as purely a fancy sketch as the Irish Church Services. And having found that the one remarkable feature in which all Irish Sermons, except those preached' in the Castle Chapel, are said to agree, was as new to every one to whom I spoke as it was to myself, I am inclined to suspect that, if the writer were ever in Ireland, he must have attended some diflferent place of worship from the parish church. As to the statement with which this slanderous Article ends, of the low and defective views of their duty which are to be found in the great bulk of the Irish clergy, it is directly contrary to the testimony which has been often borne to their character by those who were opposed to them both upon political and upon religious grounds. And I should be really surprised if one dozen Roman Catholic Priests could be found in all Ireland who would subscribe their names to this malignant libel upon them. An Article appeared in the Times in 1863 (Oct. 17), which contained a caricature of an Irish church so similar to the one in the Article from which I have been extracting, that it would appear to have come from the same hand, not- withstanding that the tone is less virulent. I only refer to it here for one statement, which seems to be well worthy of a place in this Note. " The state of things is on the surface. In the greater number of the parishes of Ireland there is a comparatively spacious and well-built church, in very fair order ; there is a . clergyman, with an income which is generally a competence, and often a good deal more. It is now exceedingly well paid. In most cases the congregation is miserably thin. A few well-dressed people, with their immediate dependents, scatter themselves about the church, and, with the aid of high-walled pews, make it seem not wholly untenanted. The sermon is generally suggestive of a state of social war, either the Government, or the Pope, or the Priest, or somebody Note C. (21) present or not present, being the object of allusion. Any thing less like a saving ordinance can hardly be imagined. The larger churches in the towns and the cathedrals are handsome enough, but, cold and dreary, they combine the qualities of a castle, a conventicle, and a tomb. You may fancy yourself a member of the English garrison, or sitting under a dissenting minister, or being buried alive, which ever suits your present liood. But there probably is not a Protestant church in all Ireland in which the sudden arrival of a hundred strangers to-morrow morning would produce the least inconvenience, or tax the ingenuity of the pew-opener." I have given the rest of this extract merely for its corre- spondence with the former one — though in rather a softer key — but the last sentence seems to deserve some comment. I am sure that to many it will appear a great waste of time to take any serious notice of what is too evidently an extra- vagant fabrication to impose upon any one. But the writers of such articles calculate upon the effect of repetition, non vi sed scepe cadendo, and they ply their trade unceasingly, varying the form of misrepresentation : loose and violent de- clamation, precise statistics — the one, as I have shown, as far from the truth as the other — incidental sneers, coarse carica- tures — all in their place are made to serve the purpose of keeping the Church in Ireland continually before the public mind in a disadvantageous light, as an object of hatred, or indignation, or contempt, according as the occasion allows. These labourers are now reaping the fruits of their perse- verance, so as to show how well grounded were their calcula- tions of the effects of 'reiterated, accumulated, and varied calumny, and to teach the defenders of the Church that they cannot afford to despise any attack upon it, however absurd or feeble it may appear to be, as it has its place and its use in the systematic course of slander of which the Church has been so long the object, and from which it has suffered so deeply. , I should hope, too, that a statement of the facts of the case may answer some useful purpose besides that of exposing the extravagance of the particular calumny referred to. Between August, 1855, and August, 1863 (the year in which this assertion was made), the Commissioners, besides expending a large amount upon erecting new churches, and altering the interiors of old ones, with the effect of affording increased (22) Note C. churcli accommodation, actually spent upon enlargements the sum of 57,051/. ; which would seem enough to show that the actual church accommodation could not be quite so redun- dant every where in Ireland as the Times describes it to be. It may perhaps be said that this is very insuflBcient evidence that any such increased accommodation was needed : that gentlemen like the Commissioners, who have the com- mand of large funds without the power of using any of them for their own benefit, would naturally be unwilling to let them lie idle, and so to appear to be doing nothing themselves ; and that they were therefore not likely to scrutinize such applications so closely as to make it safe to take the amount ■which they have expended to furnish increased accommo- dation, as a measure of the extent to which it was really ■ wanted. We need not stop to consider this mode of deaUng with the fact which I have stated, because there is a supple- mentary fact which does not admit of any attempt to set it aside in the same way. For in voting grants for this pur- pose, the Commissioners' rule is to require local contri- butions in each case, and they do not relax this rule unless in some very rare cases, in which the want of extended ac- commodation is very urgent, and the poverty of the parish such as to render the enforcement of the requirement equiva- lent to a rejection of the application. And as a matter of fact in the period referred to, the local contributions amounted to 26,526/., — very much nearer one-half than one- third of the whole sum expended. When this fact is known it presents a very different view of the case. If the whole cost only represented money asked for by parishes and granted by the Commissioners, it might perhaps be set aside in the way proposed, — by supposing that the latter are as ready to give as the former are to ask. But when it is known that the parishioners have had something more to do than to ask, — that, as a general rule, they have had to contribute, and that in fact they did contribute nearly one half of the whole cost, — I think it will be felt that we have, in the amount expended upon the object, a safe test and measure of the need of increased accommodation, which has existed year after year for so long a period in the Church in Ireland, and which, after all that had been done year after year by both parishioners and Commissioners to supply the Note C. (23) want, the same test proves to have existed when the article referred to was written, and still to exist ". Some persons will probably feel it hard to reconcile this with the fact, that for some of the years during which this increase of Church accommodation was going on, the Church population of the country was not increasing, but diminish- ing. This is ascertained for several years up to 1861 ; and though there are not the same means of ascertaining the true state of the case since, there is too much reason to fear that, taking in the whole kingdom, the Church population is rather decreasing than increasing. Now if T were obliged to confess that I could give no solution of this difficulty, I should still think it very unreasonable to allow it to raise any doubt about the reality of a want, which not only was com- plained of in different parishes, and admitted by the Eccle- siastical Commissioners, but to the removal of which those who complained of it were ready to contribute, and did con- tribute to so considerable an amount. But the truth is that the difficulty is very easily disposed of. The decrease of the whole number of Church population of the kingdom, even were it greater than it actually was, does not render it necessary to suppose that it was decreasing every where. It may have been, and it undoubtedly was, increasing in many parishes. And even if there were room for the increased population of every one of these parishes in churches in other parishes, it would not do any thing to remove or lessen the necessity for enlargements in the parish in which the population had ..outgrown the existing church accommodation. But besides these, which are the most ob- vious cases, and would be the most common cases calling for enlargement, it might bei proper and necessary to enlarge a church in a parish where there was no increase in the popu- lation, or, it may be, even when there was a decrease ; for from various causes the church might have been built on too small a scale at first, and so be insufficient, not only for the parishioners while their number remained stationary, but even when it had diminished. Nothing more, I suppose, need be said upon this difficulty. ' In the former year (1863), the sum spent under this head was 9904Z., met by a contribution of 3634Z. ; and in the last year, ending August, 1867, 6471Z., met by a contribution of 3911/. (24) Note C. My readers will remember that the case stands thus : That the statement in the Times was that there probably was not a Protestant Church in all Ireland in which the sudden arrival of a hundred strangers to-morrow would produce the least incon- venience, or tax the ingenuity of the pew-opener ; and that the fact was, that in the year in which the English public were informed that this redundancy of room existed in every church in Ireland, besides all that was done to increase church accommodation by the erection of new churches and alterations of old ones, by which the number of sittings was increased, there was a sum of 9904^. spent on the spe- cific object of enlargements of churches, of which 3634/. — more than a third of the whole— had been contributed by the parishioners ; and that the same process had been going on for many years before and after. In the space of thir- teen years, beginning in 1855 and ending in 1867, it appears by a return now lying before me, that on this same specific object 90,992/. had been spent, of which no less than 33,720/. had been in the same way contributed by the parishioners. And with this specimen of the confidence with which ex- travagant falsehoods have been, and are still, stated in the Times, for the information and guidance of the English public upon this subject, I may end these additional examples of the determined unscrupulousness with which that great organ of public opinion has pursued the object of writing down the Church in Ireland. I have not looked for examples of the same kind in other papers which have been pursuing the same object, in the same spirit, though generally at the proper distance from the leading Journal. But in connexion with the extent to which private liberality has been drawn out by the expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on Church works, attention was called towards the close of last year, to a statement in the Pall Mall Gazette, which seems worth preserving. On December 21st, 1867, it was stated in that Journal, that " four churches, contracted for by the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners, but built from private funds at the cost of 3159/., measure, as far as we know, the voluntary action of the ad- herents of the Church for Church extension in the thirty-one years from 1834 to 1865." Note C. (25) This is the result of their examination of a Return to Parliament, by which it appeared that during the same time the Commissioners had expended no less than 1,100,540/. on Church works, building, repairing, &c.' This certainly seems to give a very low measure of the zeal and liberality of Irish Churchmen. I do not know that the actual facts ' of the case furnish any ground for boasting, but they certainly are not quite so discreditable to us ; as I hope my readers will feel when they hear that, in the period specified, the voluntary subscriptions lodged with the Com- ° I may say that no one could have inspected this Return, how- ever cursorily, without coming upon evidence that the sum of 3159L did not represent the whole of the voluntary contributions which entered into the sum of 1,103,699/. expended by the Eccle- siastical Commissioners upon Church Works. Indeed the state- ment quoted by the writer in the Pall Mall Gazette, with respect to the four churches in question, viz., that they were "built entirely from private funds," could hardly have failed, some wovild say, to suggest that the other churches were built in part fi-om private funds. But the fact that this was actually the case is expressly and repeatedly stated in the Return. Thus, in p. 2, there is a list of names of new churches built by the Commis- sioners, with the cost of each, amounting in all to 28,362Z., and at foot there is the note [" The above sums include voluntary sub- scriptions"]. The same note is appended to the next list, pp. 3 — 6, of Churches Rebuilt by the Commissioners, names and costs of each as before, amounting in all to 271,916/. In the next list and in the following one, pp. 6 — 8, amounting respectively to the sum of 35,873/. and 11,233/., the note does not appear, but the title of the second of these lists shows clearly that a portion of the cost, and as it would seem the larger portion, was defrayed by private subscriptions. It is : " Churches originally con- tracted for by the Paeishioneks, but towards the Completion of which the CoMMissiosrEES made .Grants, &c." Then come the four churches of which the Pall Mall Gazette takes notice. And finally we have pp. 9 — 34, " Churches re- paired, or Licensed Houses for Worship rebuilt or repaired " in the time, with the name and cost of each, the whole amounting to 753,155/.- And at the end there is the note again [" The above include the Voluntary Subscriptions"]. So that of the whole sum of 1,603,699/. (with the exception of a sum of 35,873/.), there is express evidence upon the face of the Return, that private con- tributions were combined with the Grants of the Commissioners. This, as I have shown, appears so distinctly and so repeatedly in the Return that it is hard to understand how it could have been overlooked. (26) Note C. miasioners for building, enlarging, and improving churches, and the sums in addition expended from private sources, upon churches vested in Trustees, amounted to more than 300,000/. It is perhaps prudent to add that this sum is entirely independent of the outlay on the restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, approaching, it is said, to 150,000/. This great national work, as it is now well known every where, was due to the munificence of an indi- vidual. Sir Benjamin Lee Guinness, and though we are very thankful that such an example of Christian liberality has been exhibited in our own branch of the Church in our own day, we should no more think of putting it forward as a fair specimen of the liberality of Irish Churchmen, than as a fair specimen of their wealth. It would stand out at any period of the Church's history, and in any part of the world, as a remarkable exhibition of the largeness of heart in dedi- cating His own gifts to His service which GroD gives to one here and there — sometimes among those whom He has made rich, and sometimes among those whom He has kept poor. But the contributions which I have set down are in the ordinary course of the afiairs, and they afibrd evidence of what the members of the Church have been doing for a series of years to aid in supplying its wants. The statement is not put forward, as I said, as a ground for boasting on the part of "the adherents of the Church" in Ireland. On the other hand, however, it is hoped that it will show that they have not been quite as apathetic and parsimonious for the last thirty years as the writer in the Pall Mall Gazette has represented them. But their vindication was only a secondary object in bringing forward this extract. The primary object ia re- ferring to it was to furnish to my readers an additional specimen of the extent of the misrepresentations with re- spect to the Church iu Ireland, with which a large section of the public press has been sedulously plying the English public for many years ; and which form reaUy the founda- tion of the imfavourable impression against it, which is so prevalent in England. But a still more important object ought to be answered by such an example. When it is deliberately stated as the result of an examination of a Return to Parliament, that the amount of the contri- butions of the adherents of the Irish Church, to the Note C. (27) cause of Church extension in their own country, amounted in thirty-one years to the sum of three thousand one hundred and fifty-nine pounds, while the fact is that their contribu- tions in that time really amounted to above three hundred thousand pounds, some measure is supplied of the deductions which are to be made from all statements, even numerical statements, to the disadvantage and discredit of the Church in Ireland, which are made and perseveringly reiterated in the public press. It may be hoped to do something to correct the general impressions against the Irish Church, to show what they really rest upon. And while every such example ought to contribute towards this good office as regards the past, it ought to be of some use for the future by supplying some measure of the deductions which are to be made from all statements to the disadvantage and discredit of the Church in Ireland, even from numerical statements made by a Journalist from an Official Return lying before him at the moment. I seldom see this paper in the country, but from time to time a number in which there is something on the Church in Ireland is sent to me. And some months after the article to which I have referred appeared, I received a Gazette containing a leading Article headed, The Government and the Irish Church, in which, after a strong statement of the arguments against the Church, the writer gives the follow- ing candid summary of what is to be said in its favour : — " We are, of course, well aware of what is said on the other side. The only arguments upon the subject which were brought forward or even glanced at the other night were these three. First, the Irish Church is only an insult to the people — a mere outrage to their feelings : it does not touch their pockets. This argument we merely state. Secondly, the Protestants would not like its abolition. To this we reply that justice must be done to all parties, regardless of what they like or dislike. Thirdly, and this is the great argument, there is a great difficulty in saying what is to be done with the money." The Journalist passes over in contempt, as he safely may, the two first arguments which he records. But in reply to the " great argument " he puts forth his strength in the following noble passage : — " The answer to this might appropriately enough be given (28) Note D. in the words of the Apostle, ' Thy money perish with thee.' The important thing is to abolish the Church, to do away with an institution which is a standing insult to one nation and a monument of the injustice of the other. It is not a question of money, and to attach so much importance to the money question is a mark of the vulgarity and general inade- quacy with which Irish questions are so often treated. As to what is to be done with the money, there are iifty harmless uses to which it may be put : apply it to the payment of the Irish debt, drain the bog of Allen with it, make new railways, harbours, roads, any thing useful to the country at large. If you can do nothing else, sink the money in the Atlantic Ocean ; for there, at all events, it will do no harm, whereas as matters now stand it would be a good bargain for England to pay three times the income for life to every holder of an Irish benefice on condition of wiping out from the memory of the Irish people the fact that the institution to which he belongs had ever existed." This burst of righteous indignation on the part of this honest Journal against the Irish Church which it had so slanderously misrepresented is instructive in its way. And when my readers come upon similar outbreaks, I hope they will not forget this one, nor forget that it appeared in a paper in which, three months before, it had been stated that in thirty-one years " the adherents of the Irish Church " had contributed to the cause of Church extension in their own country three thousand one hundred and fifty-nine pounds, and no more ; the -fact being, that, in that time, their contribu- tions had amounted to more than three hundred tliousand Dounds ! Note D, p. 23. UNIONS OP PARISHES IN IRELAND. The union of two or more parishes into one, to be held by a single incumbent instead of several, exists in Ireland to a far greater extent than in England, both as regards the Note D. (29) number of such Unions, compared with the whole numher of benefices in both countries, and also as regards the number of parishes which compose the Union. But this has arisen from a state of things in the former country which finds no parallel in the latter. Our Unions are therefore regarded in England as an Irish abuse, and one of no small magnitude ; and they have been denounced as such very vehemently by some good friends of the Church in Ireland '. A better acquaintance, however, with their history, in con- nexion with the history of the country, would do a great deal to remove this unfavourable impression, and would show that in many of the cases, which to those judging at a distance would seem most indefensible, such Unions were absolutely necessary, and in others highly expedient. And as so much misapprehension exists upon the point, I think it well to say a few words, in the hope of making the state of the Church in Ireland better understood. The union of different parishes was recognized by the old Canon Law as legitimate, provided it were made upon suffi- cient reasons, the principal of which were propter hospitalita- tem, propter mcinitatem locorum, propter parocManorum defec- ' Notably by one of its steadiest and most valued friends. Archdeacon Wordsworth. He speaks of them as " godless com- binations, known by the name of Unions, comprising large tracts of country, to be superintended by a single pastor, to whom they often supply but a very slender pittance." — Sermons on the Church of Ireland, p. 253. This sounds rather too like a charge against Unions, as the cause of the insufficient supply of pastors, of which they are more properly an effect. The real cause of that great evil, when it exists in a Union, is the very slender pittance which the area that the Union includes supplies to the single pastor by whom it is superintended. And so far are Ecclesiastical Unions from being the cause of this evil, that they are an attempt to remedy it. They are not always a satisfactory remedy, but they are often the only one which is available. And they are generally so far a real, though not an adequate remedy, that they substitute insufficient pastoral care for the absolute want of it. Besides, they very often do not pro- vide too much work for a single clergyman, either as regards area or population. In one of my Dioceses there is still subsisting a Union of fourteen parishes, of which two are returned as a quarter of a mile by a quarter of a mile ; two as two hundred yards by two hundred yards; one as one hundred yards by one hundred yards; and one as forty yards by forty yards ! (30) Note D. turn, or propter pauperitatem seu exilitatem. Such unions are of two kinds, Permanent, called Ueal; emipro hac vice, also called Episcopal I shall say something first of the former. They were originally, it is said, erected by Episcopal autho- rity, or by Royal Charter ; but in Ireland, for more than a century and a half, they have been established under Statute by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. It will be easily understood that in a country so thinly peopled, so imperfectly cultivated, and so poor as Ireland, not a few cases were found very early, in which the two most important of the Canonical reasons for Unions obtained — cases in which it was only in that way that either employment or subsistence could be provided for a Clergyman. This state of the benefices not only existed in Spenser's time, but is spoken of by him in his View of the State of Ireland, in such a way as to show that it was then of no recent growth, but the result of causes long in operation. In enumerating the impediments which stood in the way of the improvements of the Church, as an instrument in the improvement of the country, he says : " Lastly, the benefices themselves are so mean and of so small profit, in those Irish Countries, through the ill husbandry of the Irish people which do inhabit them, that ' they will not yield any competent maintenance for any honest Minister to live upon, scarcely to buy him a gown." And for this deplorable state of things, he could see no remedy but that of Unions. In reply to the question. How are the churches to be served and the ministers maintained, when the parishes are so insufficient, the interlocutor, who speaks the mind of the author, says : " There is no way to help that, but to lay two or three of them together, until such time as the country grows more rich and better inhabited, at which time the tithes and other obventions will also be more aug- mented and better valued." That the evils which rendered this remedy necessary when Spenser wrote continued, little mitigated, into the reign of Charles I., appears (among other proofs) by the fact that a provision is made in one of our Canons, which were passed in that reign (Canon XXXVL) " for remedy of the smallness of the maintenance of the Clergy." The remedy was a very simple and very limited one,— consisting of a direction to the Bishops to unite into one the Eectory and Vicarage, or por- tions of tithes coUative, when both existed in the same Note D. (31) parish, — ^but the existence of the evil is suflaciently attested by. the direction, and the reason given for it. And the me- morable troubles which arose in this reign so exhausted the kingdom, that after the Restoration the necessity for such Unions was even more urgent than before. In the Act 14 & 15 Car. II., cap. 10, in which powers to unite and divide parishes were given, for twenty years, to the Lord Lieutenant in Council (six or more Privy Councillors assenting), with the approbation and advice of the Archbishop and Bishop, and with the consent of the Patrons and Incum- bents, reserving also the rights of the Impropriators, the pre- amble states, as among the grounds of the Act, that " parishes are in some parts of this kingdom so little, that five or six lie together within a mile or two, whereby the subjects are like to be much burdened with the unnecessary charge of building and repairing so many churches, and the means also are made so small that sundry of them will not serve for the sustentation of one incumbent." In stating the grounds for giving such powers to unite several parishes together, the preamble as we have seen only specifies the smallness of the parishes. It is possible that the uncultivated state of the land was not added from some reason of policy. But whatever were the reasons for omit- ting it, there can be no doubt that it existed to a fearful extent, and that it rendered such Unions absolutely necessary in many cases in which the extent of the parishes would ofier no ground or justification for it. We have various testimonies to the depressed state of the Church, arising from the disordered and exhausted state of the country. But I know of no account of that phase of the history of the times, which is at once so authentic and so graphic, as that which has been left to us by Griffith Williams, a predecessor of mine in the Diocese of Ossory. He was a very ardent and fearless Royalist. He had suffered severely in consequence, having been plundered and driven out of the country. And like many of his fellow- sufferers, he had reason to complain that the re-establishment of Royal authority brought little relief to those who had lost every thing in the vain attempt to uphold it. He says that it often grieved him to see the different classes dealt with "so as if there were an Act of Ohlimon passed of the King's Friends, and an Act of Indempnity for his Adversaries." His Cathedral (32) Note D. and See House were dismantled and almost in ruins ^ and called for a large outlay. He was willing to expend upon them his whole Episcopal income, having the means of living, though in a very humble way, independently; but the most valuable part of the property of the See, both in town and country, was in the hands of usurpers whom he could not dispossess ; and the receipts' for the See for a whole year were under 200/. He lost no time in visiting his Diocese, and found by personal inspection, and the answers returned to queries left with the Churchwardens and Sidesmen, that the Churches were dilapidated, and in some cases actually " thrown down even to the ground." And he adds more expressly, "Of above an hundred Parishes, I saw not ten Church-es standing, nor half so many we// repaired." In Bishop Mant's " History of the Church in Ireland," there are very interesting extracts from a more detailed account of the state of his diocese, which I have not seen, but which is expressly, as it seems, on The sad Condition of the Church and Clergy in the Diocese of Ossory (Mant, vol. ii., p. 663). I have been quoting from a Humble Remonstrance which was addressed to the King's Mod Excellent Majestie, and to the now convened Parliament, and to all Posterity, and is prefixed to one of the most curious of his many curious publi- cations : Seven Treatises, very necessary to he observed in these very had days, to prevent the Seven last Vials of God^s wrath that the Seven Angels are to pour upon the Earth. — Rev. xvi. I am tempted to subjoin another rather long extract from ' Of the Cathedral, lie says : " And the great and famous, most beautiful Cathedral Church of St. Keney, they have utterly defaced and ruined, thrown down all the Roof of it, taken away five great and goodly Bells, broken down all the Windows, and earned away every bit of the Glass, that, they say, was worth a very great deal : and all the doors of it, that the Hogs might come, and root, and the Dogs gnaw the Bones of the dead ; and they brake down a most exquisite Marble Font (wherein the Christians' Children were regenerated) all to pieces, and threw down the many goodly Marble Moniunents that were therein, especially," &c. And of the Palace he says : " And from the Bishop's House, the Slates, Roof, Timber, Windoivs, and Doors, all carried away, and very much of the Very Walls thrown doicn and ruined : Et sic periere ruinse ; so that it cort me abo^ e thirty pounds already, to fit a Room, or two, for me to lay in." Note D. (33) this Prefatory Address, which of itself would be quite sufficient to justify the number of the Unions effected from that time. "But the Colonels and Captains, and the rest of the Soldiery, that subdued the Rebels, have the most part of the Kingdom in their Posession, and are very tenacious of what is in their Hands, and do live gallantly, and very fairly ; and yet, in many places, the Country is left uninhabited, and the best parts but thinly peopled, and the ground lying well nigh waste, for the most part, untilled, and illstocked, so that the Livings, which formerly were worth an hundred pounds apiece per annum, are now set for little more than twenty pounds apiece; as mine own Rectory of Rath-Saran, and Rath-downy, that, before the Rebellion, were reputed to be worth above an hundred pounds ^er an. were set the last year for twenty-six pounds, and the Lands of Bishop' s-Logh, that my Predecessour did set to his own Son for eighty pounds jjer annum, was this last year, and before, set to Mr. Peak for twenty pound, and the like ; by reason of which slender means, and tenuity of the Livings, I found that the Commissioners for setting the Tythes, and setling Miaistersto^rracA unto the people, granted to one Mr. Kearny, that had three Parishes before, 7, or 8 Parishes more, and yet all those scarce able to make him a reasonable maintenance of an hundred pound per annum ; so they granted six to Mr. Brooks, though he was no lawful ordained Minister, and Mr. Blake had six Parishes given him by the Mayor, and Burgesses of Waterford, and aU not worth above twenty pounds per annum, as appeareth by his Presen- tation, and this subsequent Letter imto myself. " ' Honoured Sir, 'We the Mayor, Sheriff, and Citizens, of the City of Wateeford, having in our Power, by Charter from King Charles the First of ever blessed memory, and before by his A.ncestors, the Presentation of a Minister to the Vicarages of Killcullhene, Rath-Patrick, Balltcorex, KiLLMAKEvoT, Macjkollt, and Whitchurch, with the Do- nation thereof, aU which amounts to twenty, and one Pounds, or thereabouts, per annum, and having by consent in Council presented Richard Beake, clerk, to the same ; We earnestiy pray, that if your Lordship have any in your Dispose, that lyeth contiguous thereto ; that 3'our Lordship would please D (34) Note D. to favour him therein, and it will thankfully be acknow- ledged by us, and what you please to command, that is in our Powers, you may freely command, * Your Lordship's affectionate Friends and Servants Da VIES, Mayor Sam. Brinsmead \ „, . „ Sam. J3rown J •" ' Waterford, the 20tli November, 1660.' "The Cawse of which Sterility of Fruit, and Scarcity of means, and the thinness, ov fewness both of Houses, and Inhabitants, I conceive to be, that the Adventurers, and Soldiers have got the most part of the Lands, of the Bishops, and Protestants, that the Irish drave away, and aU the Lands of the Rebels, and Roman Catholicks, into their own Hands, and are neither willing to part with it, nor able to till it, manure it, and replenish it with Tenants, and Husbandry as it ought to be." No one who reads this statement of the condition of the Church in the Diocese of Ossory could doubt, that the same causes must have been in action in other Dioceses, and have been producing the same effects generally more or less throughout the kingdom. But we are not without direct evidence that this was the case. It appears, indeed, from Bishop Mant, not only that in the title-page of the work from which he quotes. Bishop "Williams expresses his fear that the condition of all Ireland was not much better than that of the Church and Clergy of which he gives so melan- choly account as obtaining in the Diocese of Ossory ; but that he states as the result of his own observations in a ride from Carlingford to Dublin, and from Dublin to Kilkenny, that, throughout that whole range of country, " there was, speaking within compass, scarce one church standing suflBciently repaired, for seven that were ruined, and have only walla without ornaments, and most of them without roofs, without doors, without windows, but the holes to receive the winds, to entertain the congregation." And he states his belief that one who travelled through Ireland wovdd find it as he found it, wherever he went. "We have seen, p. (30) ante, that about this time, or a little JiToTE D, (35) after, the existence of parishes, which separately would not serve for the sustentation of one incumbent, was expressly- affirmed by the Legislature (14 & 15 Car. II. cap. 10.), and was made one of the grounds for giving the Lord Lieu- tenant in Council the power of forming such Unions. These powers were at first only given for a limited period (twenty years). But it was found necessary afterwards to renew them (2 Geo. I. cap. 14, and 7 Geo. II. cap. 7) and finally to make them perpetual; which was done by 13 Geo. II. cap. 4. From the first, and throughout, together with the power of uniting small parishes, that of dividing large parishes or dissolving Unions was given to the Lord Lieutenant in Council'. Subsequent enactments on the subject have left these powers almost unaltered, but they have determined the mode of proceeding in the exercise of them more pre- cisely. And now every scheme for a Union, of parishes, (or a division, or union and division), which is submitted by the Bishop to the Lord Lieutenant in CouncU, presents all the circumstances of the parishes, which he regards as having, an important bearing upon the plan. All concerned have full notice ; and, if they desire, are heard personally or by counsel against it ; so as to secure that in confirming, or rejecting, or modifying it, the Council shall not proceed without full information upon all the points which ought to influence their decision. This is enough to say upon the class of Real Unions ; and a few words in addition ought to suffice as to the other class of Unions, pro hac vice. These, as their other and more common name, Episcopal Unions, conveys, are formed by the authority of the Bishop, who, by the common law of the Church might unite separate parishes for a particular occa- sion. He ought to be regulated in the exercise 'of this power by the Canonical reasons before-mentioned ; and the Order for an Episcopal Union has always stated one or more ' Bishop Mant ascertained, by examination of the Eecords in the Council Office, that from 1721 to the end of the eighteenth century, the number of Unions effected in the exercise of these powers was sixty-one, and the number of divisions thirty-four, of which twenty-nine were in the Province of Armagh. D 2 (36) Note D. of these facts as existing in the case, and as among the reasons which have determined the Bishop to form the Union. Tip to the year 1827, the power of forming such TJnions was exercised according to the discretion of each individual Bishop ; but, in that year, it was by Statute subjected to the revision and control of the authority to which, in the last resort, the formation of Real Unions had been so long com- mitted — the Lord Lieutenant in Council. By 7 & 8 Geo. IV. cap. 43, intituled an Act to consolidate and amend the • Laws in force in Ireland, for Unions and divisions of Parishes, which contains important enactments concerning Real Unions, it is provided also with respect to Episcopal Unions, Sect, xxi., that after the passing of the Act, every Order for an Episcopal Union shall, within fourteen days after it has been made, be reported, together with the reasons for making it, to the Lord Lieutenant 'in Council ; and that, if the Union be disapproved within six weeks, or if it be not reported as directed, the Order shall be null and void, and otherwise shall be valid and effectual. A Union, so formed, subsisted during the incumbency of Clerk, but then came to an end. It might, of course, be renewed by the same power by which it was at first created. But it might happen that the circumstances of the parishes had changed materially in the interval, so as to render it inexpedient to reunite them, or that even though the facts remained unaltered, the Bishop had seen reason to alter his judgment with regard to them. Or it might be that he had passed away, and that they were to be con- sidered by his successor, and that he did not regard them in the same light. And in any of these cases, the dissolution of the Union would be acquiesced in, and the parishes be filled separately. From what has been said of the state of the country, it wiU be seen that there must have been many cases in which it was natural that the Bishop should think that a Union ought to take place, but in which there was such a prospect of a change in the circumstances that rendered it expedient to recommend a temporary rather than a permanent one ; or in which, though no such prospect existed, the easier and cheaper process might be preferred to the more troublesome and more costly one. And in either case the Union would Note D. (37) be Episcopal, and not real *, to be renewed, or not, according to circumstances, when dissolved by the termination, by death or otherwise, of the incumbency for which it was formed. Under the gradual improvement of the country, the neces- sity for Unions of parishes would of course have diminished ; and the number of new Unions, whether Episcopal or Real, would have been gradually fewer, while the number of divi- sions, whether by Act of Council, or by vacancies in Episcopal Unions not to be renewed, would have gone on increasing. But this process was arrested at an early stage by a violent procedure on the part of one branch of the Legislature, by which the rights of the Church were most iniquitously in- vaded. What was called the Tithe of Agistment was an allowance for the pasturage of dry cattle. Such stock yielded no increase that brought them under the general definition of Tithable Articles, but occupying the land, and growing there- on, to the profit of their owners, it seemed plain that, upon the general principles on which Tithe was paid, they ought to yield something to the support of the Clergyman. But in 1735 there was a vote of the House of Commons, con- demning the collection of this tithe in such violent language, that though it had of course no force in law, yet, supported as it was by the landed interest out of doors, it intimidated the clergy, and it is said too, attorneys and lawyers, judges and jurors, so as to put an end to this species of tithe as efiectually as if it had been abolished by Act of Parliament '. Even independently of this premium upon pasturage, there was already an injurious tendency to it in the South and "West, according to Primate Boulter. He says,' " The numbers of the people are decreasing in those parts, and most of the youth out of business, and disposed to list in foreign services * In the preamble to 3 Geo. II., cap. 19, it is stated that there were in Ireland, more especially in Leinster, Munster, and Con- naught, many parishes so small and poor as to make it desirable that they should be united ; but that the joining together of them in perpetual union was found impracticable. It is not stated what it was that rendered it impracticable, but it probably was their extent or the expense of the process, or both. ' This violent vote had the effect of law for above sixty years ! And the interest by which it had been carried was sufficiently strong, at the end of the century, to secure that the abolition of this tithe should be embodied in the Act of Union. (38) Note D. for bread, as there is no employment for them at home, when two or three hands can look after some himdreds of acres stocked with cattle; and by this means a great part of our churches are neglected, in many parts five, six, or seven parishes (denominations we commonly call them) bestowed on one in- cumbent, who perhaps, toith all his tithes, scarce gets an hundred a year." — Letters, vol. ii. p. 234. Thus, so far as the insufficiency of the incomes of parishes to maintain each a Minister for itself, and the necessity of uniting several of them together, the state of things which we saw obtained at the Restoration still existed, to a great extent, in three of the provinces, notwithstanding the great improvement of the country in the interval. And this violent exemption of pasture-land from the only tithe which it paid, had an obvious tendency to encourage the extension of pasturage in preference to agriculture. So that the value of parishes was not merely reduced for the time, but still more prospectively. And it is unnecessary to say that, as a consequence, it was necessary from time to time to erect new Unions, and to abstain altogether from dissolving those which existed, or to be satisfied with dissolving them partially. I should hope that, imperfect as this sketch of the history of the Unions of parishes in Ireland is, it will do something to abate the indiscriminate condemnation of them as abuses. It will be seen, I trust, in a general way, that the circum- stances of the country have made them absolutely necessary as the only mode of maintaining the parochial system in some places, so as to secure the blessing of a stated Ministry, in any form or to any extent, to the members of the Church there. This necessity is not found in every part of Ireland ; and where it does exist, it is more urgent in one place than in another, and at one time than at another : so that in some places where it has been urgent at one time it has ceased altogether. And I have endeavoured to show that not only do powers exist which are competent to deal with all these varying circumstances, but also that there exist well-conceived safeguards against the neglect or abuse of these powers. Still I do not mean to say that there is no case of such neglect or abuse ; that there is no case in which it would be advisable to unite parishes which are now separate, or to dissolve Unions which still exist. But I Note E. (39) believe that cases of either kind are very far fewer in the Church than persons .at a distance often suppose them to be. I had intended to subjoin here some very curious illus- trations of the subject of this Note, which my experience of my own Diocese would have enabled me to give ; but the Note has extended so far, that I cannot venture upon any addition to it. Note E, p. 24. ON THE ABUSES IN THE CHURCH IN IRELAND ARISING FROM ANOMALIES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OP ITS REVENUES. It will be said, no doubt, that however satisfactorily it were proved that the whole revenues of the Church in Ireland are not more than enough to make a reasonable provision for the whole of the work to be done there, still the distri- bution of them might be to such an extent injudicious and unequal, as to make the remuneration in many particular cases too large, and, in consequence, in many others, too small. I have admitted this very distinctly in p. 24. I have also admitted that alleged abuses of that kind ought to be carefully considered, with the object of determining how far the allegation is true; and, where it is true, how the anomalies might be best repaired. And it might seem that having said this, I ought to engage, to some extent at least, to enter upon this inquiry here. But the present would seem to be a very unsuitable time for entering upon a detailed examination of such cases. A Commission of Inquiry into the State of the Established Church in Ireland was appointed last Session, in compliance with a resolution passed by the House of Lords. It is now carrying on a course of inquiry which ought to bring out with great accuracy on the whole, the statistics of every parish in Ireland, both as regards work and income. When the residts of this inquiry are published, it seems not unlikely that the Commissioners will recommend some general scheme founded upon them, for getting rid of such anomalies ; some scheme for altering parish boundaries by (40) Note E. new divisions and Unions, and for altering the actual distri- bution of parish incomes. But whether they offer such a recommendation or not, there can be no doubt that many such schemes will be devised and propounded; and any conclusion that was now arrived at with respect to particular cases would be liable and likely to be set aside by a general plan founded upon wider data. With such a prospect before us, I should think it a very unwise expenditure of time to engage in an examination in detail of the alleged abuses of this kind which have been put forward from time to time by the enemies of the Church. But they have been used in the gross as furnishing the foun- dation of a charge against the Irish Bishops, as if the dis- credit and injury which the Church has sustained from such anomalies were to be ascribed to their apathy and inertness. And as this is a charge which has made some impression even upon the friends of the Church, I think it advisable to say a few words upon it. The shape which the charge generally takes is somewhat of this kind. ' No one doubts that it is in the highest degree desirable, and indeed that it is essential to the effective working of the Church, that its revenues should be so distri- buted as to preserve something like a proportion between the work to be done in the respective parishes and their incomes respectively. But it is notorious that the Church in Ireland abounds in cases in which this proportion is absolutely re- versed ; that there are sinecures or very near to sinecures, with ample incomes, while men who have a good deal to do, so far as that can be said of any Irish clergyman, are scarcely provided with the means of supporting life. Such flagrant anomalies are not only a grievous scandal to the Church in Ireland, but a serious hindrance to its efficiency. And yet they are acquiesced in without an effort to get rid of them, as if neither the rulers, nor ministers, nor members of the Church had any care for its credit or its usefulness.' Charges of this kind are often made against the Church in very strong language and in a very confident tone. But I think that the result of a calm and fair consideration of them will be to show that, while they have some foundation in truth, they are grossly exaggerated ; and that though, after all the exaggerations are cleared off, a residue of the anomalies will remain, which cannot be denied and are much Note E. (41) to be deplored by us, yet that the Bishops are mucli less to blame for them — for either their existence or their continu- ance—than they are often supposed to be, even by the friends of the Church. However well distributed the revenues of a Church may be, that is, however fairly the income and work may be pro- portioned, the fluctuations of population must disturb the proportion in some places. The increase of population in one parish and the decline in another will, from time to time, make incomes which were at first exactly what they ought to be, too small and too large. Such anomalies must there- fore arise every where : and in fact they are arising in Eng- land much more frequently than in Ireland, and exist there in a much more extreme form than here. But it will be said that it is not the rise, but the con- tinuance of such disadvantageous anomalies, that is made a charge against the Church in Ireland. Perhaps as an Established Church, fettered in its action, most especially where its property is concerned, by its connexion with the State, it might be unreasonable to blame it because these anomalies have not been redressed as fast as they arose, for this could not be done by any exercise of Church authority, and would render it necessary to have recourse to the Legis- lature, — a process which cannot be constantly going on. But surely they might be cleared ofi" at certain intervals, before they accumulated, so as to be such a fruitful source of dis- credit and weakness to the Church ; whereas, not only Session after Session, but Parliament after Parliament, is sufiered to pass away without a serious effort at Church Reform, without any efibrt to do away with abuses which every one confesses. When this is the case, can it be believed that the heads of the Church in Ireland are as much alive as they ought to be to the duty of removing abuses, or even of keeping them within moderate bounds ? This sounds reasonable, but it really proceeds upon a state- ment of the case in which a good many considerations of importance are left out of view. For, in the first place, it is not easy to determine in what way the object could be efiected. The obvious mode of restoring the proportion be- tween labour and remuneration, population and income, when it is disturbed, and when that disturbance has con- tinued so long that it appears unlikely to be due to tempo- (42) Note E. rary causes, and therefore unlikely to right itself, when such causes have ceased to act, is to take away a portion of the income of those parishes which have decreased in population, and so provide a fund for the augmentation of the incomes of those parishes in which there has been an increase. And the principle of this plan appears so fair and reasonable to many persons, that they cannot believe that there could be any serious difficulty ra obtaining from the Legislature all the necessary powers for carrying it out. And indeed some persons desire no better evidence of the apathy and inertness of the heads of the Church, than the fact that an Act has not been long since procured which would enable them to remove all such anomalies upon this plain and unobjectionable principle. But if Ecclesiastical legislation — and especially Ecclesias- tical legislation for Ireland — appears easy to any one, we may be tolerably sure that it is only known to him theoretically. Those who have had any experimental acquaintance with it know that any measure relating to the Irish. Church, however unobjectionable or however commendable ita immediate object may be, encounters difficulties of the most vexatious kind at every step ; and that, unless it be intro- duced by Government, or at least favoured and supported by Government, the chance of passing it is very slender indeed. But the general difficulties would be greatly aggravated in the supposed case, insomuch that many who have consi- dered the question carefully, and without any bias from per- sonal interest, have anticipated that the obstacles in the way of carrying out any plan upon the principle proposed, arising from the opposition of the parishes from which income was to be taken away, would be absolutely insurmountable. It is said that the payers of tithe rent-charge pay but three-fourths of what they receive out of the property of the Church, which was transferred to them expressly on the condition of paying three-fourths of it to the Clergy, and therefore they would have no right to object if the Legislature settled that they were to pay it to any other persons or for any other object. This is no doubt perfectly true ; but that is not the way in which they look at the case. They often pay grudgingly, even to the Clergyman, whom they see working for the benefit of their own tenantry, and for others who are con- nected with them by various ties more or less strong. But Note E. (43) "when payment was to be made for the benefit of another parish in which they had no concern, this discontent would rise to so serious a height, that it would be hard, if not impossible, to pass a measure of the kind proposed. And when such a measure was actually prepared by the Bishops, it created serious discontent, not among the enemies so much as among the friends of the Church ; and it was made clear that it would be strenuously opposed by them. It was felt, therefore, that it was very doubtful whether the disadvantage of dividing the friends of the Church would not outweigh any advantages that could be hoped from the measure, even if it could be passed in spite of their opposition. This would have been by no means certain, even if Government had undertaken to support it. But when they absolutely refused to do so, its success was in the highest degree improbable, and it was thought useless and unwise to bring it forward. It will probably be said, that indolence and half-hearted- ness are easily scared. The cry, " There is a lion in the way," is easily raised ; but that if there were a real sense of the importance of doing the work, the Bishops would not be deterred from attempting it ; and the necessity for some remedy for the existing anomalies is so plain and urgent, and this particular remedy is so reasonable and fair, that, if it were boldly proposed, it could not but be carried. This is very easily said ; and many who hear it will think that if it were not quite so easily done, it could not have been very difficult to do it ; and that if the Irish Bishops had only a proper sense of the wants of the Church, and a fair amount of earnestness and courage, few of the many irregularities which are such a scandal to the Church would have so long continued. Instead of discussing this point argumentatively, I will state an illustrative fact, which, I think, ought to go a good way in abating the severity of the judgment which is passed upon the Irish Bishops in this matter. It is well known that a great change has taken place in the mode of living of the citizens of London, They no longer reside in the houses where their business is carried on, but in the country ; the apartments formerly occupied by the family are added to the warehouse, and the whole is under the care of a servant or shopman. This is a common state of things through a large extent of the City. Such (44) Note E. parts of the City are almost absolutely deserted on Sunday; and. the churches, which were erected for a crowded popula- tion, are almost literally empty. The process, however, which deprived these churches of their congregations, raised up in the neighbourhood of London a population for which neither churches nor Ministers were provided. It seemed impossible that this strange state of things should exist long without giving rise to some plan for converting the churches without congregations in some way to the use of the congregations without churches ; and in 1854 a Bill to effect the object was brought into the House of Lords. It was not a Government measure, but it was favoured by Grovernment, and was warmly supported by the Bishop of London. Indeed, it was understood that the measure originated with him, and was not introduced by him, because it might be better brought forward by a layman. It was introduced by the Earl of Harrowby, who stated the facts of the case clearly and forcibly ; and who argued that, as the population had so diminished that in some of the churches Divine Service was celebrated in the presence of five or six persons, in removing such churches to supply the urgent wants of other parts of the great Metropolis, the interests of religion might be regarded not as served in one place at the cost of some injury in another, but as served, though in different ways, in both ; because it seemed impos- sible that any thing like earnest and warm religious feelings could be kept alive in either minister or people under such unfavourable circumstances. It was proposed to give power to take down the churches which had become useless under the changes referred to, and to sell the sites, which it was calculated, without including the churchyards, would bring in nearly half a million for the erection of the new churches. And the Bill seemed to provide full security against any abuse of the powers which it proposed to bestow ; for the transfer could only be made with the consent of the Incum- bent, Patron, Bishop, Archbishop, and Ecclesiastical Com- missioners. It is not easy to conceive more favourable circumstances for attempting such a measure of Church Reform ; the very measure, which in the case of the Church in Ireland, it is supposed to be so very easy to effect. The cases of redundant and defective provision for spiritual wants could not be Note E. (45) clearer or more striking. Both were upon a much larger scale than in Ireland, and therefore the waste was greater, and the want more urgent. The contrasted cases, too, were much nearer to each other than they are with us ; and both were so near to the place where Parliament assembled, that the Members of both Houses actually had, or might easily acquire personal knowledge of the actual state of the case. Such a state of things in the heart and suburbs- of the great Metropolis, was calculated to create a much livelier interest within the walls of Parliament, and outside, than it could be expected to do if it existed in Ireland. The Bill, too, was supported by a far greater weight of influence than could be commanded in aid of any Irish Church measure of Reform ". And yet it failed. It passed the Lords, though not without opposition, but it was thrown out in the House of Commons. And so discouraged were the promoters of the measure, that though the circumstances of the case remained unaltered — the same superabundant supply for the spiritual wants of portions of the City, and the same defective provision in some suburban districts — the attempt to do away with the anomaly, which was then defeated, has never since, I believe, been renewed in any shape. Now I cannot but hope, that when all the circumstances of this case are considered, it will be felt to furnish a satisfactory reply to the charge against the Irish Bishops, to which I re- ferred. They have been accused of inertness and apathy in a matter in which they were bound to be active, and in which they ought to feel deeply interested. And the ground of the charge is that they have not attempted to redress the acknowledged anomalies which exist in the Church in Ireland, though the way of redressing them was, their accusers allege, ' This would be true if London were the only place interested in the measure ; but there were other places, and those of no small importance, which were also concerned in it. In the cities of Norwich, Chester, and York, there were similar cases, where " the population, as in London, though not to a similar extent, had deserted the churches, finding it more agreeable to quit the crowded centres of those towns and to live in the suburbs ; the effect being that the town churches were comparatively deserted, while the population of the suburban districts was v^y inadequately accom- modated."— /SpfigcA of the Earl of Harrowhj. And accordingly the provisions of the Bill extended to these cities also. (46) Note E. obvious and easy. It ought I think to be sufficient to defend them from the charge that this attempt to redress similar anomalies in the way pointed out, was made in England under far greater advantages than could be commanded for any measure of Irish Church Reform, and that it failed, as I have described ; and that those concerned in carrying it out have acquiesced in that adverse decision of Parliament, and have never renewed the attempt. When such was the result, of the English Bill, no one would reasonably expect that a similar Bill for Ireland, which must be brought forward under far less favourable circumstances in every way, could succeed, and so it seemed abundantly clear that if such a measure was pressed on, the evil of disunion among the friends of the Churcih in this country would have been incurred, without any advantage to set over against it. And this being the case, I do not think it can be reasonably doubted that the Irish Bishops exercised a sound discretion in not pressing forward the measure in the face of the opposition which it was sure to encounter. But this defence is only intended for the past — or, at least, only for the future so far and so long as it resembles the past. It is not intended to excuse the Bishops from the duty of watching for and taking advantage of any change of circumstances which may make the attempt to remove the anomalies referred to in the way proposed more feasible ; nor from the duty, while waiting for such a change, of attempt- ing to effect that reform in any way in which it may appear more practicable. It is clearly their duty to endeavour to effect all needful Church reforms by all practicable means. But whatever advantages may be expected to result from the faithful discharge of this duty, we are not aEowed to hope that it will appease or silence the enemies of the Church. Abuses which appear to be flagrant and heinous, as long as they can be made to furnish Counts in the Bill of Indictment against the Church, dwindle into absolute insigni- ficance when they are removed, and this use can no longer be made of them. And indeed they begin sensibly to abate in importance from the moment that there appears to be any prospect of their removal. This one of which we have been speaking, for example, has always had a prominent place among the charges against the Church. But from the time that there appeared any Note F. (47) prospect of its removal, we were warned that its removal would do nothing to make the case of the Church better. The TiiHos (May 20, 1863), in commenting on Mr. Seymour's Amendment, warned all ooncernGd, that even if it should be adopted, it would only be regarded as a compromise, which would not have the remotest tendenGy to set the question at rest. It is added, indeed, that Mr. Seymour must have a strange idea of the question, if he thinks it is to be set at rest by augmenting the poorer benefices, erecting new ones, and re- adjusting the boundaries of contiguous parishes. All this may be very well in its way, but it does not meet the objection, it does not remedy the great ineqiialit;/, or remove the real anomahj. Indeed, it appears that re-adjitstmeid is not merely useless, but that it is worse than nothing ; for we are told that its oiiln result will be a more specious monopoly (June 30, 1863). And no doubt, upon the same principle, the same would be said, one by one, of all the reforms which are so loudly called for, as there appeared any prospect of effecting them. They would leave the great grievance unredressed ; and, by strengthening the position of the Church, would postpone, if they did not destroy, the prospect of redress- ing it. Note F, p. 29. ON PARISH WORK IN IRELAND. (In continuaUoH of foot-note, page 29.) T have received the following letter from one of my clergy. It vseoras to have been suggested by what is said, pp. 26 — 29, including the note at the foot of the latter page. It forms a very suitable continuation to that note, and is so interesting and important, that I am very glad to have the writer's per- mission to publish it. •' Sbimclorry Mountrath, "May 1.1868. " My Lord, . " Having at one period of my life held for a few years a country Incumbency in Surrey, I am in a position to appreciate tlioroughly what your Lordship says as to the (48) Note F. different circumstances under which ministerial work is carried on in this country and in England. I can also bear my personal testimony to the fact that this difference is very far from being apprehended by the majority of Englishmen. Indeed, their own case is, in general, so totally dissimilar, that it is well-nigh impossible for them to realize the state of things very common here. " I only regretted that your Lordship, from a feeling which every delicate mind can understand, should have sought examples at a distance rather than at home. Your own portion of the vineyard could, however, as your Lord- ship very well knows, have furnished you with many illus- trations of your position. My range of view is, of course, very limited. I can speak from personal knowledge only of Offerlane, the parish in which I have passed upwards of twenty years of most happy ministerial toil ; and, in a very slight degree, of the neighbouring parish of Clenenagh. The extent of one of these is 49,000 acres ; of the other, 47,000. In the one, about 1300 ; in the other, since I have known it, an average of about 1000 Protestants are scattered over the entire of these vast regions, so that there is not an inch of either untrodden by the weary foot of the Minister of Christ, while testifying both publicly and from house to house. Would that some of my old friends and parishioners in Surrey were acquainted with these facts ! I can easily picture to myself the astonishment which they would excite ! " But, to confine myself to my own labours in this parish of Offerlane, I would remind your Lordship that the net income of the vicar is 280/., further reduced by deductions which the present Commission have thought it but just to allow, to about 170/. Of course, I am the only curate. I, in common, I believe, with all my brethren, feel that no parish can be said to be in a satisfactory state in which every child and yoimg person is not catechized by one of the parochial clergymen. Sunday-school teachers are most valuable ; but they can never supersede the personal in- structions of the clergyman, without serious damage to the young people and the Church. And now, if this be ad- mitted, see what it entails. We have in this parish four Scriptural Schools, in a circuit of twenty-five miles. In each of these I have taught iceekly for two hours each visit. Please bear in mind the distances ; one of seven miles, two Note F. (49) of four and a half, the fourth of one. These, of course, to be doubled for the return j'ournei/s. " But there are several families who live miles away from any of these schools ; there are some of a rank superior to that by which these schools are used. What, then, is to be done in these cases ? Why, they must be either altogether abandoned by the clergyman, or else he must give cate- chetical instruction in their several houses. The latter is the alternative which I, and, I beKeve, the vast majority of the Irish Clergy have chosen. Accordingly I have twelve places in which I give catechetical instruction in this parish, combined, in some of them, with prayer and a lecture for a general congregation. Altogether there are not fewer than forty houses, in which I have, during my time here, attended weekly to carry out my Master's primary charge, ' Feed My lambs.' " Add to this the general pastoral visiting, with the more particular visitation of the sick, carried on through such vast districts, and I think it may well surprise us who know these things to read of sleek members of Parliament talking of us as idle drones ! I am not acquainted with the physique. of the leaders of the present attack, but I occasionally see their outward man set forth in the Illustrated News and Punch. All I can say is, that if these amusing publications have at all succeeded in 'taking off' 'the face and form' of some of them, I feel confident I should confer a favour on them if I could persuade them to spend a fortnight in my house, and to keep, during that time, pace with me, while I promise not to deviate in the slightest degree from my ordinary course. They would return to England proclaim- ing, by the silent eloquence of an altered man, that they had discovered something that beats ' Banting ' hollow ! " Allow me, my Lord, to mention one case as a specimen. Towards the close of last year a poor woman came into this parish in an advanced stage of cancer. The clergyman, in the first place, by considerable exertion, procured for her a small sum, about seven pounds, which saved her from the workhouse, of which she had an Irish dread, and made her what she called comfortable for the remainder of her brief career. This lasted for between three and four months. During that time I walked 345 miles to see this woman. As each walk was one of fifteen miles, the entire number is E (50) Note F. easily calculated. She died of haemorrhage ; and the account I received of her death-scene would have been— oh, how ample a reward, were the above figures multiplied a thousand fold ! Finding the life-stream rapidly ebbing, she sent one loving message to her clergyman ; another she forwarded more quickly to Heaven. It was, ' God be merciful to me, a sinner, for Christ's sake.' And then it was a question whether her soul or her last words should appear first before God ; they were, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit ! ' "And there are Protestants in England, who would render such scenes as these an impossibility. " I ask your Lordship, I ask every one who knows Ireland, how many visits would a Roman Catholic Clergy- man have paid this woman under precisely similar circum- stances. We all know what 'Run for the Priest' means. An attendance on one or two occasions when it was thought she was dying, for the purpose of ' administering the Rites' This would have been the sum total ! "And yet there are men who, in comparing the labours of the Ministers of both denominations, admit no element but mere numbers ! " I have already trespassed too long on your Lordship's patience ; and yet I would wish to supply my personal testi- mony on one other point adverted to by your Lordship ; namely, the extent to which other denominations avail them- selves of our service in Christ. " Having observed for some Sundays back, some strange faces in one of our churches, I on inquiry found they had recently come into the parish, and were living about seven miles and a half from my house. On calling on them I found they were just come from Scotland ; and were ' Mor- rissonians,' — a name I am ashamed to say quite new to me.' They were most grateful for the Clergyman's visit ; and expressed themselves much pleased with the services of our Church. "For a very considerable time I had a weekly Catechetical Lecture in the house of a most respectable Quaker family here. It was broken off by one of the daughters going to a school in connexion with their Society; and I shall never forget the delight with which their mother announced to me, a short time afterwards, that she obtained the first prize in her class for knowledge of the Scriptures. Note F. (51) "At the present time I have a weekly Catechetical Lecture in the house of a Presbyterian. The family is very large. They now frequently come to church. I never met greater gratitude for ministerial services than is shown by this family. "It has happened to me on three occasions, when walking through the parish, to be asked by Roman Catholics to visit persons dying in their houses, I have been listened to with the most profound respect and the deepest attention ; with what result ' the Day of Christ ' alone can reveal. " I desire again to apologize for the length to which this letter has run, and the enormous egotism flagrant throughout the entire of it — which however is inseparable from personal testimony, — Personal Testimony, I say, my Lord ; for such I mean this letter exclusively to be. And this will explain, and, I trust, justify the omission of any reference to the ministerial services of my Eector, the Rev. J. W. Bourke, who, as your Lordship is well aware, has ever taken his full share of paro- chial work, and the lion's share of parochial expenses. On the latter subject I am tempted to say much, but I have already occupied an unreasonable portion of your time ; moreover, this would be to enter into details which do not properly belong to me. I cannot, however, refrain from mentioning that out of his exceedingly small official income, his contributions to his four schools— to which, because the Holy Scriptures are made the basis of all education given in them, the State contributes nothing— his subscriptions during the twenty years that I have been connected with the parish, have averaged 35/. per annum, as shown by the printed reports. During that time very many hundreds of young persons have been sent forth from these schools into the active walks of life; many serving their country at this moment in the constabulary, the army, the navy, and in civil employments ; and all carrying with them, dispersed as they are throughout the length and breadth of the British empire, the principles which the scriptural instruction they have ■ received has welded together in their minds, of ' fearing God ' and ' honouring the king.' "I am, my Lord, " Your Lordship's most obedient Servant, " Leslie Bauham." E -2 (62) Note G. Note Q, p. 30. ON THE BISHOPS' INCOMES. The question — Do the Bishops' incomes admit of any con- siderable reduction? is very easily answered by those whose object in dealing with the Church is to propitiate the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, who are irreconcilably hostile to the Church, upon principle; and to whom every change would be acceptable, just in the degree in which it lowered and weakened the Church. It will also be readily answered in the affirmative by those who care but little about the efficiency of the Church, and whose object is to have a surplus for some general purposes. I have nothing to, say upon the question which would affect either class. But there are some who are sincerely interested in the efficiency of the Church, who seem to be of opinion that that object might be promoted by taking a portion of this fund for other Church objects, such as augmenting small livings. I think this is a mistaken view ; at the same time that the reasons against it are not of a kind to decide the question so briefly and clearly as to leave no room for a difference of opinion among honest men upon the point. The whole sum to which the net incomes amount is 55,000^. giving 7449^. as the income of an Archbishop ; and 4021/. as that of a Bishop '. This would hardly bring it up to the Law, as a Profession. An Archbishop's income would, exceed a Chief Justice's, but it would be below the Lord Chancellor's ; and a Bishop's would be a little above a Puisne Judge's. But, on the other hand, the number of these high judicial offices at the Bar bears a much larger proportion to the number ' These net incomes are fixed upon principles which leave them a good deal in excess of the amount that the Bishop actually receives. The agent's fees, for example, are not among the deductions allowed, but are among the charges to be paid out of this net income, diminishing it by fully 200Z. per annum on the average. Note G. (53) of Barristers to whom they are open, than the number of Archbishoprics and Bishoprics to the number of the Clergy. And there is a further advantage on the side of the Law : that a Judge generally reaches the Bench as the result of success in a lucrative profession, which has enabled him to make some provision for his family; while the profession in which a Bishop's previous life is passed affords no such opportunities, ^.nd moreover the demands upon a Bishop are much greater than those which a Judge has to meet ; so that the incomes of the Bishops could hardly be materially reduced without running the risk of impairing the efficiency of the Church. One cannot but foresee what an unfair use will be made of this. But this is no sufficient reason for keeping it back, if it be true, as I think it plainly is. Many will, I am aware, say, and some perhaps will think, that it is taking a very low view of the Church, to make its efficiency depend in any degree upon such considerations. But this wherever it is sincere, is a very hasty and superficial view of the subject. No doubt the first and most important qualifications for the Ministry are soundness in the faith, piety, and zeal. But to exclude talent and information, and in its place learning, from the list of these qualifications, or to treat them as of little importance, would be weak and fanatical. Every one who views the case rationally, must feel that it is of great im- portance to the efficiency of the Church, that a fair proportion of those who enter the Ministry yearly should be young men of talent, whose success in their preparatory course in School and College has given good promise of their success in pro- fessional life. But it is also evident that to secure this ad- vantage, the Ministry must hold out, as a profession, some- thing like the same worldly advantages that other professions do. For, speaking generally, a young man's profession is not chosen by him, but for him. And those older friends who thus cast his lot in life, will be much influenced by the pro- spect of worldly advantages which a profession holds out. Nor can there be any doubt that the estimation in which a profession is held — whether reasonably or not — depends very much on the station and emoluments of those who stand at the head of it. The Law might continue just as lucrative a profession as it is — but how different a place would it hold in public estimation, and how much would its attractions (54) Note G. for men of talent be diminished, if the judicial offices were considerably diminished in number, or if the judges' incomes and rank were considerably lowered. The emoluments of the profession would remain the same, and other advantages appertaining to it, such as the means which it offers of passing into political life. But notwithstanding all this, it would be felt to be an inferior profession, and would lose more or less annually of the supply of youthful talent by which its position in the country is maintained. That the same must be the result as regards the Church, if any change were made which lowered considerably the in- comes or the social position of the Archbishops and Bishops, cannot reasonably be questioned. Some, of those for whom other professions have been chosen on worldly principles, when they can act upon their own convictions and feelings, freely abandon all the advantages of the line of life, whatever it be, on which they have entered, and seek admission to the Ministry, often to the great benefit of the Church. But such cases must be exceptional. In general, a profession once chosen, whether ■for or by a man, is chosen for life. And in general, as I have said, it will be chosen for him, and chosen on principles which will render it unlikely that the Ministry will be chosen, just in the degree in which it holds out less worldly advantages than other professions, and in which the individual possessed qualifications which would afford a reasonable ground for hoping success for him in others. The Clerical profession, for various reasons, carries on the contest with other professions for a fair share of the talent of the rising generation very unequally even at present. And how much this inequality would be increased, and with what injury to the best interests of the Church, if any change were made by which the worldly advantages connected with the highest offices of the Church were diminished, must be apparent, I should hope, from what I have said. The saving which would be effected by any practicable reduction of the Episcopal incomes would be but small, S,nd I cannot think that it could be so expended as to bring any advantage to the Church which would compensate for the great injury that would be inflicted by the reduc- tion. I have only spoken of one mode of raising such a fund ; that is, by reducing the incomes of the Bishops ; but it will, of Note G. (55) course, be said that there is another mode in- which the same object might be effected, viz. by diminishing their numbers. I shall say nothing of the objections to such a reduction, except that it would plainly exercise the same kind of injurious effects upon the interests of tlie Church that has been already pointed out as the result of a diminution of their incomes. But as I believe it is sometimes recommended by considerations drawn from the state of the Church in England, in which each Bishop has under his superintendence so many more benefices than the largest number in any Irish Diocese, I wish to point out what seems to be a double fallacy in the comparison. In the first place, as already pointed out with regard to the common comparison between the work of an Irish and English parish, work is estimated by numbers only, putting out of sight the .area over which they are dis- tributed. The area of an English Diocese is 2160 miles, that of an Irish Diocese 2710 miles. Now it must be plain that the area must go for something in calculating the work which may be effectively discharged bj;- a Bishop. Whether the care of a Diocese is to be carried on bj^ the clergy visiting the Bishop, or by his visiting them, distances are of con- siderable importance, and more particularly in a country in which the means of communication, though much advanced, still fall very far short of the stage of advancement which they have reached in England °. This is one fallacy in this comparison, or in the inference drawn from it. Another is, that when it is said the number of the Irish Dioceses might be considerably reduced, for it greatly exceeds in proportion the number of Dioceses in England, it is plain that it is tacitly assumed that the number in the latter case is what it ought to be, or suflaciently near to what it ought to be, to afford a safe rule for other countries; whereas, if there be one subject on which all parties in the Church *' Though there is more railway communication in my Dioceses than in many others, I have never hitherto been able to avail myself of it in my Confirmation tour. I hope to do so this year, so as to reduce the time from between five and six weeks, which it has hitherto occupied, to a month. But if my Diocese were doubled, the time and cost of a Confirmation tour would be a good deal more than doubled. I may add that the Bishop of Cork reaches one of the churches at which he holds a Confirmation by posting one hundred miles. (56) Note H. are agreed, it is that the number falls far short of what it ought to be, and that it ought to be greatly increased. Both views, indeed, are so firmly entertained, and both objects so urgently pressed by different parties, that it would not be at all surprising, if the number of the Irish Dioceses were diminished, on the ground that it is greater in proportion than the number of Dioceses in England, and therefore greater than it ought to be, and that then the latter number were greatly increased on the ground that it is much smaller than it ought to be. Note H, p. 32. EXPLANATION OP THE STATEMENT ABOUT TITHE RENT- CHARGE. Both here and at p. 6, I give, not the words of the Tithe Rent-charge Act (1 & 2 Vic. cap. 109), but its effect. By that Act the Composition for Tithe, which had been made compulsory by an Act of the previous reign (2 & 3 Wil. IV. cap. 119), was abolished, and all right of recovering it taken away. But in lieu of it, every parcel of land was charged with the payment of a Rent-charge equal to three- fourths of the annual amount of the Tithe Composition to which it had been liable. This was made recoverable from the landlord by the parish Clergyman ; while the landlord had no right to recover from the occupant of the parcel of land the Tithe, or the Tithe Composition. But the effect of the enactment notwithstanding was what I have stated it to be ; for whereas he had only had the power theretofore of conveying to his tenant the possession of the land, together with a right to nine-tenths of the produce, the remaining tenth, or a composition in lieu thereof, be- longing to the parish Clergyman, to whom the tenant was bound to pay it, he (the landlord) could thenceforth convey, with the occupation a right to the whole produce. And of course in yearly holdings, and in all cases of re-letting, there could be no doubt that the rent would be at least a full equivalent for what the landlord was now able to give, and Note H. (57) that therefore it would amount to the value of the Oomposi- tion for Tithe, together with the rent which was paid as long as that charge upon the land subsisted. This was even then not merely a matter of theory ; for there had been always throughout Ireland land, which, from its former connexion with religious houses, was Tithe-free. But the rent of such land was always at least equal to the Rent and Tithe together of similar land in its neighbourhood. This fact was put forward by several writers upon Tithes, and especially by one of my predecessors in Ferns and LeighUn (Bishop Elrington), who urged it with great force as a con- clusive proof that the tenantry would not be benefited by the extinction of Tithe. And the fact was referred to for the same object by Dr. Browne, in his Ecclesiastical Law of Ire- land, 2nd ed. 1803. Speaking of Tithes he says, " The Pastor has as firm a right to them as the landlord to his land. The land is purchased subject to them, and the price abated accordingly ; they are not part of the purchase, and therefore the landlord has no right to complain, as if they were a deduction from him ; and as to the tenant, the increased rent on land exempted from Tithe shows .how miserably he is deceived when he thinks their abolition would benefit him." — p. 162. The case as regards the landlord is understated in this passage ; as what is said of purchased property is no less true of land inherited — the right of the Church to the Tithes being older than the original title to the land. At a distant period there was great confusion and error in common notions on the subject. Tithes were regarded as a tax levied to re- munerate the Clergyman for his services, which were the only consideration that he gave, or had to give, in return. Some thought that the tax fell on the tenant, and some on the landlord. But the majority of the tenants did not avail themselves of the Clergyman's services; and though this could not be said of the landlords, yet they, often at least, did not regard such services as an equivalent for what they had to pay for them, — so that, whichever of these erroneous views prevailed, it was a source of discontent. But in the course of the controversy to which I have referred, the true view was conclusively established; so that while pre- viously it was only here and there that a man was to be found who did not misunderstand the nature and effects of F (58) Note H. Tithe, — so far as to think that it was a tax upon the landlord or the tenant, — for a considerable period, beginning above half a century ago, it was equally rare to meet any intelligent man who did not know that it was no more a tax upon the tenant than the rent was, and no more a tax upon the land- lord than a chief rent, or any charge upon his property, subject to which he had inherited it or purchased it. But in the way in which errors recur after an interval, the old notions concerning Tithe have been reappearing recently, so that it seemed worth while to repeat the old correction of them. THE END. OILBEET AND RlVIlfGTON. PEINTEES. ST. JOHN'S SQTJAEE, LONDON. THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT OF THE lEISH BEANOH OF THE UNITED CHUBCH, GONSIDBRBD. By JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. BISHOP OF 0S80RY, FERNS, AND LETGHLIK, " I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the High Court of Parliament, that it may not he sacrificed to clamour, or overborne by violence j and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry. Crucify, ofuoify, yet our governors would be so full of justice and courage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand Qidd mali fecit 1 " — Chillino- WOBTH : The Apostolical Institution of Episcopact/. Part I. EFFECTS, IMMEDIATE AND EEMOTE. WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON; HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, IVUBLIN. 1869. [Third Edition.'] THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT 01' THE IBISH BEANCH OF THE UNITED CHUECH, CONSIDERED. THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT or THE lEISH BEANCH OF THE UNITED CHUECH, CONSIDERED. By JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEI^l D.D. DISIIOP OF OSSOHY, ferns, and LEinilLIH, " I hope it will not ba thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the High Court of Pai'liament, that it may not bo sacrificed to clamour, or overborne by violence; and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry, Crucify, n-ucify, yet our governora would be so full of justice and courage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand Quid mali fecit ? " — ChiIiMNG- wOBTit : The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy, Part I. EFFECTS, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE. WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON; HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, DUBLIN, 1869. IThird Edition.^ THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT JnsI) Branrft of tfte 2Hnitea CI)ur4)* Until the beginning of the last Session, Disestablishment and Disendowment, which have since been so familiarly spoken of by every one, were, I believe, strangers in the land, both name and thing. The words were Tinknown, not only to our great lexicographer, but to all his continuators, so far as I am acquainted with them'. And familiar as they have recently become, there can be little doubt that they are often used, if not, strictly speaking, in ignorance of their meaning, yet with a very imperfect apprehension of all that is involved in the things for which they stand. I am sure, indeed, that very ' Neither wora appeared in any edition of Johnson's Dictionary- published during his lifetime, including that of 1773 — eleven years before his death — which contained the author's last correc- tions. In 1818 Dr. Todd published a new edition of the Dictionary, " with numerous corrections, and with the addition of several thousand words." But neither of the words in question is to be found in it. I have not many others within reach, but it is not in Eichardson's English Dictionary of 1836; nor in Webster's, of which I have seen a London edition of 1848. In 1846, Worces- ter's English Dictionary was published in America, and in the following year, republished in London. Todd's Johnson was the basis of the work, but the author states that 27,000 words had been added by him to those contained in Todd. But he appears to have been as ignorant as his predecessors of these words with which we have become so familiar. He gives the verb to disestablish, but only with the general meaning, to overthrow, to unsettle. It is marked as " rarely used," and the only authority given for it is " N. E. Elders," a reference which, I suppose, is better understood and carries more weight in the New than in the Old World. B 2 ■EFFECTS OF THE DISESTABLISHMENT many of those, who have been calling most loudly for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Branch of the United Church have never realized to themselves any beyond the most immediate effects of such a measure. But before we come to any conclusion upon the sufficiency of the reasons which have been put forward in its support, we ought to have before us, so far as we can, all its effects, near and remote. And I propose, therefore, to begin by endeavouring to present some of the most important of them. I will take first the disestablishment of the Church. It is often spoken of as if it involved little more, if any thing more, than lowering the civil and social status of a dozen of Irish Bishops. They have now the rank of Irish peers, and in a certain rotation sit in Parliament as peers. When the Church is disestablished, this will be at an end. It will not cease to have Bishops, but they will subside into a lower position in so- ciety, and will have no civil rights or privileges to distinguish them from other commoners. ' This change,' it is said, ' will be very interesting to them and to their families ; and it probably will not be without a kind of sentimental interest for all the members of their communion. But no one who looks dispassionately at it will be disposed to regard it as a very serious calamity, even to those whom it concerns most nearly. The change will not be agreeable to them. But they wiU enjoy still, no doubt, the respect of their own Church, and will exercise all the authority too, which upon Ecclesiastical principles belongs to their office, or which is voluntarily con- ceded to it by the clergy and laity of their communion. And when the awkwardness and discomfort which are incident to a transition state are over, the successors, even the immediate successors of the present Bishops, may be expected to settle down contentedly in their new position : and if they do not, it may confidently be expected that their successors will. But even if it should be otherwise, they will only be in the position in which the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland h ave been for centuries. They h ave never been contented with their position, and their discontent has caused serious incon- venience to successive Administrations for a long time. But it has been thought that it was wiser and better to bear with all these inconveniences than to endeavour to get rid of them, by placing the Roman Catholic Bishops in the position now OF THE TRISII BRANCH OF THE CHURCH. LEIGHZIK, " 1 hope it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the High Court of Parliament, that it may not be sacrificed to clamour, or overborne by violence j and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry. Crucify, cnuyify, yet our governors would be so full of justice and courage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand Quid mali fecit ? " — CHlLMNa- WOBTH : The Apostolical Institution of Hpiscopacy. Paet II. REASONS, FOR AND AGAINST. WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON; HIGH STREKT, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, DUBLIN. 1869. THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT Jn'sffe Mmxth oi tfte mnittti Cfturrft, In Part I. I brouglit before my readers some of the most important consequences of the measure which was then about to be brought into Parliament, for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish branch of the United Church, if unhappily, it should become law. In the sketch which I gave — it was nothing more — of its consequences, near and remote, nothing was set down, under either head, that I did not believe to be certain to follow from it in the natural course of cause and effect ; nor any thing, without some of the reasons for giving it the place assigned to it. In stating the conse- quences, I was anxious throughout to refrain from all ex- aggeration, and every where to keep within the limits of truth and soberness. And in tracing the remoter ones, I stopped designedly a good deal short of what I felt and feel con- vinced must be the ultimate issue, unless it be averted by the merciful interposition of Almighty God. Still, I felt that I could not hope that all my readers would be as fully convinced as I myself was, of the certainty of the results that I anticipated. But such a conviction was by no means necessary to satisfy them of the reasonableness of the practical conclusion which I drew from what I had *said. For that was not, that the proposed measure ought to be rejected on the grounds of the evils to be apprehended from it, but, that the reasons on which it was founded ought to be carefully examined, and that unless they proved to be very clear and very cogent, it ought not to be passed. This was all that I insisted upon ; and when the interests in jeopardy B Z EFFECTS OF THE DISESTABLISHMENT are of such wide extent, and of sucli momentous importance, it would seem that any probable grounds for believing that they are in danger of suffering deep and permanent injury ought to be quite enough to warrant a much stronger con- clusion. And I do not think that any intelligent person can read fairly what I said in justification of the fears which I expressed, without being satisfied that it does furnish some probable grounds for them. But, in fact, the only room for uncertainty about the con- sequences of the measure is, with reference to its remoter consequences. No one acquainted with Ireland can doubt that the evils ' which I have represented it as bringing upon the ' These evils were predicted before the details of the measure were known. What I wrote, therefore, was founded simply upon the supposition that the Bill, when it came, would carry out the object of its framer, as embodied in his three Resolutions. It had been evident for a good while, that, in preparing to attack the Church in Ireland, he had succeeded in working his feelings up to a state of suitable exasperation against it ; and, once embarked in the enterprise, as I have remarked (Part I. p. 9, foot-note), he became visibly more envenomed the further he advanced. This was quite natural, — that is, quite in accordance with a bad part of our nature, which is often the predominant part. But, being fully aware of this, I should not have expected that the Bill would be conceived in a moderately generous or kindly spirit, even if the ostensible author of it were at liberty to frame it according to his own views and feelings. But no one believed that he was. It was generally supposed, indeed, that it was drawn up under the virtual, if not actual, dictation of one of the deadliest enemies of the Church in Ireland. Whether it were or not, I cannot, of course, say ; but I can be sure that it could not have been fraomed. throughout in a harsher, a more grudging, and a more grinding spirit, if the general belief of the inspiration and control under which it was composed were well grounded. Indeed, knowing that, whoever may have inspired the measure, it must have been ultimately revised, and have received its form in detail from persons who were acquainted with English feeling and were aware of the danger of outraging it, I did not think that, aa a matter of pnidence, such a measure would have been ventured upon. And this being the case, it is very ti'ying to listen to the way in which it is so often spoken of. For myself, I can say, that I can bear the unmitigated harshness of the Bill, and the unworthy enmity of its author, much more patiently than the mawkish adula- tion which has been offered to him, for the consideration of the interests, and even the feelings of the members of the Church OF THE IRISH BRANCH OF THE CHURCH. 3 members of the Church there, are certain to follow from it ; and no person of right feeling can, I think, doubt that, putting out of view entirely its effects upon other interests in other parts of the Empire, these are of themselves abundantly sufficient to sustain the moderate conclusion referred to. I trust, therefore, that my readers will be prepared to ac- company me when I proceed to state and to examine, as fairly as I can, the most important of the reasons which have been put forward, both in and out of Parliament, for the overthrow of the Irish Church Establishment. It would be impossible to enumerate all the reasons for its abolition which have been alleged from time to time by individual writers or speakers : nor is it at all necessary. If those which have been most relied in. Ireland, which he has shown throughout, so far as was con- sistent with maintaining the principle of the measure which he has been constrained by a sense of justice to bring forward ! I have not yet heard from any one who holds this language, what it is that the framers of the Bill have given, which they could have ventured on withholding; or rather, what it is they have left to the Church, which they durst have taken away. It is in England chiefly that this soft language is maintained concerning the measure. In Ireland it has made many converts. Not a few, who, while they were opposed to the Bill both on the grounds of principle and of policy, and who had nothing to say in defence of the wisdom or the temper of its author, still clung to the belief that his motives and feelings were right — that nought he did in hate, hut all in honour — have been either reduced to silence, or openly acknowledge that they were mistaken. I do not mean to enter. into an analysis of the Bill in vindica- tion of what I have said of it. That work has been done very sufficiently by various hands. The late debate in the House of Commons has exhibited clearly some of the objectionable parts of the measure. The article in the last Quarterly Review has touched upon some points- with great effect ; and a Report on its Details, drawn up by a committee, at the desire of the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, which is just published, contains an accurate and able, and very temperate' examination of it. It was also very ably criticized in some of the speeches made at the late Church Conference in Dublin, an Authorized Report of which will, I hope, soon appear. I think it better to refer to these and such-like sources, than to attempt to go over the same ground ; and I should leave the subject here, but that something which I said upon the measure in my Diocesan Synod has been animadverted upon in the Times and elsewhere, and- I think it advisable to give the passage that has been refeired to in a correct form in the Appendix, Note G. B 2 4 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION upon by the most prominent assailants of the Church be brought under review, enough will be done for any useful purpose ; and I believe that all that it can be of any import- ance to notice wUl be found to be comprehended under the following heads : — (1.) It is a heavy burden upon the impoverished people, from whom it derives an enormous revenue. (2.) It is a mass of such gross abuses in detail, that the maintenance of it is a discredit to the State as well as a violation of its duties. (3.) It is a gross injustice to Ireland, and therefore ought not to be upheld, even if it were perfectly purged of all abuses in detail. (4.) It is a source of discredit and weakness to England upon the Continent, where the maintenance of the Irish Church in opposition to the wishes of the Irish people, is universally regarded as an act of odious tyranny. (5.) As a badge of conquest, it is an insult to the sensitive and impetuous people upon whom it is forced — an insult under which they can never rest; and to restore peace to Ireland, it ought to be abolished. How far these charges are true in point of fact — and how far, to the extent that they are true, they offer sufficient reasons for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Ireland, will be better seen, I hope, when I have gone through them in succession, as I propose to do. (1.) The first charge was made large use of at one time, but I believe it may be regarded now as virtually, though not formally, withdrawn. I have shown in another place " how all the statements which were so confidently made some years ago of the monstrous revenues of the Irish Church proved to be gross exaggerations, when examined by soiiie * Case of the Established Church in Ireland, pp. 1 — 7, 23 — 30. OF THE IRISH CHUKCH ESTABLISHMENT. who were by no means friendly to the Church; and how they were further and still more decidedly disproved by the Reports (1833 — 1837) of the Commission of Inquiry into Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage in Ireland. The charge became still more palpably unfair, when the number and incomes of the Bishops and Clergy were diminished by the operation of the Church Temporalities' Acts, and for a time it seemed to have disappeared from the field of the contro- versy ; but under favour of the decrease in the Church popu- lation (though less in proportion than that of the Roman Catholic population, or the population of the Kingdom generally) it gradually came back ; and at last some of the more unscrupulous of the enemies of the Church did not hesitate to revive the old monstrous statements of its exorbi- tant wealth ; that it is, for its numbers, the most richly endowed Church in the world ^ — and so forth. ' A very striking example of this kind of hardihood, rendered additionally striking by the position of the individual concerned, is given in Sir Robert Peel's Speech on Mr. Dilwyn's motion in 1863 :— "It is very desirable that in a matter of this kind you should endeavour to obtain the opinions of those who, from their position, are best able to give an opinion upon it. We have had the opinions of gentlemen in Ireland, and I wish to draw the atten- tion of the House to the opinion of those who are at the head of the Roman Catholic Church. On the 6th of May, Dr. CuUen published a letter to his clergy in reference to this debate. After stating that the Protestants have dwindled away since 1834, whereas in reality they were more in 1861 with reference to the entire population, he goes on to make this remarkable state- ment : — " ' The income set apart for this declining Church is probably ten times as large in proportion as what is allowed at present for the maintenance of the clergy in any country on the continent of Europe.' " He goes on to say that both Lord Russell and Lord Carlisle have denounced the existence of the Establishment in Ii'eland as a standing insult to sense and reason, and farther on he says : — " ' Can we reconcile ourselves to the existence of an Establish- ment which proclaims the Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as its rule of faith, and grants to every one the right of thinking and acting as he wishes in religious matters ? ' * ^ TP tT tP " Directly I heard that statement I sent to Rome, and I sent to Naples, to ascertain whether it was founded on fact. The b REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION But I suppose the question may now be regarded as once more set at rest by the result of the inquiry of the late Established Church Commission. The Commissioners are certainly not chargeable with having been unduly favourable to th^ Irish Church, or at all disposed to conceal its weak points. After an extensive and accurate inquiry intp the circumstances of the Church, as to the population, area, and income of the parishes, they did not hesitate to propose con- siderable changes in existing arrangements, involving the suspension of the appointment to certain benefices and the consolidation of certain dioceses. Both of these changes, and some others recommended would add to the income available for maintaining the Parochial Clergy. But the Commissioners anticipate that all the additional income which would be thus obtained for this great object, woidd be necessary to provide for the increased demands upon it arising from other changes which they have suggested, with a view to making the parish ministry more efficient throughout the land. So that, according to them, the whole income of the Church, under the most judicious distribution result is most remarkable. I find that the population of the Neapolitan State is 7,060,618, and for this population there are 20 Archbishops and 77 Bishops. This is exclusive of Sicily. I find, also, that there are 1020 establishments for men, contain- ing 13,611 monks and laymen ; that there are 276 convents ; and in fact, that the Neapolitan Church in 1860 had in its service 70,000 individuals. And yet Dr. Cullen tells us that the Church in Ireland has a revenue ten times larger than any Church on the Continent. But I will take the case of Rome itself, which is still more remarkable. I have not been able to obtain information of a later date than 1840, since which, as we all know, three-fourths of the Pope's subjects have thrown ofi" his temporal authority, and transferred their allegiance to King Victor Emmanuel. But in 1840 the population of Rome was 153,000. The number of ecclesiastics, monks, nuns, and seminarists, was 5273, or one ecclesiastical person to every twenty-nine of the population j while, in what were then the States of the Church, there were 1824 convents for monks, and 612 convents for nuns. In fact, when Archbishop CuUen made that statement, evidently with the intention of lowering the Irish Church Establishment in the eyes of the world, he could not have been aware that in the Neapolitan States, as they were then called, and in the States of the Chmxh, there was such a state of things as these facts disclose." — Times, June 30, 1863. OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 7 of it whicli they could suggest, would be required to maintain, the Church in a state of efficiency. As regards the second part of this charge, — it has been shown again and again in the course of this con- troversy; that the Church, whatever be the amount of its revenues, is in no sense a burden upon the people, except as all landed proprietors are a burden upon them. It does not receive any sum, small or great, from any one in the country, rich or poor, for which the individual who pays it has not received — ^to speak safely — a fuU equivalent out of the property which the Church has possessed with the fullest recognition of the law, and under its express sanction, for three centuries — to take, for the sake of avoiding argu- ment, a date about which no question can be raised. This has been so often and so clearly proved and published, that all persons of moderate intelligence are fully convinced of the falsehood of this part of the charge. Indeed, all the enemies of the Church who retain even a moderate amount of fairness acknowledge its falsehood ; while even those who have not sufficient candour to make this acknowledgment, but have some remnant of shame left, have ceased to put it forward. I may therefore, I think, pass over without further notice this count of the indictment against the Established Church in Ireland. (2.) The charges under this head are put forward much less prominently now than heretofore : but they were not held back until after they had done their work. They have in fact done more to bring the Church in Ireland into its present perilous position than any of the others that I have enumerated. They have been for a series of years perseveringly reiterated, though one by one, in the course of that time, repeatedly refuted and exposed. But they do not admit of being brought to a single direct issue as a matter of fact or of argument, like the first charge noticed, and so they have not been in the same way put decidedly and finally out of court. They are very numerous, and involved a number of matters of fact ; and ao, prima avulso non defuit alter — when one has been refuted, another has been produced ; and when it has been dealt with in the same 8 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION way, another has appeared ; and then, after an interval, those that were laid aside are reproduced as fresh as at the first. The work has been carried on in various places and by various agents — by mob orators and parliamentary orators, by writers of all sorts, good, bad, and indifferent ; but, above all, by anonymous writers, and at the head of them those who through the columns of the Times exercise so great and so injurious an influence upon the English public'. And this has gone on so perseveringly, that the defenders of the Church have often remitted the task of refuting such charges, sometimes from sheer weariness ; sometimes relying upon former answers to them as likely to do their work with the public, though they failed to convince the assailants of the Church; and sometimes perhaps in despair of doing any good by refuting again what was reproduced in spite of former refutations. But all this while the enemies of the Church have never relaxed their efforts ; and the result has been, that by dint of repetition many of these often-refuted charges have come to be extensively believed, and have produced a very strong and a very wide-spread feeling against the Church in Ireland. A very large proportion of every rank in England read and hear every thing that is put forward for or against the Church in Ireland under the influence, more or less, of the prejudice which this long course of calumnious misrepresenta- tion has created. I trust this feeling is not so general as it was in England, and that where it still survives it is not always so strong as it was. But, whatever be its strength or its extent, I maintain that it is chiefly founded upon a belief — obtained in the way that I have described — in statements concerning the Church which are not merely untrue, but monstrous and extravagant fabrications, such as no object, however laudable or however important, would be felt to justify or to palliate in any case whatever, except that of the Church in Ireland. I think I have a right to say this, for I have not merely publicly stated it before, but have sustained the statement by proofs '. And the statement was intended to apply not merely to vague declamatory invectives against the Church, but to * Note H, Appendix. ° Case of the EstcMished Church in Ireland, pp. 5 — 22. OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 9 express statistical statements in numbers. Indeed, the charges in detail which have been brought against the Church are chiefly founded upon its statistics. It is not surprising that charges of that class have been made large use of in the war against the Church, for they admit of being stated so as to be universally intelligible ; they are peculiarly calculated to make a popular impression; and beiug always, more or less, connected with a real weakness of our Church — for, alas ! we cannot deny that our numbers are small — it is easy to give them the appearance of truth, without incurring the disadvantage of keeping strictly within. its bounds. And if the assailants of the Church had been content to go but a moderate distance beyond the bounds of truth, it might not have been worth while to call attention to their devia- tions from it. But the fact is, that the exaggerations, extenuations, and falsifications in which they have indulged in such specific charges in detail, go beyond any thing — so far as my knowledge extends — that is recorded in the same line in the history of any other controversy, religious, poli- tical, or mixed. , I will only give a brief abstract here of what I have fully exhibited in the pamphlet referred to. I have shown there, that when the argument against the Church is professedly a numerical one — when its assailants rely upon statements of numbers and income, work and remuneration, in the Irish branch of the Church, contrasted with similar arithmetical statements for the English Branch — and when they profess to give numbers which are actually given in public documents, or which are derived from the numbers given therein by an arithmetical process so simple that an undesigned error in the result seems impossible — I have shown, I say, that, when this is the argument relied upon, those who press it against the Church have actually given, not in one or two instances, but repeatedly, again and again, instead of the true numbers, such multiples or submultiples of those num- bers as were better suited to their purpose ! I repeat dis- tinctly, that the true numbers have been multiplied or divided, as the immediate purpose of the assailants of the Church required them to be increased or reduced — the larger num- bers doubled, trebled, or quadrupled ; and the smaller not only diminished in the same proportion — divided by two. 10 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION three, or four, but by five, by ten, by twelve, by twenty, and upwards ; and the product given in place of the multipli- cand for England, and the quotient instead of the dividend for Ireland, as furnishing the true contrast between the two branches of the Church ! I feel, while I am restating this, that it is hardly credible ; and I therefore say once more, that all this, and a good deal more, is not merely stated but proved in the pamphlet re- ferred to. And it would seem that, whatever were a man's views or feelings with reference to the Church in Ireland, if only he were a man of honour, or of common honesty, this mode of carrying on the war against the Irish Church might be safely left to his judgment. I do not mean to his judg- ment upon it, on religious principles — for however connected with religion the subject of the contest is, it would, I suppose, be thought rather simple to speak of religion in connexion with the mode in which it has been carried on — I mean his judgment upon it, on the common principles on which men and their actions are judged in ordinary life, in re- ference to any other subject whatever. If a man of the world — of the gay or the busy world — were to take such means, or any thing like such means, to secure any object that he had in view, however innocent, or however commendable it were, considered in itself, could he maintain his place in society ? would he be associated with by honourable or honest men ? This question admits but of one answer. And if it be not a very unfavourable exhibition of the state of public principle, it is at least a very unfavourable indication of the state of public feeling towards the Church, that the men who have been publicly proved to have used these poisoned weapons against it, retain their place in society, and have lost no per- ceptible ground in the estimation of the circle in which they move, as if the overthrow of the Irish Church were felt to be an end of such transcendent importance as to make it lawful to resort to any means for its accomplishment — even such means as in any other cause would be felt not to admit of any justification or palliation ! Of those who have declared against the Church professedly upon these charges, there are some who know their true character just as well as those who invented them, but who OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 11 are animated by the same hostility to the Church, and are no less indifferent to any quality in the charges brought against it, except their power of injuring it. And there are others who do not really feel the same bitter animosity against the Church in Ireland, and who do not in the same way know that these charges against it, which are put forward in support of -the cry for its disestablishment, are utterly false — who, in fact, except for the connexion of the question with the policy and the interests of their party, care very little whether the Church stands or falls, and care just as little whether the charges brought against it are true or false ; but who, as partisans, rail against the abuses of the Church as loudly and call as earnestly for its abolition as they could do, if they really believed, or absolutely knew, that the abuses actually existed, and if they really felt the intense hatred of it by which its bitterest enemies on religious grounds are animated. And there are others who have been really mis- led, and who think and feel about the Church as they do, only because they really believe these calumnies. It is hopeless to make any impression upon either of the former classes by any proof, however conclusive, of the real character of those charges ; and, so far as they are concerned, bring- ing forward such proof seems to be time and labour ab- solutely thrown away. But with the last class the case is widely different ; it may be hoped that upon them such proofs will produce their proper effects. I believe, indeed, that to whatever extent there has been a favourable* change in public feeling in England, as regards the Irish Church — and there seems to be good evidence that such a change has really taken place, to some extent — it is mainly due to the proofs which have been in various ways brought before the English public, that the charges which were so confidently made and so commonly believed, were either grossly ex- aggerated or utterly without foundation. This effect has been as yet but limited, as compared with the extent to which the calumnies against the Church have created a prejudice against it. But though very much re- mains to be done, what has been done is quite enough to give good hope that, if the friends of the Church show any thing like the perseverance of its enemies, their exertions will be fully rewarded. 12 ' REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION I said that it cannot be expected that the public refuta- tion of the charges against the Church will produce the same effects upon the two other classes of persons who join in making them — those who make them in determined hosti- lity to the Church, being fully aware of their falsehood, and those who make them for party objects, and are utterly care- less whether they are true or false. But even as regards both these classes, the public refutation of the charges has already produced a good effect, which it is very desirable to extend. The public exposure of the falsehood of these representations has plainly done not a little to discourage the repetition of them. Many of the assailants of the Church are now dis- posed, not to disavow such calumnies indeed, but to keep them in the background, or to waive the discussion of them. ' It is needless,' it is said, ' to enter into a discussion upon that part of the question. Wo one, we believe, is hardy enough to deny that there are some abuses in the Church in Ireland; and, on the other hand, we are not concerned to maintain that it has never been charged with abuses which do not exist, or that there has never been any exaggeration in putting forward the abuses which undeniably do exist. It would be trifling to engage in a discussion which would occupy a great deal of time ; 'which it would be hard to bring to any decisive issue ; and which may be decided in either way without deciding the main question ; while that question, on the other hand, may be considered and settled without any reference to them. It is better to look at it independently of all such accessories ; and for this purpose we are ready to put it upon a simple issue. We say then that, supposing the Established Church in Ireland to have reformed its abuses, so that not one which could be reasonably regarded as of any real importance remained, still the maiatenance of it would be such a violation of the principles of justice, that it ought not to be suffered to stand.' This seems to be fair ; and so it would really be, if, instead of putting aside the discussion of the truth or falsehood of the charges against the Church to which I have referred, it were candidly acknowledged that they are either utterly false, or so grossly exaggerated as to retain but a very small tincture of truth. The question might then, perhaps, be dis- cussed fairly in the simple form in which it is proposed. But OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 13 merely waiving the consideration of the charges does nothing to take away the hindrances to a fair discussion of the question. For with yery many these misrepresentations have done their work. And it would be impossible for any one who believed them, or who came to the discussion with the impression which they have left upon many minds, to give a fair hearing to what might be said on behalf of the Church, when the ques- tion was discussed on the single issue on which it is proposed that it shall be put. But though I think it important to note this, I do not mean that the defenders of the Churoh shall refuse to argue the case in the proposed form, xrntil its enemies distinctly acknowledge the falsehood of the charges which have been so confidently and so perseveringly pressed against it. This, it is to be feared, would be to put off the discussion inde- finitely ; and meanwhile the defenders of the Church would be represented as claiming to prescribe to its assailants the mode in which they are to carry on the war against it. If the present tactics of its enemies be, to rest satisfied with the impression which the charges on which they so long relied have already made, and not now to bring them forward, when they know that they would be shown to be scandalous misrepre- sentations, but to attack the Church upon general principles, and not in the way of detailed objections, they must be allowed to take their own course. The friends of the Church must shape their defence to meet the attack, whatever form it takes ; but if they are wise, they will not be beguiled into desisting from publicly exposing the misrepresentations under which the Church has suffered so much, because it is the policy of its enemies at this stage of the war to keep them in the background. This change of policy ought to have just the opposite tendency. It ought to be taken as evidence of the effect which has been produced by the public refutation and exposure of these misrepresentations, and it ought there- fore to furnish a very strong reason for persevering in the same course as long as any thing remains to be done to complete the task of disabusing the public mind of the false impressions which these misrepresentations have pro- duced. With this word of caution I may. proceed to the third division of the charges against the Church, first, however. 14 REASONS FOE THE ABOLITION making one remark, with reference to those which fall under this second head, viz., that if they were all as true as I have proved them to be false, they would furnish good ground indeed for curtailment and for detailed reforms, but no ground for either destruction or abolition. I think it expedient to notice this point, as it serves to show what the actual state of the case is ; but there is no practical object in dwelling upon it, inasmuch as I have shown that all that has been put forward most confidently against the Church which is referable to either of the two first heads, is utterly unfounded. (3.) Of the many groundless cries against the Church in Ireland, there is none that has less foundation than the one which has been raised against it in the sacred but often abused name of Justice. And yet there is, I believe, no other which has produced a wider or stronger prejudice against it. It has brought over to the side of the enemies of the Church all those— and they are not a few — who dread the discredit more than the guilt of injustice, and who are therefore always ready to commit a real wrong, when it is the easiest mode of escaping from the charge, however iU-grounded, of having committed one. And with them a smaller number have gone over to the same side, who are not without some desire to act fairly, but who are too much hurried away by their feelings to exercise a sober judgment upon such a question, and who, when they hear of the stronger power oppressing the weaker, are so filled with indignation against the oppressor, and com- passion for the oppressed, that they cannot be brought back to the preliminary inquiry — whether there are really any such parties — whether there is really any oppression in the case or not ? Every one is in some degree afiected by this cry. When I first heard it proclaimed in England, ' We have done wrong to Ireland, in establishing and so long maintaining there the Church of the minority, and, cost what it may, the wrong must be redressed ! ' I could not help saying to myself, ' That has the true ring of English honesty, and not at all t^e less true because the resolution is founded upon more than one mistake. It is a mistake that the Established Church is the Church of OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 15 the minority, so long as the Union subsists °. It is a mis- take that, even if it were the Church of the minority, it was a wrong to Ireland to establish it, if it be, as it is, a Church which teaches the truth, while the Church of the majority does not teach the truth '. But whatever be the mistakes on which it is founded, there is no mistake in the sentiment. These men think they have done a wrong, and the resolution to repair it, cost them what it may, is one worthy of Englishmen ! ' This was my first impression : but I soon found that I was altogether mistaken as to the meaning of those to whom I was giving credit for a generous and manly sentiment. I found that it was not meant that the wrong which the English supposed themselves to have committed was to be redressed, cost them what it might, but cost Irish Churchmen what it might ! And when I understood the true meaning of the sentiment, while my opinion of the errors which lay at the foundation of the sentiment remained the same, my ad- miration of its. magnanimity was very considerably abated. Magnanimity at the cost of others, generosity at the cost of others, — even justice at the cost of others, if it ought to be at our own cost, — is calculated to excite a feeling very different from admiration. But I think that the proposed mode of redressing the supposed wrong is as far from being just as it is from being either magnanimous or generous. I have said that this cry against the Established Church in Ireland, on the ground of justice, is founded upon a double mistake — a mistake as to principle and a mistake as to fact — and I think it is advisable before we go farther to explain and defend this statement, though it will cost us a little time, 1. In the first place, then, this charge of injustice rests upon no foundation, so far as I can discover, in any way sounder or better than the crude notion of justice which led the great Cyrus in his youthful days to decide the dispute between his two school-fellows, by adjudging the large coat to the big boy and the small coat to the little boy — considering only ' Sir James Graham — Speech on the Appropriation Clause, 1835, quoted in The Case of the Established Church in Ireland, p. 48, note. , ' Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone — Speech on the Appropria- tion Clause, 1835, quoted in The Case, p. 54 ; and Essay upon the State in its Relations with the Church, chap. vi. sections 12 — 17. 16 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION the fitness of things, without any reference to the respective rights of the parties. I am satisfied to take the origin of the rights of the members of the Church as the popular view of the history of the Re- formation presents it, — as it is presented in fact in what is commonly put forward in vindication of the right of the State not only to disestablish but to disendow the Church in Ireland. Supposing then that, when the question which should be the Established Church, the Church of the majority or the Church of the minority, was as yet undecided, the State decided it wrongly— that it was wrong in establishing the latter, and that it thereby committed an injustice against the majority — supposing all this to be true, still it would by no means follow that the State, having done this deliberately three hundred years ago, could now undo it. I do not speak of its power, but of its right. There are no limits to the power of the State, but there are very certain limits to its rights ; and I think that this very clearly goes beyond them. I do not think that any well-judging man will maintain that the State, according to the supposition, having three centuries ago invested the Church of the minority with the place, and the privileges, and the possessions of the Established Church of the country, having through the entire of that long period constantly recognized and maintained its title to the position and the endowments which it then bestowed upon it, and having upon the most memorable occasion in the history of this country for that time solemnly confirmed its title, and pledged the faith of the country to its permanent mainte- nance — I do not think, I say, that any sober-minded and well- judging man will maintain that the State, having done all this, is at liberty now to set aside this title, to treat it as having conferred no rights which it is bound to respect, and to deal again with the question as if it were res Integra. Every honest-minded man would feel that this was repairing an old wrong by committing a new one. It would be said, If the State has committed a wrong which is still unredressed, and which can still be redressed, " let right be done ;" let it be redressed, but let it be at the cost of the wrong doer ; let it not be redressed at the cost of those who have had no share in committing the wrong, and of their descendants ; let it not be redressed by the violation of the rights of property — by a OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 17 breacli of public faith, and by setting aside a prescription of such a length of time as would of itself confer an unimpeach- able title, even if no original title could be shown to exist '. 2. In the second place it is a mistake to regard the State as having necessarily done wrong in establishing the Church of the minority. This could only be true, on the supposition that it was bound to establish the Church of the majority. And this supposes that its primary duty in establishing a Church has respect to its members, and that its duty to them is best discharged by making provision for maintaining reli- gion in the form which they believe to be right, even though it is one which the State holds to be wrong. But both of these are great mistakes. The primary duty of a State in establishing a Church, has relation to God. Its duties to its members, however important, are subordinate to this, its highest duty. But upon right consideration it will appear that its duties in both relations are best fulfilled, and indeed can only be really fulfilled, by the establishment of the Church which holds the truth and teaches the truth. To exhibit this truth fully would lead us too far. But we may, at least, show, and it is very important to the ques- tion in hand to show, what the duty of the State in this matter is, as derived from its highest relation — its duty to God'. The State, understanding thereby the body, however con- stituted, in which the supreme power of the nation resides, is a Divine Institution, appointed by God for the conservation ' Note H, Appendix. ' What follows on this point is taken, with very little alteration, from a Charge published just twenty years ago. The part of the Charge which related more especially to the question of the Duty of the State with reference to the Establishment of the Church, was reprinted by a friend as a pamphlet, in 1866. It had but a limited circulation in either form. Perhaps printing it here will not make it known to many, in addition to the very few who are already acquainted with it ; but I could not avoid saying something upon the question in this particular place, and as not only are my views upon it unchanged, hut I know no better argu- ments in their support than those which I brought forward so long ago, I have thought it better to use them as they stand than to attempt to improve them. c 18 DUTY OF THE STATE AS REGARDS and promotion of tlie well-being of the people, and invested by Him with all the powers which are necessary for the due discharge of the duties of its high office '. How great these powers are, and what momentous consequences they involve, it is hardly necessary to say. The State makes laws, and so prescribes rules to the free actions of its members, and punishes the infraction of them with various penalties, up to the priva- tion of life itself. It declares war, and so not only engages a portion of its members in a deadly strife, but perils all that is dear to all of them, on the issue of the same deadly con- flict. And in the exercise of these awful powers, and of all its other functions, it is limited by no human laws, and amenable to no human authority. It is subject only to the laws of God, and responsible only to Him. Here then, if any where, is a relation towards G^od, which seems plainly to require a solemn, open, and continual acknowledgment of Him. It may be left to every well-ordered m.ind to answer the question, whether it is fitting or safe that the depositaries of such authority should wield it without acknowledging that it is held from God, and under Him, and for Him, and in every exercise of it asking for His guidance and blessing ? This is a question which seems to admit' but of one answer. It cannot but be felt ; and, in point of fact, until something is done to unsettle the spontaneous conclusion to which common sense and common feeling conduct all unsophisticated minds, it always is felt, that a position of acknowledged dependence is the only one suited to such a delegated power — that a power so raised up by God and armed by Him, charged by Him with such interests and such duties, and commissioned by Him in so important a sense to represent Himself in the world, is bound publicly to confess Him and to worship Him. This seems to be a first dictate of natural piety ; and how strongly it is confirmed by every consideration of the moral consequences as regards both rulers and subjects, of this public acknowledgment of God on the one hand, and of the omission of it on the other, I think it superfluous to attempt to show. ' This view of the nature of the State is not a mere deduction of reason. It is confirmed by the general current of Scripture, and by many express passages, e. g. Jer. xxvii. 5. Dan. ii. 21. Rom. xiii. 1- — 6. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHUKCH. 19 But I must delay for a moment to consider a popular ob- jection to the conclusion whicli one often hears, and which, I believe does not a little to disturb many minds in the con- viction of its truth. Some who do not deny that religion is an important thing, and that the State has, in some sense and in some degree, an interest in it, still ask, ' Is not every duty which the State has to discharge with respect to religion, adequately, if not best, performed without the establishment of what is called a State religion ; and this, whether we consider it in its relation to God or to its members ? Surely, whatever is to be done by religion, in the way of securing the Divine favour to the country, is to be done by the personal religion of individuals. As regards God ; what, indeed, can the religion of the State be to Him, apart and distinct from the profession and practice of religion by the individual members of the State ? And if the State promotes religion amongst its members, whether governing or governed, does it not perform the only real duties with respect to this important matter which can be reasonably regarded as resting upon it ? And surely it cannot be maintained that the establishment of a particular Church is necessary or useful for this ? On the contrary, when we consider how the profession of a particular form of religion by the State is calculated to commend that form to its members by various foreign and inferior influences and motives, and to interfere with that freedom of choice which is essential, not only to life and cordiality, but even to sincerity and reality in religion, we shall be inclined to con- clude that such an institution is a hindrance, not a help ; and that it is by securing liberty of conscience, in the largest sense, to all, and leaving all to its dictates, without any inter- ference of any kind, that the State best discharges its duty with respect to religion.' This objection is twofold ; but I only mean to consider one part of it. The question of the utility of an Established Church, regarded as a means of maintaining and promoting religion in a nation, is a very important one, but it is one which T do not mean to discuss. The controversy about it is a very old one. It has been often renewed from time to time, and early in the present century it was once more revived and carried on for a time with great vigour. And I think that those who hold the affirmative of the question, c 2 20 DTJTY OF THE STATE AS KEGAKDS may be well satisfied with tlie manner in which it has been supported. Indeed the decided advantage which such an institution possesses over an unendowed religious body, re- garded as an instrument for preserving and diffiising religion, has been set in a very clear light, and pressed with great force of reasoning. Nor do I know that any thing has been said in reply which renders it necessary to reopen the con- troversy ^. Upon this part of the objection, therefore, I do not mean to say any thing. But it may be necessary to notice what is thrown out against such institutions, regarded as the fruit and expression of the religion of the State itself, as if there were something unreal and fantastical in the very conception of the State as sustaining a religious cha- racter, or having religious duties to perform. But though I feel it expedient to say something in reply to this part of the objection, I do not think that it will be necessary to answer it at any length. It ought, I think, to be sufficient to say, that it proposes to apply a rule to the State in its relation to Grod, which is not thought of in regard to its human relations, and which, if it were put forward, would be at once rejected by the common sense and common feeling of mankind. The State sustains relations, not only towards its own members, but also towards other States, hostile, allied, or dependent. Of the reality of these relations no one entertains any doubt ; and there is just as little doubt of the reality of the duties con- nected with them. And, moreover, no one seems ever to doubt, that, with respect to them, the State has a moral character to sustain, and that its character is to be gathered from its own discharge of the duties which belong to these relations, and not from the way in which its members dis- charge the similar duties which grow out of their relations among themselves. Every one feels here, that it is not enough that the State protects or favours the practice of moral virtues among its members in their mutual relations : it must practise them itself in its public capacity, and in all the public relations which it sustains. If a State were ' The general question of the effects of a Church Establish- ment upon the interests of religion in a country, is treated with great ability by Dr. Chalmers, in his Lectures on the Establishment and Extension of National Churches. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 21 charged with cruelty in war, or with unfaithfulness in its alliances with States of its own rank, or with injustice, rapacity, and tyranny in its relation to weaker or depen- dent States, it would be felt that it was absurd to allege in its defence that benevolence and probity, moderation and equity, flourished among its members in their several relations with each other; or even that such virtues among its members, were fostered by its laws and institutions, and the opposite vices duly discouraged. Every one would feel that, however important and happy this fact were, it was quite beside the charge. It might be perfectly true, and yet the charge well founded. However different or oppo- site the characters of its members as individuals were, the State might still be cruel, unfaithful, treacherous, rapacious, tyrannical, or unjust. And so in its relation to God. That it is as real as any of its human relations, can scarcely be doubted. And it seems equally little open to reasonable doubt, that this relation brings with it duties towards Him, which are not discharged by the most exemplary performance of those duties which its members owe to Him in their individual capacities. As before, their character is not necessarily the character of the State. They may be religious, and the State irreligious. Nor does it appear how it can escape this character, and aU the guilt that belongs to it (which cannot be light), except by acknowledging God distinctly in its public capacity — as a State, rendering to Him such honour and service as, in that capacity, it is capable of rendering to Him. It seems strange, indeed, that those who never hesitate to speak of States as moral and accountable agents in all their other relations, should raise such objections to extending the same mode of conceiving and speaking of them in their highest relation. And it is important to notice, that this mode of speaking and thinking of States — that is, as moral agents, having duties and responsibilities, and the qualifications for rightly discharging them, and as blameworthy or praise- worthy, according to their mode of discharging them — is familiarly adopted by all, learned and unlearned, theorists, and those who know nothing of theories. So that it is a natural, not an artificial way of -viewing them. And it is hardly necessary to say that the Bible seems to leave little room to doubt that it is thus that- they are viewed by God. 22 DUTY OF THE STATE AS EEGAEDS Looking, then, at the State as a moral and accountable agent, sustaining various relations, and bound to discharge the duties which belong to all of them, it ought to be easily admitted, that it is botmd, in the first place, to discharge' those which belong to its highest relation — its relation to God. And I have said, I hope, enough to show that those duties include, not merely the regulation of its public and domestic policy by the rules and principles of conduct which He has given in His Word, but the further serving and honouring Him by a public profession of faith and a public maintenance of worship. These duties can only be discharged through some Eccle- siastical organization, and the State will, for this object, naturally — we may indeed say, necessarily — have recourse to the aid of the Church, in the popular sense in which it means the Clerical body, and must in fact employ its instru- mentality. But, then, various bodies, differing more or less in creeds, and forms, and organizations, wiU ofier themselves to the consideration of the State, to perform the functions of the Church ; and which of them is it to choose ? I do not see how any different answer can be returiied to this question from that which would be returned to the question, if it were asked, Which of the various forms of religion existing in the world ought an individual to adopt, if he were placed in such circumstances as to render it necessary that he should make a choice ? There is, I suppose, no difference of opinion as to the answer which ought to be returned to this latter question. Every one would acknow- ledge that the individual was to be determined altogether by comparing such reKgious bodies with the Word of God. No one would doubt that it is by such a comparison ex- clusively that the individual is to be guided ; and that in the degree in which he admits any other considerations to determine his choice, he is dishonouring and displeasing God. And it would seem that the same principles apply, so far at least, with no less force to the case of the State. When once the body in which the supreme power resides has decided that it is its duty to acknowledge God by a public profession of faith in Him, and by a public worship of Him, can it choose the creed which it is to profess, or the Church which it is to adopt, or the forms which it is to employ, by any other THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 23 rule than their conformity to the Word of God ? I am now speaking, not of the State's countenancing and upholding a religion with a view of doing good to any portion of its members, but of its professing a religion itself in order to honour God, and thereby to discharge a most iniportant duty which it owes to Him. And I do not think that it can be reasonably questioned, that this ought to be done on no other principles than those on which an individual is to choose the religion which he is to profess, or the particular Church which he is to join, if circumstances forced such a choice upon him. Indeed, to suppose that the State can serve and honour God by the profession of any other religious principles than those which it believes to be true, or by the institution and practice of any forms of worship except such as it believes to be in accordance with the will of God, seems very like an absurdity in terms. From among the religious bodies, then, which offer them- selves to its choice, the State, like the individual, is to choose as its Church that which appears the most conformable to the wiU of God, as revealed in His Holy Word, whether iu the express declarations or in the more or less clear indica- tions of His will which His Word contains. This the State is to do ; but when it has done this, its concern in religion is not ended. For the State stands in a parental relation to its members. To it is consigned the care of their interests, and more especially of those interests which are least likely to be cared for wisely and well, or cared for at all, by themselves. And such interests, if any, are their spiritual interests. I need not raise any question about the wisdom of the provisions which the great mass of the community are likely to make for these interests, where they are really concerned about them ; because it is enough to say — what must be universally acknowledged — that, momentous as such interests are, there are none which the great body of the people are so prone to give but slight and insufficient attention to, or to neglect altogether. And this is quite enough to make them proper matter for the care and consideration of the State. The State seems plainly bound to provide for those little-heeded but most important concerns of its children. And there seems just . as little room for any doubt as to how it ought to discharge the duty. It seems very plain that, as a Christian parent 24 DUTY OF THE STATE AS REGARDS is bound to provide for his children instruction in the religion which he has chosen for himself, so is it with the State. It would seem plain that, in its parental relation to its members, the State ought to provide for them the services of the same Church which, in its own relation to God, it has chosen for itself — as the best, the truest, the most conformable to His will, and the best fitted to serve and honour Him. I am not unmindful that there is need of caution in what we lay down here concerning the duties of the State. I am fully aware that, however obvious and convenient the ana- logy between a Christian State and a Christian parent is, there is a danger of pressing it too far : that we are not to forget that the subjects of the State are not really children, but men — and men invested with rights, civil and religious, which ought to limit and regulate the exercise of the powers of the State, even for their benefit : so that the State, even in its measures for the good of its subjects, is to take care not to infringe on their civil liberties, or to violate in any way the rights of conscience. This is most true and necessary to be remembered; but I do not think that it has been forgotten in any thing that has been said. Assuredly the State is guilty of no infraction of any of the rights of its subjects, in exercising, in the manner that I have described, its own right of choosing the way in which it is to serve and honour God in its public capacity, provided it does not restrain them from serving and honouring Him according to their own judg- ment and conscience. Nor does it commit any violation of their rights, when it not only thus, lifts its voice by a public confession of faith, and by a ritual conformable thereto, to guide its members ilito the true faith and into the pure worship of God, but moreover provides for all, old and young, the means of being instructed in this faith and sharing in this worship. "While to all it leaves full liberty of choice, and employs no means either to force or bribe any to embrace the religion which it has chosen, it seems to be only performing a plain duty, and one which interferes with none of the rights of its subjects, when it supplies to all, the means of doing what it has itself done, if so they are minded to do — when it provides for all, old and young, the means of instruction in the principles of the Church which it has THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 25 chosen to be the Church of the State, and the means of sharing in its public worship — provides these blessings for all, and throws them open to aU. And, finally, the same is to be said, when it does whatever further is necessary to give permanence to these provisions, so that the blessings which they bestow may be enjoyed, not by the existing generation merely, but by their latest posterity. This is all that remains to complete what is included in the conception of an Esta- blished Church. And it seems plain, that the State no more infringes on any rights or liberties which it is bound to respect, in this last step, than in either of the preceding ones, — while, in all, it has been seen that it is discharging duties which seem plainly to grow out of the relation in which it stands, both to God and to those whom He has placed under its care. If this conclusion has been rightly deduced, as I think it has, nothing more is needed to overthrow as well the old error concerning the duty of the State in this matter, as the more modern one which has now so generally taken its place. The former is, that it is the duty of the State to establish the religion of the majority of its subjects, even when it believes their religion to be false ' ; and the latter, that it is its duty to abstain from establishing any religion, but to bear itself indifferently towards all. Not only does the conclusion at which we have arrived furnish a sufficient refutation of both these errors, but the whole current of the reasoning which has conducted us to it, has, I trust, shown that the State can- not take the former course without violating, or the latter without neglecting, its highest duty — its duty to God. This is clearly its primary duty. The good of the people committed to its charge, however clear and important a duty it be, is still but a secondary duty, and is to be carried out in ' This startling position is maintained both by Warburton and Paley, though they make it rest upon very different grounds. I am content in the text with overthrowing 'it, without entering into any examination of the reasoning by which it is supported by either of its distinguished advocates. But I wish to mention that the arguments of both were noticed in my Charge, and examined so far as was necessary to show their unsoundness. This, part of the Charge is preserved in the pamphlet before referred to — Observations on the Duty of the State with Reference^ to the Establishment of the Church, pp. 9 — 17. 26 KEASONS FOK THE ABOLITION due subordination to that whicli is above it. And if tbere were any such conflict between them, that both could not be performed, it is clear that it is the subordinate one which ought to be made to give way. But there is no such con- flict, nor any conflict of any kind. On the contrary, it is here as it is elsewhere — the discharge of the primary duty is not only not opposed to the discharge of the secondary duty con- nected with it in the particidar case, but the right discharge of the former makes provision, in the way of legitimate con- sequence, for the best mode of discharging the latter. 3. This is, I hope, enough to correct the mistake in principle upon which the cry is founded. But I said that it rested also upon mistakes as to matters of fact. One of these is, that the property now possessed by the Bishops and Clergy of the Esta- blished Church of Ireland was, up to the Reformation, enjoyed by the predecessors of the Roman Catholic Bishops and. Clergy in Ireland, and that at the Reformation it was taken from them, and given to its present possessors. This is a common statement, and in all that has gone before I have chosen to argue on the supposition of its truth, because, though that supposition increased the difficulty of answering the objection to the maintenance of the Established Church on the ground of justice, yet, if the answer were satisfactory — as I was con- fident it would be^ and as I trust it was — its importance and value would be greatly enhanced by its having been given upon a supposed state of the case which was so much more disadvantageous to the side of the Church than the actual state, that the conclusion derived from it would rightly hold a fortiori. But this being done, it is time to correct the mistake. It is in fact a complicated mistake. In the first place, there never was any such transfer of property from one body to another. Those who have from time to time claimed the property of the Church for the Church of Rome have justified the claim by statements to that effect. But they have been called upon again and again to point out the Act under which this transfer had taken place. Few would venture to say that such a change could have taken place silently — that by mutual consent one Church slipped quietly out of its posses- sions, and another Church slipped quietly into them, without OF THE IKISH CHUECH ESTABLISHMENT. 27 any Act of the Legislature commanding and confirming the change ! Few would venture to assert this, and still fewer would be found to believe the assertion, if it were made. And yet, if such an Act had ever been passed, it could be pro- duced, or some record which woidd prove that it had passed. But nothing of the kind has ever been attempted. In the debate in the House of Lords on Earl Hussell's motion (June 24, 1867) Lord Cairns having stated that the call had often been made before and never answered, repeated it distinctly himself, but with just the same result as before ; the enemies of the Church gave no answer to it, for the simple reason that they could give none. The truth is, that there was not only no need but no room for any transfer in the case. For what took place was, that the Church, with the sanction and con- currence of the State, reformed itself, and that it retained the possession of its property as a matter of course. It was in fact the same Church before and after the Reformation ; and the event furnished no reason and no pretext for making any change in its position. And accordingly it continued to be the Established Church, with all the advantages of that position, as if that great change in its doctrine and ritual had never taken place. Thus the Bishops and Clergy who lived at that time were not deprived of their incomes. But if they had been, the Bishops and Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church of the present day are not their successors. They are not the ecclesiastical successors of the pre-Reformation Church of Ireland. They belong to a new Italian succession, derived from Bishops introduced after the Reformation, to supply the place of the Bishops who conformed to the Church of the Reformation *. * All this has been often stated in various forms by different writers, but by none more clearly than by Dr. Hook, the present Dean of Chichester, in a sermon preached and published for the "benefit of the Irish Clergy, when they were reduced to such deep distress by the Tithe-war, as it was called. The sermon was a very good one ; and has been, I believe, often reprinted. But I refer to it particularly for an illustration which it contained of the unreasonableness of the claims put forward on behalf of the Church of Rome to the place and endowments of the Established Church — an illustration which seemed to combine wit and argu- ment in very unusual measure. Having stated, pretty much in 28 REASONS FOK THE ABOLITION So that this plea for the spoliation of the Church, on the ground that the property which it possesses rightfully be- longs to others, is founded upon an error as to the actual facts of the case. But I must remark, by the way, that even if it were founded in truth, it is hard to understand how it could justify what it is proposed to do in the case. If it were said that the Established Church in Ireland ought to be disendowed in order that the endowments might be restored to the Roman Catholic Church in that country, from which they were taken, it would be intelligible upon the common but erroneous view of the history of the Irish Reformation. But this is not what is said. On the con- trary, the Roman Catholic Bishops have declared on the part of their Church, that though it is clearly entitled to the endowments now possessed by the Established Church, it has no desire to obtain them, and will not consent to receive them or any part of them. And since that declaration was published, there has been what is understood as a disclaimer from the promoters of the measure, of any intention of giving the endowments of the Established Church to any other reli- gious body. With the causes and motives of these declara- tions we have nothing to do : we are only concerned with the fact that they have been made ; and whatever else is to be said or thought of them, it seems clear that they take away all grounds for pleading for or voting for the proposed dis- endowment of the Established Church in Ireland, as an act of justice to the Roman Catholics of that country, and that they make it purely and simply a. penal measure against Irish substance as they are stated above, the facts of the history of the Reformation, which show that the Church was the same Church before and after the event, the only difference being that it was corrupt before and pure afterwards, he gave the very striking illustration for the sake of which chiefly I have referred to his sermon. It was, in substance (I have not the sennon within reach, and can only give the substance of the illustration), that Naaman was the same man before he plunged in the Jordan and when he emerged for the seventh time from its healing stream. There was a great difference in his state, but not one which affected his identity: he was leprous before and clean afterwards; but he was the samie man before and after. And he added, that it would have been thought a strange thing if Gehazi had presented himself at the Syrian Court to claim the office of Naaman, with its honours and emoluments, on the ground that he had his leprosy ! OF THE IRISH CHUKCH ESTABLISHMENT. 29 Churchmen. It will inflict a deep and lasting injury upon the Beformed Church, but will confer no benefit upon the Roman Catholic Church, except upon the principle, "Eml, he thou my good!" There may be sufficient reasons still for passing the Bill as a penal measure ; but all those that were drawn from the loss and injury which the Roman CathoKc Church suffered at the Reformation are abandoned. Supposing the loss and injury to be real — which I have shown them not to be — still this measure does nothing and professes to do nothing to repair it. 4. Though I have shown that the charge of injustice against the State for maintaining the Reformed Church as the Established Church in Ireland, may be satisfactorily repelled, supposing it to be really the Church of the minority, I wish to repeat, finally, before I leave this head, that this too is a mistake, and that, in fact, the Established Church is not the Church of the minority. No doubt the members of the Reformed Church are decidedly a minority of the inhabitants of Ireland ; but that is not the case as regards the United Kingdom ; and Ireland is no longer a separate kingdom, but an integral part of the United Kingdom ; and, moreover, its Church is not the Church of Ireland, but the United Church of England and Ireland. The union of the Churches is as real as that of the Legislatures and of the Kingdoms. When the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was effected, a change took place in the civil relation of the Churches of England and Ireland, which has so important a bearing on the matter in hand, that, often as it has been referred to, I cannot pass it over here. When England and Scotland were united into one Kingdom — the Kingdom of Great Britain — their Legislatures were made one, but their Churches (they had each an Established Church) continued separate. In fact, though these Churches agreed in some very important doc- trines, they had some important differences. They differed in Church constitution and Church government, in their con- fession of faith, and in their mode of worship. They could not be united, therefore, into one Chiirch, without very great changes in either or both — such changes as there could have been no hope of effecting. Accordingly, no attempt was made to unite them. On the contrary, a distinct provision 30 REASONS FOR THB ABOLITION ■was made in the Articles of Union to maintain permanently in each country the Church Establishment actually existing there. But when the Union of Great Britain and Ireland came to be effected, the case was entirely different. There was, as I said, no Established Church of Great Britain, but the Established Churches of England and Ireland not only agreed in all the points in which the Churches of England and Scotland agreed, but in all the points in which, as has been noticed, these latter differed— in constitution, in goTernment,in their ritual, and in their confession of faith — they stood in such intimate relations to each other, that they had often from an early period been treated as one Church ; so that there was no hindrance in the way of uniting them formally into one Church if it were desirable to do so. It was thought desi- rable and necessary, and accordingly " the leading features " of the plan of the Union, as stated by the member of the - GoTernment, who had the conduct of the measure in Ireland, were " One State^ one Legislature, one Church '." He states that, without identity with Great Britain in these three points of connexion, there could be no hope of real and permanent security. And he specially dwells upon the security to the Irish Church itself, which must be the result of its union with the English Church. " So long as the separation shall continue, the Church in Ireland will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. Nor will it be able to maintain itself effectually against the argument of physical force; but when once completely incorporated with the Church of England, it will be placed upon such a strong and natural foundation as to be above apprehensions or alarms." The union of the Churches, accordingly, and its perpetual maintenance, was made one of the fundamental Articles in the Act of Union ; and it was declared that the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doc- trine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever as the same are now established for the Church of England ; " and that the continuance and 'preservation of the said United ' Lord Castlereagh — Speech in the Irish House of Commons, Jan. 15, 1800. OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 31 Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall he deemed and taken to he an essential and fundamental part of the Union." This is the 5th Article of the Act of Union. It not merely unites the two Churches into one, but makes their union an essential part of the Union between the two Kingdoms. It is plain that when the Church in Ireland is dealt with as the Church of the minority, on the ground that its members are a minority of the inhabitants of Ireland, it is treated as a separate Church, and Ireland as a separate Kingdom. The disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, whilst the Church in England remains established, is plainly a dissolution of the union between the Churches. But the effect cannot stop there. The great statesman who planned and carried the measure, bound up the union of the Churches with the Union of the Kingdoms, as an essential and fundamental part of it°. And it seems to be very clear, that if the union of the Churches be dissolved, the Union of the King- doms, of which it is made, in this Article, an essential and fundamental part, is also dissolved. One of the fundamental Articles of the Act of Union cannot be set aside, and the other Articles maintained, at the good pleasure or conveni- ence of a party, or an individual. 'The Article of the Act of Union which I have just quoted ' As early as in March last year, Mr. G-ladstone claimed the authority of Mr. Pitt for his scheme, at least as regards the object which it proposes, of establishing religious equality in Ireland ; and he has repeated the claim more than once since. He acknowledges that Mr. Pitt did not propose to attain the object, as he himself does, by disestablishing and disendowing the Re- formed Church, but by so raising the Roman Catholic Church as to put the Roman Catholics on a footing of religious equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects. That scheme of general endow- ment, he says, has now become wholly impossible. " But that endowment was but a means by which he sought to obtain an end, and that end was nothing but religious equality. That, we are endeavouring to reach by the means now open to us ; and in doing so we are acting in accordance with the views and spirit of Mr. Pitt." — Hansard, vol. cxci., p. 479. This is a curiously characteristic argument. I can only say here that the inference is founded upon a total mis-statement as to the matter of fact; and that it is entirely fallacious, even supposing that statement to be true. I hope to prove clearly both these points when I resume the consideration of the subject in the Appendix, Note K. 32 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION is a very important part of the case of the Church, when put, as it is now, upon the defence of its position ; and it is there- fore quoted, as it ought to be, in every statement of the case of the Church. But, as not uncommonly happens with regard to what one sees or hears very often, it makes less and less impression continually, and has at last come to be regarded by many as one of the things which the defenders of the Church must bring forward, but to which its assailants need not pay any attention. This mode of dealing with this Article is so common that I thought it advisable in another publica- tion" to show that it was not only utterly indefensible in principle, but calculated to lead to most injurious practical consequences. (4.) The next reason for the abolition of the Church Esta- blishment in Ireland, is tliat it is a source of discredit and weakness to England upon the Continent, where the main- tenance of it is universally regarded as a gross injustice to the Irish people. This fact was stated a good while ago in the Times, and was pressed as a strong auxiliary argument for putting an end to the Establishment. As to the statement, whatever becomes of the inference from it, it has, I believe, rather more foimdation in truth than most of the statements oi facts concerning the Church in Ireland which are to be found in almost every impression of the Times. It would be strange indeed, if the persevering calumnies against the Church, to which that " confident and mendacious " journal has so long given such wide circulation upon the Continent, had not produced some such impression upon those who derive all their information about Ireland from such sources, and are without any good means of testing or correcting it. The fact too, it is well known, has been made great use of in general society in England, and has added not a little to the unfavourable feeling towards the Church in Ireland which prevails there to a great extent amongst the rash, and indolent, and ignorant, who form so large a portion of every class, and not least of the highest class. I do not remember, however, that it was introduced into Parliament until last year, when it was made such extensive use of in the House of Lords by ' Case of the Established Church in Ireland, pp. 48 — 52. OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 33 the supporters of the Suspensory Bill, that Lord Salisburj'- thought it had a claim to a specific name, and he gave it the happy one of the foreign-friend argument, which it is not likely soon to lose. The name presents very well the ludicrous aspect of the argument ; but it has a serious one, in the effect which it produces upon a large class of hearers. And this was not neglected by Lord Salisbury ; for in his able speech, the real weakness and unfairness of it were very clearly though briefly exposed. It is not the first time that Continental sympathy has pro- duced an effect of the same kind, in the furtherance of Irish Roman Catholic interests. Mr. Wyse, in his History of the Catholic Assdciation, states that the proceedings of the Asso- cjation not only attracted attention upon the Continent, but, that, from various causes which he enumerates, they awakened strong sympathy there. And he gives this state of feeling abroad a substantive place amongst the causes which con- tributed to the success of the struggle to obtain Catholic Emancipation, through the mortification which English travellers upon the Continent felt at the strong impression which met them every where against their own country, as the strong oppressor, and in favour of Ireland, as weak and oppressed '. • " Whilst Ireland was thus organizing itself, with an order and discretion rarely witnessed in any country — going on from little to great, and gathering at every step a more implicit confidence in its union and resources — its proceedings did not escape the attention and the sympathies of other countries. The French, stimulated by the progress of liberal institutions amongst them- selves,, and not a little, perhaps, by a lurking recollection of the injuries they had sustained from England, began to turn towards Ireland a large portion of their observation, and to hope, from the discontents allowed so unwisely to continue in that country, a new addition to the spirit of liberalism spreading throughout Europe, and an ample vengeance, in due season, on the head of their haughty rival. The letters in the Etoile, the confidential and indeed official organ of the Government, the visit of two or three distinguished French travellers, the Due de Montebello, Mons. Duvergier, the Marquis de Dalmatie, and others, and the publication of their travels on their return, made a strong im- pression on the French mind. Societies were projected in aid of the Catholic Association, both at Paris and Bordeaux, but the spirit was not yet sufficiently ripe to carry the project into prompt execution. In Germany, and even in Italy, a similar feeling began IJ 34 REASONS FOB THE ABOLITION The operation of such a state of things is easily understood. Many of those who are most in the way of encountering such mortifications, are of an age at which they are felt most keenly, and at which there is little of the information, or of the seriousness of mind, which would be necessary to enable and to dispose them to give due weight to those considera- tions on the other side, which their more matured judgment would recognize as of much more real importance. It is very well known how much more the opinions and feelings of almost every family circle are influenced by its young and im- petuous members, than by those who are more sober and better informed ; and it is easy to understand that the state of opinion and feeling which is produced in thiS way in one family circle must extend itself by the like agencies to all the other circles with which it is in contact. This is unavoid- able. But whatever efi'ect might in this way be produced on the young and lightminded by such a state of feeling upon the Continent, and though its existence could not be a matter of indifierence to any, it might be expected that when the question came to be seriously considered in the great council of the nation, it would be felt how unreasonable it was to attach any weight whatever to the opinions or feel- ings of men who were not only so ill-informed but so pre- judiced — some of them under the influence of strong Roman Catholic sympathies, some of them under the influence of strong anti- English antipathies — many of them utterly indif- ferent to religion, and not p, few hostile to it, and so under influences which would efiectually prevent them from appre- ciating any reasons for upholding the Church derived from its religious principles; while almost all of them were so ignorant of Ireland as to be helplessly dependent upon such untrustworthy sources as the Times, for all the information to develope itself. The rapid translation of every thing connected with Ireland, not only into French, but into both those languages, is a proof of the general interest which its condition had begun to excite in the most remote parts of the Continent. Travellers brought home the same report. They ■were met every where, when they spoke of the glory of England, with taunts on the oppressions of Ireland. Every Englishman was made personally to feel the shame and disgrace which the tyranny of his own Government had obtained for him abroad." — Historical Sketch of the late Catholic Association, vol. i., pp. 304 — 306. OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 35 upon the Irish Church question on which their opinions and their feelings with reference to it are founded. What weight can reasonably be given to the expression, however strong, of the opinions and feelings of men so ill-informed, or rather so misinformed, and so biassed ? If those who bring forward such authorities to influence others, and if those who are influenced by them, were seriously to ask themselves whether there is a single practical question in which they are really interested in judging soundly and acting prudently, in reference to which they would feel it to be wise or rational to be influenced in any degree, by the opinions and feelings of men so ignorant and so prejudiced with regard to it, — they would better understand how very far from honest they are, in claiming for or allowing to this foreign-friend argument any real weight °. " In the course of the debate in which this argument received its name, there was one use of it which was specially noteworthy. A veteran poUtieian, one of the present Ministers of the Crown, ingenuously confessed that, having had much intercourse with foreigners, he had many a time been ashamed when, in answer to their inquiries, he had been unable to defend the Irish Esta- blishment. And to enforce his argument he read an extract from an article in the Bevue des deux Mondes, which, though signed by another name, was believed to be, in substance at least, the work of an illustrious foreigner resident in England. If this belief were well grounded, and I have never heard any reason to doubt that it was, it ought to have had the effect of obtaining for the passage all the weight which is fairly due to the public expression of the views of a good Roman Catholic and a good Frenchman on the L'ish Church question, but no more. It was put forward, however, by the noble speaker as a very important authority in the case, and with an evident expectation of producing a serious impression upon his brother peers ! It is very possible that the expectation was realized to a considerable extent. It is pleasant to know, however, that some were proof against the argument. Lord Salisbury is reported to have said : — " Several noble Lords on the opposite bench, having a large foreign acquaintance, have given us the views of their friends in abundance, as if that were the proper argument to offer to an English Parlia- ment ; they have told us the opinions held in society they have been accustomed to frequent, and they say so and so is held to be what the House of Lords should do. Well, my Lords, I listened to the opinions of these foreign friends, and I found the late Foreign Secretary was much smitten by the article of an illustrious writer in the Bevue des deux Mondes. None would' be wanting in respect for that illustrious writer, but D 2 36 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION But this is a discovery which such persons will not be very anxious to make. The truth is, that the argument is used, like a great many others, for partj' purposes by the enemies of the Church, who are entirely indifferent to its soundness, and only care for its effectiveness. And the class to which it is chiefly addressed, and on which it chiefly produces an effect, is the numerous one to which I before referred, of those who are very much more alive to what they appear to be than what they really are, and who are ready to commit a real wrong if it be the easiest way of escaping from the im- putation, however ill-grounded, of committing one. To this large class, the question whether this feeling really exists abroad will be much more interesting than the question whether it is well or ill grounded. But it is to be hoped that there are still not a few within the walls of Parliament, and a great number outside its walls, who will feel that the former is really the important question ; that what ought to have weight with the Legislature and the country is not the reality, nor the extent, nor the strength of such a feeling, but the grounds on which it rests. And in this way this head is closely connected with the preceding one. If the maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland be really an injustice to the people, then it ought to be abolished, whatever view may be taken of it upon the Con- tinent. But, on the other hand, if, as I trust I have proved, in considering the preceding head, the maintenance of it is not an injustice, then, that ignorant and ill-judg- among his claims for our respect we must remember that he can boast of this characteristic, that he is a most earnest believer in the Church in which he was brought up, and that Church is the Eoman Catholic. I must say that if England were judged on the foreign journal ground, on the principles put forward by this critic in the Revue des deux Mondes, our actions as a nation would in many cases be veiy sincerely contemned. I even doubt whether my noble friend's critic would entirely approve the English Eefoi-mation." — Times, Saturday, June 27, 1868. There is another scion of the same illustrious family, who is known to have paid special attention to maritime afiairs. It would not .be impossible that he should furnish the Revue with his opinions upon the Alabama question, inter alia. And if he did, it could hardly be surprising if his authority were quoted in the House of Lords, in justification of the mode of settling the question which Govern- ment may adopt. OF THE TllISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 37 ing persons, at home or abroad, regard it as an injustice, and think hardly of England in consequence, ought not to weigh as a feather in the scale against the considerations that bind her to uphold it. The faith of the State is pledged to its maintenance ; its endowments are held by a tenure which cannot be disregarded without a violation of all the principles on which the security of all property rests ; they cannot be taken away without doing a grievous injustice to the members of the Church, not only of the present gene- ration, but of all succeeding generations, and inflicting a grievous injury upon them. And if the English people were to disregard all such considerations, and inflict this great wrong upon those whom it was bound by so many obligations to defend, and were to do this for the selfish object of escaping from the harsh judgment of foreigners, or from any conse- quences which might result from their harsh judgment, can it be doubted that they would be very guiltj' in the sight of God, as well as utterly degraded in the ej'es of men. (5.) The last reason for the abolition of the Irish Church that we have to consider is, that it is necessary for the pacification of Ireland. And I believe that, practically, this reason influ- ences a greater number of those — I mean, of course, in Eng- land — who either call for or acquiesce in this sacrifice, than any other of the reasons on which it is made to rest, or per- haps than all the others put together. Every one in Ireland, whatever be his creed or his party, knows that the hope in which the offering is made is altogether delusive ; that the sacrifice will do nothing to effect the end. But I must say that, even if it were otherwise, even if there were the best reason to expect a different result, it would still be a very' painful exhibition of the state of public feeling in England, that so many are prepared to purchase even so great a benefit at such a cost. Knowing that the abolition of the Church Establishment in Ireland may be talked of familiarly, while there is no more definite idea connected with his words in the mind of the speaker, than that an old institution which exists in that country is to be brought to an end — without any thought of the human interests and human feelings which are bound 38 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION up in it— I began these Considerations by endeavouring to bring before my readers the anxiety and fear which this threatened blow would cause while it was impending, and the loss and injury which it would inflict if it actually fell : and I attempted to point out also some of the other evil consequences which would follow from it, not at the present time, but through succeeding generations, as long as the Empire lasts. And when a man thinks on the process, and its effects, even so far as I have endeavoured to trace them in the slight sketch with which this pamphlet began, if he has either right principle or right feeling himself, he cannot but be startled at the utter want of both, which the State, and — what is even more important — the people of England are exhibiting, in their readiness to purchase at such a cost even so great a blessing as peace to our disturbed land. The people of England are prepared, as it seems, to deal perfidiously and cruelly with their firm friends, in the hope of propitiating thereby their avowed and bitter enemies — prepared to despoil the Church in Ireland of the property which it has held for three hundred years — property which, during that long period, has provided for all its members, in every part of the land, the inestimable benefit of a parochial ministry, and which was to continue to provide the same blessing for their descendants from generation to generation as long as the settlements of human society last. This property is to be taken away, not because it has been forfeited by any misuse of it, or by any other offence on the part of those who possess it — not that it may be given to others who have a better right to it — not that it may be dedicated to some other or better pur- pose — but simply and avowedly to gratify the enmity of those who say that they do not want it themselves, that they would not take it if it were offered to them, but that they are insulted by seeing others in the enjoyment of it : that they will not allow it to remain in the hands of the Church which has held it for three centuries, and that, as long as it does, they will not rest nor suffer the country to test! Base as it is for a political party, for its own ends, to bring down the Legislature and the country to commit such a grievous wrong under such arrogant dictation, it is still baser OF THE IKISB CHnECH ESTABLISHMENT. 39 for the Legislature to allow itself to be so degraded. But it is basest of all for the English people to be thus driven to lend their strength — without which the wrong could not be perpetrated — to oppress and plunder those who are unable to defend themselves, and whom they were bound, by the most solemn obligations, to defend. This baseness scarcely seems to admit of aggravation. But it must be felt that it is really aggravated when it is re- membered that Engand, if this Act be passed, will not only have violated its faith, abandoned its friends, and allowed their Church, which is an integral part of its own Church, to be robbed of its property and its rights, but that it will have de- scended to the still deeper baseness of becoming the instrument of inflicting upon Irish Churchmen the vengeance which they have earned mainly by two offences — the first and the most inexpiable being, that they have been faithful to the Reformed Religion — the religion of England ; and the second — ^hardly, if at all, less— that they have been faithful to connexion with England ! In spite of all the indications that this mean, and perfidious, and violent act is to be com- mitted, I cannot but cleave to the hope that it may still be averted ; not only that the Irish Church may be preserved from the irremediable injury of suffering such a wrong, but the English people, from the great national sin and the irretrievable national disgrace of inflicting it. Of all the many and great gifts bestowed upon England bj'' God, the true religion established amongst us is the most precious ; and of the many and great honours conferred upon the nation, the highest by far was the place assigned to it, as the foremost amongst the upholders and defenders of the Reformed Faith. But it has been long painfully evident that England has prized the gift of true religion less and less for herself; and that, in consequence, she has been continually less and less disposed to do or to suffer for the object of defending it or maintaining it for others. I am speaking of the nation as represented by the State, and acting through the State : and in this way of speaking, it would be hard to find any nation so indifferent to religion at home or abroad. I trust there are very many in England — well for her ! — who value the blessings of the Reformation as they ought, and who 40 REASONS FOR THE ABOLITION are not only resolved to hold them fast for themselves, but desire to do all in their power to preserve them to others. But it is undeniable that there are a fearful number who feel, and who are prepared to act, very differently. And speaking of the State, it is very evident that, if it still regards it as a duty to maintain the true religion in England itself, it gives it but a low place among its duties, and that the maintenance of true religion beyond the limits of England has no place, high or low, among them. Our leading politicians, indeed, have been more and more tending to adopt that view of the office of the State, which is most in favour with the philosophy— ^fee^y so called — of the present day ; viz., that the care of the matei'ial interests of the people, if it be not the only duty of the State, is so clearly its highest duty, that it is not warranted in sacrificing or risking any of those interests, to preserve the interests of religion at home or abroad. So that its chiefest blessing has become lightly esteemed, and its chiefest honour felt to be a burden rather than a privilege. But the act which it is now urged to commit goes even beyond this. It is an act, not merely of indifference to true religion, but of active hostility against it. And England, as it seems, is prepared, not only to abandon the maintenance of the Reformed Faith in Ireland, but to do all that it can to extinguish it there ! "We cannot doubt that such a failure in duty, and, even more, such a violation of duty, must be highly displeasing to God. No thoughtful man can see this favoured nation thus shrinking from discharging its duty to Grod when the faith- ful discharge of it involves loss or risk, and ready to renounce and even violate its highest duty, when such un- faithfulness appears likely to relieve it from political diffi- culties or to bring temporal security or ease — no one can see this without remembering, with anxious forebodings, the profane person who despised his birthright, because it only brought with it spiritual privileges; and who repented too late when he found that the loss of it brought after it the forfeiture of the blessing also, which involved the temporal privileges and advantages that he really prized. One cannot call to mind this awful record, without some fear that so it may be with the great nation which has shown the same OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 41 contempt for spiritual privileges, and the same preference for worldly advantages. But though it is no presumption to say that the unfaith- fulness of England must be deeply displeasing to Grod, it would be great presumption to decide how He will see fit to deal with it. There can be no more doubt, in my opiuion, that God exercises a moral government over nations, than that he exercises a moral government over individuals, in this life. But it is no less certain, I think, in the former case, than it is in the latter, that this government is an im- perfect one ; so that, while we can lay down, in both cases, what Grod's general dealing with sin is, we cannot, without great rashness, pretend to say what His dealing with sin in any particular case will be. England may receive the punishment that she has earned. But, on the other hand, she may not. In the accomplish- ment of God's wise designs, she may be still prosperous and powerful — may be just as distinguished in commerce, and letters, and arts, and arms, as when she was faithful. We cannot scan God's purposes, and therefore cannot know how He will deal, at any time, with an ofiending nation or an offending individual — when He will strike, and when He will spare. But we know enough of our fellow-men to predict with some confidence, that the part of the punishment of such sin as England seems about to commit which- is to come from them will not be long withheld. When the present fever subsides, and the whole case is reviewed calmly — when the conduct of England to the Irish Church, and the motives under which she has acted, are considered — she wiU be felt by every right-minded man, at home and abroad, to have acted, not only a very wicked, but a very mean and a very despi- cable part ; and however prosperous or glorious she may be, she will be every where utterly despised. Nor will this feel- ing be any where stronger than in Ireland, and that not merely among the Protestants who sufier, but among the Roman Catholics who triumph, through her baseness. And I must say that, with all their many faults, my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen are entitled to look down upon the English Protestants in this matter. For I firmly believe — I say it with some feeling of pride as an Irishman, though with deep shame as a Protestant — I firmly believe 42 FRUITLESSNESS OF THE ABOLITION that if the circumstances were reversed, they would not have acted in the same way. If the Roman Catholic minority in England were persecuted and oppressed by the Protestant majority there, robbed of its property and its rights, especially of property and of rights which were connected with the maintenance of religion, I am very sure that it would not have been deserted as we have been. I am very sure that the E.oman Catholics in Ireland would never be brought, by any hope of gain, or any fear of loss or injury to themselves, to ac- quiesce in the infliction of so foul a wrong upon their brethren, and still less to become parties themselves in inflicting it. Great a boon as the pacification of Ireland would be, not only to that unhappy land itself, but to the whole Empire, it would be dearly purchased at the cost of the sin and the shame of such an act of perfidy and violence as England seems ready to commit. But, as I have already said, it could not be so purchased. As is often the case when individuals or communities commit a crime to secure some selfish end, the guilt and the disgrace would be incurred to no purpose. When this costly peace-ofiering was made, Ireland would be as far as ever from being tranquillized. Upon this sub- ject there has been an ominous change in the tone of those who called most loudly for this sacrifice and promised most confidently that it would secure peace. They call as loudly as ever for the sacrifice, but the confidence with which they promise the happy results has sensibly abated. A few years ago the Times described the Church as a relic of an oppressive ascendency, the rest of which had been abandoned ; and as the only tangible grievance which could palliate political discontent. With many, no doubt, this passed for an authentic statement of Irish feeling on this subject. And to Englishmen, — wearied, as most of them are with Irish grievances, and seeing all that Irish discontent does, not only to retard the progress of peaceful industry in the country itself, but to impede the progress of public business in England — it must have been a happy thing to hear that there was but one cause of disturbance surviving — that there was only one tangible grievance still existing, and that, that taken away, not only nothing that could justify, but nothing that could palliate, political discontent in Ireland would remain ! OF THE IRISH CHUECH ESTABLISHMENT. 43 This was a happy announcement. Some excellent English- men would think that the great blessing of peace to both countries was worth purchasing, even if it cost themselves a little ; and a very great number would regard it as cheap at any price, provided they were not called upon to pay any part of it. Upon that head, the Times made every one easy. The blessing was to be secured without any sacrifice on the part of England. It was only the property and the rights of a few hundred thousand Irish Protestants that were asked for it. And when this was understood, there was but little hesitation in closing with the undertaker. Those who really knew the country — those, indeed, who knew any thing of its history — warned the purchasers that they were making a rash bargain. That there were other relics of ascendency, other tangible grievances, which were openly put forward, not merely as palliating, but as justifying political discontent, and even making discontent and all its consequences a sacred duty. And moreover that behind those which were audibly proclaimed, there were some just as serious which were not spoken of. Testimony of this kind goes for little with Englishmen, when set against the coniident as- surances of the great journal, by which, notwithstanding all their long experience of its entire untrustworthiness, whe- ther as a witness or a guide, they are still so blindly led. But the warning came from another quarter, which ought to have secured a hearing for it. The Irish Roman Catholics gave distinct notice to those who were ready to close this bargain with the Times, that thei/ were no parties to it — that England might pay the price demanded, but that she was to understand that the peace which she expected to purchase by it was not to be had at that cost. In 1865, The Tenant right Society of the County of Meath, inaugurated at a meeting of Roman Catholic Priests in the county, which was presided over by their Bishop, passed by acclamation and published an Address to the Humane and Patriotic Inhabitants of that County, in which, while they express very little respect for the motives of those who were ready and willing to sacrifice the Church in order to appease Irish discontent, they declare very distinctly that the offering ' Case of the Established Church in Ireland, pp. 45 — 47. 44 FRTJITLESSNESS OF THE ABOI.ITION would be unavailing for its purpose, and that it would in fact make matters worse. They declare that the one, the great, the sole question for Ireland, is the land question. And they go on to say, that " other agitations — such as that against the Established Church— are got up for party purposes, would infuse an element of bigotry into the already sufficiently disturbed relations of land- lord and tenant, would effect the ruin of thousands of tenants, and precipitate that social catastrophe which we are anxious to avert'." This is the unanimous testimony of this Meeting ^ Having more than once made use of this remarkable declara- tion, I feel it right to say here, what I could not have said in any former reference to it, as I did not know it, that more than two years after the Address of the Meath Priests appeared, they found it expedient to publish an explanation of it, as it seems it was much misunderstood. And as the explanation will probably give my readers a new view of the meaning of the passage, it is only fair to lay it before them. I give it, therefore, as I find it in the Dublin Express of September 5, 1868, merely premising that the Italics are not in the newspaper, but are introduced to direct attention to what seems most important : — "declakation of the diocese of meath. " At a meeting of the clergy of the entire diocese of Meath, held at Navan on the 29th day of August, 1868, the Most Rev. Dr. Nulty in the chair, the following resolutions were proposed, and unanimously adopted by the meeting : — "'Resolved — 1. That we regard the Established Church as one of the most unjust and oppressive grievances of our country, and, therefore, that we cordially approve of, and will earnestly and vigorously co-operate in every effort for its disendowment and disestablishment. " ' Resolved — 2. That the statesmen, therefore, who, in either House of the Legislature, or through the public Press, have represented us as opposed to the policy of its disestablishment or disendowment have totally misapprehended our views, and entirely misrepresented our real opinions on this subject. " ' Resolved — 3. That the only cause that could have led to this misapprehension was the following paragraph in an address that emanated from a portion of the clergy of this diocese some years ago : — " Other agitations — such as that against the Established Church — are got up for party purposes, would infuse an element of bigotry into the already sufficiently disturbed relations between land- lord and tenant; would effect the ruin of thousands of tenants, and precipitate that social catastrophe which we are anxious to avert." " ' Resolved — 4. That these words do not apply to the agitation now on foot against the Established Church, as they were spoken OF THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABIJSHMENT. 45 of the Roman Catholic Priests of Meath ; and after it was published it required very large faith in the Times to believe, upon its authority, that the Established Church in Ireland was the only tangible grievance which could palliate political discontent in that country. The Address informs the Government, however, that though it cannot satisfy Irish discontent in that way, yet that there is another way in which it may, if it will, conciliate and pacify the Irish mind, now in a state of wild commotion. This great object is only to be attained by setting at rest the one, the great, the sole question for Ireland; — and this again may be done, " by granting to the industrial property in this country as large and as satisfactory a measure of security as that enjoyed by the landed property of Ireland." Considering the great importance of the results to which this process is to lead, it would seem desirable that it were expressed in somewhat clearer terms ; but in the following year it was confirmed and extended upon very high autho- rity, in a declaration which was certainly not chargeable with any want of distinctness. The Tablet, which has been well known for many years as a leading, if not the leading Roman Catholic organ in England, having previously for a good while held the same position in Ireland, emphatically confirmed the testimony which this Address bore to the utter inefficacy of the over- throw of the Church Establishment in Ireland as a peace- hefore this agitation came into existence : that as the tenant question was regarded then, as it is now, essential to the very existence of our people — so these words, in the context in which they stand, merely conveyed that the land question had the first claim on the attention of the Legislature^ — that it was entitled to priority over all other questions for an immediate solution and settlement ; and, lastly, that these words, understood in any other meaning than the above, did not then, as they do^not now, correctly express the real opinions of the clergy of this diocese.' " There is certainly often great virtue in an explanation. The Meath Address has been before the public since 1865, and the passage in question has been read by very many in the interval. I suppose of its numerous readers there were but very few who had any doubt about its meaning : but I should be surprised if ■they would not all now acknowledge that, until this authoritative explanation appeared, they never really understood, and that but for it they never would have understood, the real meaning of the passage. 46 FRUITLESSNESS OF THE ABOLITION offering to tlie discontented in that land. It states, indeed, that if all the lands and the tithe rent-charge which the Church possesses were confiscated to secular purposes, or even transferred to the Eoman Catholic Church; if all the privileges enjoyed by the Bishops and Clergy of the Church were taken away, the Irish grievance would not be abated, or the Irish disease cured : that the real grievance, the wound of Ireland, was that, whereas the great majority of the people were Eoman Catholics, such a large proportion of th^ soil belonged to the ProtestantSj and that they formed so large a portion of the classes which are raised in social position above the rest of the community ". ° With reference to my use of this passage from the Tablet in Part I., I received an interesting letter from a friend, some parts of which I think it well to transcribe here : — " I do not know whether you are aware that the late Editor of the Tablet complains bitterly of the for having garbled the extract to which you refer both in this and in yoiu- fonner tract, so as to make it convey quite a false impression. It seems the Tablet had differed from the other Roman Catholic journals in resisting the plan for Church spoliation, and had used the argu- ment that it could not effect what was expected from the measure; that the real inequality consisted in the manner in which private property was distributed among the members of the different re- ligions, and that this grievance would remain unless they pro- ceeded from spoliation of public property to that of private. The Editor of the Tablet complains that the paragraph was so garbled in the as to convey the idea that he was in favour of spoliation of private property, whereas he was really arguing against spoliation of any kind. He says that it was the para- graph as copied into the which passed into aU the pam- phlets on the subject ; and complains that it is a hard case that, after having offended his own party by protesting against the assaults on the EstabUshment, he should equally be assailed by its defenders." I thinl?; that, under the circumstances stated, and I have no doubt truly stated, by the late Editor of the Tablet, he has good reason to complain of the use made of the passage in question. I took it, as I stated when first I put it forward, not from the Tablet, but from a Dublin paper (not the one named in the letter), in which it was quoted. And if I had in any of my references to it made any such use of it as the Editor complains of, I should be anxious to apologize for having unintentionally misrepresented him. But I never made any use of it which calls for any apology, or any with which the author's explanation in any way interferes ; for I only used it as evidence upon good authority of two facts of great OF THE IKISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. 47 Of this the conductors of the Tablet declare themselves perfectly convinced, and on evidence than which demonstration could scarcely be more conclusive. I think those who know- Ireland best will be the least disposed to question the truth of this statement. And it ought certainly to be a great advantage to have the truth so distinctly stated on such high authority. At a time when some eminent statesmen hold and publicly proclaim, that to satisfy Irish discontent, Ireland should be governed and legislated for according to the wishes of the Irish people — meaning thereby of the Roman Catholics of Ireland,— it is well that thej', or rather that the English public, should be made to understand somewhat better than they do, whither this policy leads. They will see upon rather better authority than the Times, that if they had swept away the Church Establishment and secularized its property, or, leaving it to stand, had raised the Roman Catholic Church to a perfect equality of wealth and privilege with it, they would only have dealt with one feature or symptom of the disease, and would not have reached the seat of the disorder ; the Irish grievance would remain unabated and the Irish disorder uncured. Nor could the cure be effected by any settlement even of the land question which would importance with respect to the state of feeling of the Irish Roman Catholics: — (1) that the disestabhshment of the Irish Church and the confiscation of its endowments, or even the transfer of its privileges and possessions to the Roman Catholic Church, would do nothing towards allaying discontent in Ireland, and tranquilliz- ing the country. And (2) that this important fact is founded upon another of even more importance, viz. that the true cause of the Irish discontent arises from the large proportion of the landed property being in the hands of the Protestant minority, and from the superiority in social station which their wealth and other advantages secure to them. The testimony of the late Editor of the Tablet must be regarded as equally borne to these facts, whatever use he may have made of them. It is only as facts that they could serve the purpose for which he brought them forward to support his argument. His conviction of the truth of them is expressed in the strongest terms, and is stated as resting upon evidence, than which demonstration could he scarcely more conclusive. And having never used them except as well-attested facts, and never referred to the Editor except as a trustworthy witness, there is nothing in his explana- tion to invalidate my former use of the passage, or to prevent me from making the same use of it hereafter, if I see the same occasion. 48 FURTHER LEVELLING NECESSARY leave the Protestants in possession of the superiority in wealth and other social advantages which thej' at present enjoy ! The social inequality between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics in Ireland. plainly calls for a repetition of the process by which it is proposed to redress the religious inequality which has hitherto existed between them. And the reasons for repeating the process are at least as urgent as those for the first application of it. The Times assures the country, that while the religious inequality, of which the Established Church is the symbol, subsists in Ireland, there cannot be peace there. And the Grovernment assures the country, that the establishment of peace in Ireland is essential, not merely to the prosperity, but to the safety of the Empire ; and that to the establishment of peace, the establish- ment of religious equality is necessary ; and finally, that as this cannot be effected by giving to the Roman Catholics the same advantages which the Church Establishment con- fers upon its members, these advantages must be taken away from those who possess them. This argument is reinforced by the assurances of the head of the Government, that by maintaining this religious inequality the country has arrived at a point only one step removed from a civil war, and that civil war may break out at any moment ! And finally, by the force of these facts and arguments, the English people have been brought apparently to think that, to save the Empire from such a calamity, it is lawful and right to abolish the Irish Church Establishment. But, as we have seen, the country is no less distinctly assured, upon somewhat better authority than the Times, or the Government, or its head, that the most entire removal of what is called religious inequality, in whichever way it were removed — whether by levelling down or levelling up — would do literally nothing to heal the real wound of Ireland. " The wound of Ireland is, that whereas the great majority of the population of Ireland are Catholics, such a large proportion of the soil belongs to Protestants ; and that Protestants form such a large portion of those classes which, by superior wealth and superior advantages, are raised in social station higher than the rest." This is the case of the Church of the minority over again ; and the further application FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 49 of the principle for which Mr. Gladstone contends, with such overwhelming support from the party which has set him at its head, seems inevitable. It is plainly impossible to raise the Roman Catholic majority socially to a level with the Protestant minority ; and the inequality between them must therefore be redressed by taking from the minority that which creates this inequality— rthe superior wealth and supe- rior advantages by which they are raised in social station above the majority. I have already said that I regard the progress from the redress of religious ineqiialities to that of social inequalities as certain in both countries [Part I. p. 50 seqq-l. But the necessity of such an advance appears even more irresistible in Ireland than in England, because the social inequality which is to be redressed in the former country exists to such an extent between the members of the two Churches, that it is really almost as much a case of religious inequality as that which arises from the fact that Church endowments are confined to one of the Churches, and it would therefore seem plainly to call for redress, not merely on the like grounds, but on the same grounds, When the Editor of the Tablet published the statement to which I have referred, he hoped, it appears, that some who supported the spoliation of the Irish Church, might be turned aside from the object, when they were made to see clearly that they would be doing nothing for the pacification of Ireland by taking away the endowments of the Church, unless they went on to take away, to a great extent, the property of its members, and in other ways to lower them in the social scale. If he entertained a hope of producing such an impression upon his readers, I must confess that he was able to think much,more favourably of the Roman Catholic contingent of the Anti-Church League than I can venture to do of their Protestant confederates. They seem deter- mined to follow the leader whom they have chosen, blindly to the end. And I can see no reason to hope that he will be turned aside in his course, or arrested in it for a moment by any proofs, however clear, that the wrong which he is lead- ing, on his followers to commit, at the cost of so much guilt to those who inflict it, and of so much misery to those who suffer it, will be wholly unavailing for its avowed object ; or by any proofs, however clear, that to attain that object, if it E 50 MR. GLADSTONE is to be attained, he must still pursue it at the cost of further guilt and further suffering. I should not have expected that such a prospect would raise a moment's scruple in his mind, even if he had not made it very clear that it was distinctly before his view, and that there was nothing in it from which he shrank. This disclosure occurs notably in one — I believe the last — of the memorable course of Eirenical Orations, delivered by him in the autumn of last year, which, though they did not influence the result of the South Lancashire Election, contributed largely towards the more permanent object of widening and embittering the differences of race, and class, and creed — already wide enough and bitter enough, one would have thought — in our unhappy land. The passage has lost none of its interest or importance since it was delivered, and seems to claim very special attention at the present moment. " It is clear the Church of Ireland offers to us indeed a great question, but even that question is but one of a group of questions. There is the Church of Ireland, there is the land of Ireland, there is the education of Ireland ; there are many subjects, all of which depend upon one greater than them all ; they are all so many branches from one trunk, and that trunk -is the tree of Protestant Ascendency. {Cheers.) Gentlemen, I look, for one, to this Protestant people to put down Protestant Ascendency, which pretends to seek its objects by doing homage to religious truth, and instead of consecrating politics desecrates religion. {Loud cheering.) It is upon that system that we are banded together to make war. So long as that system subsists, our covenant endures for the prosecution of that purpose for which we seek your assistance ; and because — although, as I said early in these remarks, we have paid instalments to Ireland— the mass of the people would not be worthy to be free if they were satisfied with instalments, or if they could be content with any thing less than justice— (cA^ers) — we therefore aim at the destruction of that system of ascendency which, though it has been crippled and curtailed by former measures, yet still must be allowed to exist. It is still there, like a tall tree of noxious growth, lifting its head to heaven, and darkening and poisoning the land so far as its shadow can extend. It is still there, gentlemen ; and now at length the day has come. ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. 51 when, as we hope, the axe has been laid to the root of that tree, and it nods and quivers from its top to its base. It wants. Gentlemen, one stroke more, the stroke of these elections. {Loud cheering.) It will then, once for all, totter to its fall ; and on the day when it falls the heart of Ireland wiU leap for joy, and the mind and conscience of England and Scotland will repose with thankful satisfaction upon the idea that something has been done towards the discharge of national duty, and towards deepening and widening the foundations of public strength, security, and peace." {Great cheering, amid which the Bight Honourable gentleman resumed his seat.)— Times, Oct. 24, 1868. Half a century ago, our native orators used to declaim upon this theme somewhat in this impassioned and figurative strain. Chains, and Racks, and sometimes Upas Trees, too, with their blighting shadows and poisonous exhalations, and various other choice figures were in constant use to present Protestant Ascendency and its noxious influences. But then Protestant Ascendency, though considerably softened, was still a reality ; and Roman Catholic disabilities, though diminished in number, were a reality also. Roman Catholics were not only excluded from Parliament but from the Municipal Corporations throughout the Kingdom. And though the Army, and the Navy, and the learned profes- sions (with of course the exception of the Church) were open to them, yet in all of them there was a barrier which they could not pass. The distinctions and advantages of the highest offices in every line of public life were beyond their reach '. * I have pointed out in another place how peculiarly calculated the state of the law at the period to which I refer was to keep alive discontent in the classes which were best able to give it effect. " The Penal code was one which could not be carried out, fully and steadily, into effect, for any length of time. It could only be executed on an extended scale, while excited feelings, whether of fear or resentment, had considerably deadened men's natural sym- pathies. But when minds returned to their ordinary tone, the natural repugnance which such a code necessarily excited was a continual impediment to the execution of it. And it was, in practice, to such an extent relaxed from such causes, that all its severer enactments had been virtually abolished by the better feelings of Protestants, long before their formal repeal. " The legal relaxation of the code, however, was gradual. And, E 2 52 MR. GLADSTONE Such a state of the law could not but raise and keep alive discontent among the Roman Catholics. It was natural that they should be ultimately banded together in a deter- mined struggle for the abolition of the legal disabilities under which they laboured. And it was equally inevitable that in the progress of such a fervent struggle any where, and espe- cially in Ireland, very strong and very violent language, both literal and tropical, should have been used in denouncing Protestant Ascendency. When men have real reason to complain, their complaints are not judged very severely, even when they exceed the bounds of moderation in matter or style. And at the time that I am speaking of, however bombastic, and exaggerated, and violent the diatribes against Protestant Ascendency were, they found lenient critics every where- Even those who felt bound to maintain these disabilities, which they regarded as essential safeguards of the Constitution in Church and State, knew that they must be very galling to those upon whom they pressed : and they felt that it would be hard to prevent them from railing at the system which wore so harsh an aspect towards them, or to require them to rail at it always in measured terms. And if Mr. Gladstone's speech had been delivered at that time, — as it might very well have been, and as many such a one actually was, — nothing harder, pro- bably, would be said of it than that it was a little too much in as might be expected, the portions of it which survived the longest, were those which were least violent and severe in their cha- racter. But, though not calculated in the same way to shock men's natural feelings, they were the parts which affected most sensibly, the most cultivated, intelligent, and active-minded of the body — those within the range of whose ambition professional advance- ment naturally came, and who continually felt that they were excluded from distinctions and advantages, solely by the direct interposition of law. This feeling was sometimes entertained with good reason ; but very frequently of course upon very in- sufficient grounds. The real sufferers in this way were probably very few, compared with those whose only right to the name lay in their own and their friends' partial estimate of their pretensions. But the latter felt no less aggrieved by the code than the former. In the one case, no less than in the other, it supplied a spring of discontent which could never be dried up — a motive to exertion, which could never cease to operate, so long as such a state of things continued." — Chargk, delivered in 1848, published 1850. ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. 53 Ercles' vein. That, however, was too common an offence at the time not to be easily excused. But what excuse can be found for such a speech now ? Protestant Ascendency and Roman Catholic disabilities were realities then. What are they now ? No one was at a loss to answer that question then. It would be rather hard to answer it now. But if the question were, What are Protestant disabilities and Roman Catholic Ascendency ? there would be little difficulty in answering it. The Municipal Corporations, from which Roman Catholics were then excluded, are now almost entirely in their hands. A Roman Catholic could not then be a Judge. Of the com- mon law Judges, two-thirds are now Roman Catholics, though the Protestants are in a large majority at the Bar, and to the full in as large a majority among the leading practitioners at the Bar. And very lately, when there was a vacancy in the highest judicial office, the Lord Chancellorship, it was well known that it was an essential qualification for the appoint- ment, that the individual should be a Roman Catholic. It would be easy to extend this list of changes in the position of Roman Catholics and Protestants. But it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them in detail. It will be easily understood how extensive — how unlimited indeed— they must be, when it is remembered how complete the change is as regards Parliament, or at least as regards the House of Commons, on which every thing else depends. The door of the House of Commons was then closed against Roman Catholics. Not only has it since been thrown open to them, but they have been sent from Ireland in numbers far beyond what they were entitled to by property, position, talent, or any other qualification, except that a vast majority of the electors in Ireland are Roman Catholics : nor would even this fact be eaough to account for the state of the representation, but for another, viz. that this majority is absolutely under the control of the Bishops and Clergy of their Church. The Members returned by such constituencies are not all Roman Catholics, indeed, in religious profession ; but they are all Roman Catholics as regards their political principles— or at least as regards their political conduct. If they were not, they would not be chosen as Members; and if they did not continue so to be, they would soon cease 54 MR. GLADSTONE to be Members. They are, in fact, really representatives of the Eoman Catholic Hierarchy, as reaUy as if they had no other constituents. Acting together as they do, and under wise direction and control, in the nearly balanced strength of the two great parties of the State, they can often decide the most critical party questions in the House of Commons. Their support is therefore sought for with almost equal solici- tude by both sides of the House, and they possess an amount of political weight and influence far beyond their numbers. When the interests of the E/Oman Catholic Church are directly or indirectly concerned, they are, of course, abso- lutely at the command of those to whom they owe their position as Members of Parliament, and to whose favour they must look for their tenure of that position. And not only is all their political power thus held and exercised ulti- mately for the benefit of the Church of Rome ; but, in the way of natural consequence, it must be exercised in detail to such an extent in favour of members of that Church, as to give them a clear advantage in every walk of life over Pro- testants. The Church of Rome has thus been steadily waxing in political power, as the Reformed Church has been waning ; and the position of the two Churches is now not merely widely altered, but actually reversed. So that while Pro- testant Ascendency is now a shadow, Roman Catholic Ascen- dency is a substantial reality. And this being the case — as it is notoriously — can there be greater wickedness than, not merely pandering to religious animosities, but inflaming them, by such impassioned denunciations of Protestant Ascendency as Mr. Gladstone has indulged in ? "When Mr. Gladstone was drawing rapturous cheers from the multitude by this inflam- matory harangue, does any sane man beKeve that he himself believed what he was making others believe? When he denounced Protestant Ascendency as still existing in Ireland, a tall tree of noxious growth, lifting its head to heaven, and darkening and poisoning the land so far as its shadow can extend, does any sane and honest man in the Empire believe that he really believed that there is now in Ireland a reality which could be, with any approach to truth or fairness, described under these figures ? If there be, what is it ? I mean, what is it, in plain language ? ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. 65 This is an important question. As this Protestant Ascen- dency — whether it be tree, or system, or whatever it be — is doomed to destruction, it is not merely of great speculative interest, but of great practical importance, to know precisely what it actually is ? Suppose that the Church is a relic of Protestant Ascendency, and suppose that it does all the evil that is ascribed to it, and suppose that it ought therefore to be abolished, still this leaves the question unanswered. For the Church is not — and Mr. Gladstone is careful to impress upon his hearers that it is not — the trunk or tree of Protestant Ascendency. It is only one of the branches of the tree ; so that if it were cut off, dried up, and withered, the tall tree would still lift its head to heaven, and cast its baleful shadow over the land. The question recurs, then, What is it ? Apart from the Church, what advantage does any one in Ireland now gain by being a Protestant, and what disadvantage does any Irishman now incur from not being a Protestant? If Protestant Ascendency be a reality at all — whether it be a. towering noxious tree or not — if it be a reality at all, it ought to be very easy to answer this question. And yet I really cannot answer.it. I know very well that, as the law stands, no Roman Catholic can sit on the throne, and I can understand not only that this should be regarded by many as a relic, but as a very galling relic of Protestant Ascendency. But it cannot be supposed that her Majesty's Prime Minister is among the number. Whether it — the law of the succession to the throne — be stock or branch of the tree, it cannot be supposed that it is contemplated in Mr. Gladstone's denunciations against the baleful tree of Protestant Ascendency, or that it is included in the covenant into which he has entered, as he says, with some persons unknown, at least unnamed, to effect its overthrow. How, when the axe is laid to the root of this towering tree, and when it nods and quivers from its top to its base, totters to its fall, and finally falls, this branch — the Protestant succession to the throne— is to be preserved, it is not easy to understand. But every thing is easier to believe than that its destruction is part of a cove- nant between her Majesty's Prime Minister and a portion of her subjects. So that we must suppose that there is some mode in reserve of sparing this branch when the tree falls. 56 MR. GLADSTONE But there will be time enough to consider that — and no doubt before long it will have to he considered— and it is not my present concern. The point with which I am now con- cerned is, that when the Established Church and the succes- sion to the throne are laid aside, I do not know of a single relic of Protestant Ascendency remaining *. As there is no other institution or law which gives any advantage or superiority whatever, small or great, to the members of the Established Church as such, I am driven to look for some advantage or superiority which they possess, as a matter of fact, though not by virtue of any law, or as a legal consequence of their religious profession. And I think, upon consideration, it will be seen that it can be nothing else but the actual advantages, both of property and position, which the Protestants enjoy in so much larger a proportion, compared with their numbers. They do not enjoy these advantages as Protestants ; they would not lose them if they became Roman Catholics, nor would Roman Catholics gain them by becoming Protestants. Still, as a matter of fact, there is a very large proportion of such advantages in the possession and enjoyment of Pro- testants, which makes such a difference between the two bodies — gives to the Protestants such a superiority in wealth and social position — as to constitute, we have seen on high authority, the grievance of Ireland, compared with which, all others are of light consideration, — and by name, this one of the Church of the minority is of little account ; so that, by cutting it off, State quacks are only dealing with a symptom of the disease, while the wound will still remain uncured ! Here then, beyond a doubt, is this towering tree, which casts the long and baleful shadow over the land. This is the tree that is to be cut down. The figures in which the speaker indulges, do not make his meaning here a wMt less clear and certain. The Protestant Ascendency which is to be utterly destroyed, is the actual superiority which indi- vidual Protestants enjoy over Roman Catholics, arising from ' Mr. Gladstone makes the State of Education in Ireland one of the branches of his tree. It is not easy to believe that any one can now sincerely believe that there are any real grounds for such a representation. But as Jt has been made, I will consider it in the Appendix, Note L. ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. 57 the larger share which they possess of property and other social advantages, in proportion to their numbers. This is, though wrapped in a cloud of figures, as clear as if it were expressed literally in the plainest prose. Under ordinary circumstances, the announcement of the determination of the speaker to effect such a social revolution, might be disregarded as an empty vapour. But the circum- stances are not ordinary. The party which has set Mr. Gladstone at its head is strong enough to do any thing, so long as it holds together. The materials of which it is composed are so incongruous, not to say discordant, that its cohesion would seem impossible °. But though it contains " I am sure that one who was better read in the public organs of both parties would be able to give many evidences of the feelings with which the English Nonconformists and Irish Roman Catholics, now banded together for the destruction of the Irish Church Establishment, regard each other. I must be content with a single proof on each side. I owe the one on the side of the former to the kindness of some person unknown, who sent me a number of a leading organ of the Church Liberation Society. I suppose it was sent to let me see the passage which I quote (as it was scored), but, besides other things worth knowing, it made me acquainted with a new reading (at least I believe so) of an old adage, viz. MoNS paetukibns, Mus pepeeit. The passage to which attention was directed, however, had reference to the Reso- lution of the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates, not to receive for their Church any part of the endowments of the Estabhshed Church : — " The Irish Catholic hierarchy have held solemn conference on Earl Russell's proposal to share the revenues of the Irish Church among the different religious denominations, and not only do they reject that offer, but they are said to be agreed upon ' total disendowment, complete disestablishment, and perfect equality' of all Churches in Ireland. This is the Liberation Society's platform, and we are very glad to see them step on to it. We have very little doubt that they intend to get the public money ulti- mately in some fashion ; but it is not necessary that we should say to them that we do not believe a word they utter, and will have none of their help in this matter. It is rather our duty to hold them to the pledge they now give. It is absurd to suppose that this question of the Irish Church can be settled without the Irish people having any thing to say about it ; and when we speak of the Irish people, we necessarily mean the Irish Catholics and their leaders. If they declare that their wishes as to the ultimate fate of the Irish Church are the same as our own, we shall gladly work with them propter hoc. There is no deception on either side. Neither the priests nor the Voluntaries suppose that there 58 MR. GLADSTONE the elements of dissolution, it will probably be kept in union until not only it has accomplished its work of redressing can be any alliance except for obtaining a piece of justice in which both have an interest." — English Independent, Sept. 5, 1867. This is not the first proof that we have had that a common object of hatred may for a time serve as a bond of union between those who have no other. However, my business with it is as an exhibition of the feelings with which one division of these allies views the other. The following passage will show even more strikingly how these feelings are reciprocated. It is taken from a Charge from which I have already quoted : — "In the Dublin Eeview (No. XXIX. Sept. 1843) the faUure of James the Second's attempt to re-establish Romanism in England, is expressly treated as the penalty of the abandonment of ' stern Catholic principles,' of which he was guilty in tolerating Protestant Dissenters ! After enumerating several of the circum- stances, which at the time seemed, in so extraordinary a way, to favour the enterprise, the Reviewer says, ' All these facts were unquestionably favourable symptoms, and when the whole was crowned by the succession to the throne of a Catholic prince, in the person of James, every Catholic heart beat high with hope. But yet all this took place under the unfavourable circumstances that Catholicism was stUl proscribed by law, and the celebration of its worship forbidden under the severest penalties. Now, we may safely argue, that any condition of the public mind which could demand and approve of such a state of things, was one which made it next to impossible to bring Catholicism in a favourable point of view before it. James IL, by the indirect way in which he tried to gain even a toleration for Catholicism, proves how strongly he felt this extreme difficulty. It is true that James's proceeding was not only an indirect one, but (as we should say) one irreconcilable quite as much with sound Catholio principles, as it' was with the then existing forms of the English , constitution. Still, however indefensible, and therefore, on sound principles, impohtic it might be, there can be no doubt that it proved James to be keenly alive to the fact that public opinion was prepared to offer the sternest resistance to any direct proposal of Catholicism. Be this as it may, in point of theory, the melancholy fact of James's fall proves that his conduct was impolitic and ill-advised. We are inclined to believe that, if the monarch had acted on stem Catholic principles, — if he had not sought toleration even for Catholicism at the expense of conceding it to the motley crew of heresies which he improperly included in his famous proclamation, — if he had been content for- a while to bear the working of a penal system against his ovm, which was God's creed, rather than give liberty to a hundred deplorable errors for the sake of securing it for truth, — if he had encouraged the semi- Catholic party amongst the Anglican clergy, — if by their aid he had set on foot measures for reuniting all in one Church, he ON PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. 69 religious and social inequalities in Ireland, but until it has gone far — how far, it would be rasli to predict — towards the accomplishment of the more difficult work of the same kind which is to be done in England. But my present business is with the progress of the work in Ireland; and it is plain that Mr. Grladstone's menaces are not to be disregarded. He has shown that in his threats against Protestantism, he is at least as good as his word. And it is therefore important to ascertain, if possible, what his words mean. "We have seen that as to the thing to be destroyed, there is really no room for un- certainty. But as to the mode in which its destruction is to be effected, it is not so easy, or easy at all, to come at the speaker's meaning. For, in fact, the property of Protestants stands just upon the same footing as that of Roman Catho- lics : it has enjoyed so far, except in the case of the Church, , the same protection, but no more. And the same is to be said of their rank and other social advantages. "Whether, as in the case of the Church, these advantages are to be taken away by law ; or whether the protection of the law is to be wholly or in part withdrawn from them ; or whether there may not be some other mode, which is plain and easy to the able men who are at the head of the Anti-Church movement, though not discoverable by the dominant minority — in which of these ways Protestant Ascendency is to be finally destroyed, Mr. Gladstone's speech does not determine. But he assures us that the fatal blow, whenever it comes, will make the heart of Ireland to leap for joy, and' wiU give to the mind and conscience of England and Scotland happy repose ! It may be so. But there are some in Ireland to whom this blow will certainly bring neither joy nor repose, but who are nearly and deeply concerned in it notwithstanding. These are anxious to know how and when the blow is to fall. Such anxiety can hardly be felt to be unreasonable ; and though its reasonableness will do nothing to obtain this might, by degrees, have restored Catholicism, and England wbuld have recovered her glorious position as a pure Catholic monarchy. James did not do this, and James fell. No wonder that such a failure was followed by such a flood of Protestantism as over- whelmed England during the succeeding century.'" (Pp. 107, 108.) — Chakge, delivered in 1848, pp. 11, 12, note. 60 MR. bright's plan information directly for them, it is to be hoped that it will do something indirectly. It is to be hoped that there will be a general feeling in the country, not only that those who are the direct objects of Mr. Gladstone's stern and vindictive menaces have a just claim to have them put into plain language, but that when such a social revolution as has never been effected in a civilized State in peaceful times is proclaimed as about to be begun in an important part of the Empire, Parliament and the nation at large ought to know by what means it is to be brought about. The only information as to the modus operandi which has been obtained either by those most immediately concerned or the public, they owe to the fact that an important member of the Cabinet has not yet had time to acquire the proper habits • of official reserve '. I directed attention (Part I. p. 58, note) to an ominous passage in a speech delivered by Mr. Bright last November, in Edinburgh ; in which he adopted, though without naming it, the statement in the Tablet of the chief grievance under which Ireland is suffering, and expressed his conviction that, until this grievance is redressed, or at least until a plan for redressing it is in process and operation, but a very imperfect measure of tranquillity and content is to be expected in Ireland. I believe that this plan has been brought forward by its distiuguished author in more or less detail upon various occasions, and it appeared very lately, not only that he himself adheres to the conviction which he has often ex- pressed, that the application of it is essential to the tran- quillity of Ireland ; but, moreover, that the Cabinet of which he is an important member, have been brought to share in his views to such an extent, that he was able in his place in the House of Commons to speak of this plan as a part of what he and his colleagues propose to do for Ireland ; not, indeed, a part of the measures to be brought forward this year, but of those which in all probability would be offered to the House next Session '. ' See Lord Granville's Speech, Times, May 8, 1869. ' This announcemeiit was made by Mr. Bright in the Debate on the state of Ireland, in the House of Commons on the 1st of May. There were indications at the time that his more experienced col- FOR THB PACIFICATION OF IKEJ.AND. 61 It is therefore of very great importance to know what it is, or rather how it is to be carried out. Mr. Bright himself, leagues were hardly pi-epared for his unofficial want of reserve, and this appeared more distinctly when the subject was brought forward in the other House a week afterwards, when the leader on the ministerial side frankly acknowledged, " that the rule of a certain amount of reticence on the part of the members of the Grovem- ment was disregarded by Mr. Bright the other evening." It was very easy to give a satisfactory excuse for such a breach of the rules of official reserve in one who was so new to office. And indeed it would have been strange if Parliament or the public made any difficulty in condoning a mistake which was so natural under the circumstances, and by which they had both so largely profited,— as it appears that but for it they would have had no information whatever upon a subject which must be felt to be of very great interest to more than Irish proprietors. Lord Gran- ville upon the occasion refused, upon the part of the Government, to state whether Mr. Bright's plan had been adopted by the Ministry or not, as their scheme, or part of their scheme, for the settlement of the land question. In answer to Lord Salisbury's demand, whether Mr. Bright's measure had been submitted to the Cabinet, whether they approved of it, and whether it was substan- tially the plan which they intend to introduce next year, his reply was, " I have no doubt that Mr. Bright likes his plan, and prefers it to any other yet proposed. I have no doubt that he will try to induce us to approve any plan that he may think the best, but I also believe — for I never sat with a fairer man — that if his colleagues can show that the plan is faulty, and can suggest a better, he will be ready to consider it. I think then I have answered the question of the noble Marquis, whether the declara- tions of Mr. Bright are to be accepted as the final proposals of the Government on this question." No one can say that the noble Lord's answer is chargeable with Mr. Bright's fault of too much openness. But though he made an adroit attempt to repair his colleague's indiscretion, it was not possible to do so perfectly. And in speaking of his want of reticence Lord Granville sub- stantially admits all that in words he attempts to conceal. For want of reticence can only refer to indiscretion, in making a dis- closure which ought not to be made at all, or in the time or man- ner of making 'it. It has no reference to the substantial truth or falsehood of the disclosure. Mr. Bright may have been very in- discreet, there seems to be very good reason indeed to think that he was, in stating what he did with regard to the plans of the Ministry for the next Session ; but this does not touch the ques- tion whether or not what he stated was really their plan. Lord Granville does not say that his answer to Lord Salisbury's question gives a fair and full representation of the actual relation of the Cabinet to Mr. Bright's plan. But he apparently wishes that it should be understood that they are no further committed 63 MR. bright's plan as we have seen, states both the disease and the remedy very distinctly. He says, the disease is that " the land is to such an extent not in the possession of what I may call native proprietors ;" and the remedy, as might be collected from this statement of the disease, that the land shall be " transferred to a considerable extent from foreign, or alien, or Protestant absentee proprietors, — transferred into the hands of the Catholic resident population of the country." How this is to be effected is not here stated. But as the remedy, to be at all commensurate with the disease, must be very extensive in its operation, it might be apprehended that the effectual application of it could hardly be carried out quietly. And if this apprehension were raised, it would not be much allayed by Mr. Gladstone's explanation of Mr. Bright's view, viz., that the arm or resources of the State may be used for the purpose of breaking up in part the masses of pro- perty in Ireland, in order to try as it were the experiment of small proprietorship in that country. To those who wield the arm and resources of the State, there may be nothing imcom- fortable — rather the contrary perhaps — ^in the prospect of these formidable powers being used to try as it were this experiment. But it is calculated to inspire some xineasy feelings in the owners of those " masses of property " which are the corpus vile on which this perilous experiment is to be tried, particularly with the example, before their eyes of the merciless use that is to be made, if the Government can, of the arm of the State in carrying out another perilous expe- riment for the pacification of Ireland. And I do not know that aU anxieties on the subject will be set at rest, though Mr. Gladstone seems to think that they ought to be, by the pains which Mr. Bright has taken to obviate them. He to it than they appear in his answer to be. But if he succeeded in conveying the impression that, when Mr. Bright spoke of " things which we propose to do, which we offer to the House in this Session, and which in all probability may be offered to the House in the next Session," — the true foundation of this statement was, that he had a plan which he liked, and which he meant to try to persuade his colleagues to adopt, — if I say, it were believed that this is the true state of the case, the charge from which Mr. Bright's friends would be called upon to defend him would be a very different one from want of reticence, and a much more serious one. FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 63 says, " Whether he be right or T^yrong in the wisdom of that measure as a measure of political economy, at least it must be admitted that he has done his best to divest it of a revo- lutionary character, bjr taking care to accompany it with the declaration that he never would be one to propose a measure of that description unless it were of such a character as, if he were an Irish l^iudlord himself, he could cordially support and approve." To make this declaration as re-assuring to the Irish landlords as it was intended to be, and as Mr. Gladstone seems to think it ought to be, it would be neces- sary that they should be satisfied not only of its sincerity, in the sense that Mr. Bright believed that he really felt as he spoke, which perhaps would be easy enough, but that they should be satisfied also that he actually realized to himself what the consequences of his measure would be to Irish landlords, wHioh is quite a different thing, and not at all so easy. And in addition to this it would be necessary that they should be satisfied — and this is hardest of all — that he was right and not tcrong in the wisdom of that measure as a measure of political economy. And on this point I believe it would be very hard to satisfy any one who is even slightly imbued with the principles of that science. If such a scheme had been broached on the Conservative side of the House, we can conceive what a demonstration of scorn and indignation it would have drawn forth from the great Political Economists on the other side. But they were silent on the occasion, with the exception of the leader. His utterances, however, did not make the future very clear. It is true that if he did not intelligibly intimate his own disapproval of the plan, he at least carefully guarded himself from being supposed to be satisfied of its wisdom, as a measure of political economy, but whether or not this will prevent him from supporting it, as a measure of party policy, remains still uncertain. Meanwhile it appears evident that this disclosure has created a good deal of alarm among some of the supporters of the Ministry, who have no scruple in aiding them to despoil the Church, but who demur a little, at least for the present, in carrying on the crusade against the landlords. It brought out, some nights after. Earl Russell in the House of Lords— who, like most others who have been diligent in sowing the wind, begins to be uneasy when the crop first appears. He 64 MR. bright's flan restated clearly the objections which had been put forward in various quarters against the scheme wlien it was first published, and in particular one which is well calculated to show its extraordinary crudity and rashness, viz. that whereas it is intended to do away with discontents which arise from the exercise of the rights of landlords, and to conciliate the attachment of the Irish towards the Govern- ment which does away with them, it places the Govern- ment itself for a considerable number of years in the position of a landlord, having to collect instalments, which would be for the time of the nature of rents, from a number of petty occupiers scattered over the whole country. This objection to his cherished scheme was not only so decisive, but so obvious, that it ought to have been enough to show that Mr. Bright's genius, like that of many great speakers, is rather destructive than constructive, and that however successful he has been in exasperating the dis- contents of Ireland, he is hardly to be trusted with the task of allaying them, even if the arm and the resources of the State were placed at his command for that great object. But though nothing can be done to vindicate the wisdom of the inventor, such objections to the plan itself may easily be surmounted, if, as is likely, his colleagues should be constrained to support it. They may say that 'The discontent of Ireland must be appeased at any cost. Seven centuries of misrule cannot be done away with in a moment. The Church of the minority has been swept away, but the monopoly of land by the minority survives, and while it remains, discontent must remain. And if it could be allayed by the absolute expenditure, without any return, of the few millions which Mr. Bright asks for his experiment, the money would be well laid out. We have no need to trouble ourselves therefore with considering how to obviate or remedy the evils which are apprehended as cer- tain to arise, — when Government puts itself in the place of a landlord, and has to enforce the payment of the instal- ments of the purchase-money, — because there is no need that it should take this unpopular office upon itself or encounter any odium in the case. It is really a matter of very little consideration to the nation, provided the pacification of FOR THE PACIFICATION OP IRKLAND. 65 Ireland can be secured, whether the money that effects that paramount object is lent or given away".' I should not be surprised if Mr. Bright's colleagues agreed in adopting this mode of freeing his scheme from this obvious and fatal objection, rather than encounter the difficulty of rejecting it. Nor should I be at all surprised if the House of Commons accepted their mode of escaping from the difficulty. Nor should I be surprised if the nation ac- quiesced in the decision of Crovernment and th« House of Commons, whatever it were. It is therefore important to show that the objections to this scheme lie a good deal deeper, and that this way of escape from them is not avail- able. The plan is that a Commission should be appointed with the power of purchasing, with public money, land from land- lords, being Protestants, who are willing to sell, and selling to occupants, being Roman Catholics, who are willing to buy, so as to make them proprietors of the farms that they cultivate: and with the power of facilitating the sal«, by ' There is a judicial precedent for a mode of facilitating pay- ment by instalments, without actually remitting them, which might possibly offer a leas violent way of escape from this difficulty. There is an Irish Act which forbids interment within the distance of twelve feet from the walls of a church, and makes a breach of the law punishable by a fine of lOZ., to be recovered by Civil Bill at Quarter Sessions. This law was intended both for the protection of the walls of the church and of the healft of those who assemble within them. It is often disobeyed not- withstanding, — sometimes in the assertion of an alleged old right of sepulture, real or imaginary, and sometimes in the assertion of the right of breaking the law, which is also an ancient and much-valued right in Ireland. On one occasion, a few years ago (1863), a man was guilty of a breach of this law, in defiance of a distinct warning on the part of the clergyman. The case was brought before the Assistant Barrister. The offence was clear, and the law express, and the fine could neither be remitted nor reduced. But his Worship said that he thought the law a hard one, and disapproved of it ; and that therefore, though obliged to convict the offender, and impose the fine, he was anxious to make the payment of it easy. This he was enabled to do, — as the Act did not prescribe the time or manner of payment, — by making it part of the sentence that the amount was to be paid by instalments of one shilling per annum, thereby giving two hundred ■years for the payment of the entire ! F MR. BRIGHT S PLAN giving liberal terms to the landlord, and of facilitating the purchase, by making the terms easy to the tenant, — setting a moderate price upon the land, and aUowiag a long time for the payment of it by instalments. And the first thing which it seems important to make clear, is that if the proposed process be once begun, it must extend oyer the whole kingdom. It is spoken of as an experiment to be tried upon a limited scale. But if that way of speaking be sincere, it is strangely short-sighted. In the announcement of this scheme by the author of it, it would appear that he only contemplated this great change with reference to absentee landlords, being Pro- testants ; but it is plainly impossible to stop there. Con- sidering what the feelings of the Irish are about land, and considering too that this is a scheme for appeasing the dis- content of Ireland connected with land, it would be plainly absurd to suppose that this great change can be confined to the estates of any one class of proprietors. When the tenantry of one estate, suppose the estate of a Protestant Absentee, are converted into proprietors — when they hold in fee, rent-free or soon to become so, the land which they theretofore had occupied as tenants, at an annual rent, for a term, or at will, — it would be plainly absurd to suppose that the tenantry of the neighbouring estate would be content and happy in remaining in their former condition, — having but a limited tenure of their holdings, and paying an annual rent for them. And they will hardly be reconciled to this inequality by the fact, that their landlord is a resident or a Roman Catholic, or both, while the proprietor of the other estate is an absentee and a Protestant. The process begun upon one estate must be extended to the next, and so on, or it fails of its object. And, for the same reason, when begun in one part of Ireland, it must be extended to the other parts also. Nor can one see any termination to it, imtil all the masses of property, whether in the hands of absentees or of residents, are broken up, and small proprietors are spread over every part of the country. However, if this change be for the advantage of the country, it ought to be easily made. For both the parties concerned ought to be willing to carry out the plan. There can be no doubt indeed of the willingness of the occupants to buy, upon the easy conditions proposed. And the advan- FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 67 tageous terms offered ought to make the proprietors equally willing to sell. If they are, every thing so far will go on smoothly. But suppose they are not willing, what will hap- pen then ? They may be wrong-headed enough to reject the terms offered. We know that there have been such way- ward persons. Naboth the Jezreelite refused to sell his vine- yard to the King, though he was offered not only fair but advantageous terms, a better mneyard, or the worth of it in money. Still we know that he refused, and we know how the case ended. Ahab thought that nothing more was to be done, and was disposed to acquiesce in the disappointment, though he felt it very deeply. But there was another party con- cerned, who saw very clearly that there was a different mode of settling the matter, and who took it promptly and resolutely. We cannot doubt, of course, that Mr. Bright, who professes to desire to carry out his plan without wrong or injustice to any man, aud only with the consent and good will of all concerned, would acquiesce in the landlord's refusal to sell. But, as in the case just referred to, there is another party in the transaction, of whose acquiescence no one can feel quite so sure. Can any one indeed, who is acquainted with the state of feeling which exists in Ireland about land, and the deeds of violence and bloodshed to which it has led, imagine that the landlords, or that any landlord would be allowed to refuse to sell in such a case ? Every one knows that there is no crime that a man can commit which renders his life so insecure in Ireland, or rather, I ought to say, which renders it so certain that his life will be taken away, as his standing in the way of another's obtaining land ; and that not only is the hand of the individual who is aggrieved ready to take the hindrance away, but that all of his class would be ready to undertake the office for him if necessary, and that they would regard themselves as executioners of a righteous law : and that if they thought at. all of their victim, they would only think of him as one that was to blame for his fate. That this is a widespread and firmly-established feeling amongst the great mass of the peasantry in Ireland — growing stronger as we descend in the scale amongst them — every one who has lived in the country, indeed every one who has read at a distance the terriblfe records of Agrarian crime in Ireland F 2 68 MR. bright's plan for years, must know. And this being the creed and law of the country, is it to be supposed that if this process be com- menced, a landlord wiU be allowed to interrupt its progress by refusing to sell his land? If he stood in the way of an individual who had any reason to expect a portion of land upon the usual terms, of holding it for a shorter or longer time, and paying rent for it- — even a high rent for it^-while he held it, — his life would be forfeit by the Agrarian law of the country. And it is well known that lives which are forfeit under that code are far less secure than those which are condemned by the law of the land. But if the life of a man who was the hindrance to an individual's obtaining land upon the ordinary terms and for the ordinary tenure would be insecure — to speak softly — what is to be said of the life of a man who in like manner stands in the way, not of a single tenant, but of the whole tenantry of an extensive estate ? and who stands in the way of their obtaining land upon such easy terms and for ever ? If, when the government of the country, with the authof ity of Parliament, were ready and willing and anxious to give to the whole tenantry of an extensive estate the land which they occupied, and to give it to them to hold at a light rent for a few years, and after that, rent-free for ever ; and if, moreover, to enable them- selves to bestow this boon upon this large body of occupants, this paternal Government is willing to give not a fair price only but a liberal price for the land; and if, when every J thing was ready for the accomplishment of this gracious purpose, the proprietor of the land were to refuse to sell, and so to bring all to a stand-still, how long would he be allowed to suspend the execution of the beneficent purpose of the ministry and the legislature, and to keep the objects of their bounty from entering into the enjoyment of it ? Little hesitation in general is felt in putting such obstruc- tions out of the way, even in ordinary cases. And I have mentioned some features of the case of which we have been speaking which are calculated to make that little less. But there is a good deal in addition remaining behind, which would have the same tendency to silence any scruples which might rise in resorting to this decisive mode of putting an end to opposition. The people of Ireland have been taught to regard this interposition of Government in their behalf. FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 69 not as an act of bounty, but as an act of justice. And they have been told by the leader of the party which has at last come forward to redress this great wrong, that all the con- cessions which have been made to ihem heretofore, are but instalments of the justice which is due to them: and that " the mass of the people would not be worthy to be free, if they were satisfied with instalments, or if they could be con- tent with any thing less than justice." And the benevolent member of the Cabinet who is specially the author of this heajing measure, has stated that the distribution of property in Ireland, which it is intended to remedy, is so unnatural as to render it hopeless that peace shall ever be established in the country while it continues. He has further stated> that it is entirely due to its having been maintained by the overwhelming power of England that such a state of things has lasted so long ; and that, but for this irresistible force, the people of the country would long since have obtained the measure of justice which his plan proposes to secure to them, or that the landlords would have been exter- minated^. And now when Parliament and Grovernment desire to repair the wrong which they so long aided in ' When this startling passage- was read in the House of Commons in the debate on May 1, Mr. Bright stated that it occurred in a private letter, which was made public without his permission, and to his great regret. All this is of course true, and it no doubt makes a considerable difference as regards the guilt of the writer; but, as matters stand, it is of very little importance as regards the effects which it must produce upon the peasantry of Ireland. It is not less the opinion of the writer because it was written in a private and not in a public letter. On the contrary, it would be felt that it was more certain to be his real view and not one expressed for a purpose, and would carry more of the weight of his judgment, than if it had been put forth in a way in which it might be supposed that there was some purpose to be effected by it. It is said, however, that he has not given those into whose hands his letter may fall, any grounds to think that he approves of such a mode of obtaining justice. That is very true. But it does not appear — I have not seen the rest of the letter — that he has made it plain to them that he looks with horror and indignation upon such acts of violence, even when they are the only mode of obtaining justice. That making this clear would do much to restrain such wild justice, I do not venture to say. But there is no presumption in saying that leaving it doubtful must do a great deal to encourage them. 70 MK. bright's plan inflicting, are the landlords to be allowed to obstruct this tardy measure of justice, without even the plea that their interests can at all suffer by consenting to it ? There is no doubt how this question will be answered by those most nearly concerned, and there can be just as little doubt that the answer will be acted upon without scruple or compunction. It must be recollected, too, that the process must be extended over the whole country, as any more limited operation would make it a fruitful source of bitter discontent. And thus every where, when the plan once begins to be carried out, the landed proprietors will be either suffering the penalty of an aggravated breach of agrarian law, or living in dread of it, or voluntarily consenting to the sale of their property in order to avoid it. What a prospect this holds out of the operation of this healing measure ! 2. But supposing that the plan could be carried out by the stroke of a pen or the wave of a wand, to what state would it bring the country ? All thoughtful, I might say all intelligent observers of the state of Ireland, for the last cen- tury at least, are agreed in assigning to the subdivision of land a very high place, some of them the very highest place, among the causes of its miseries and its disturbances. Their testimony has been hardly so unanimous upon any point as on this, that the most effectual bar to improvement, whether upon the part of the tenant or landlord, was the number of small holdings which were a marked feature of the country. Sir Cornewall Lewis, who brought a very penetrating under- standing to the consideration of the causes of the disturbances in Ireland, and who seems to have spared no pains to furnish himself with all the information that was necessary to enable him to exercise a sound judgment upon the question, was most deeply impressed with the hopelessness of materially ameliorating the condition of the country while such a state of things existed. He pleads for a poor-law upon various grounds. But the one which seems to have had most weight with him was, that when there was a legal provision for the poor, the possession of some portion of the soil would be no longer essential to protect them from absolute starvation, and that so it would be possible to effect the transition of the peasantry from the cottier to the labourer state, and at FOR THE, PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 71 the same time the transition from the small holdings which were spread over the country to farms of a moderate size, and thus to improve cultivation, and raise the habits and the condition of the cultivators of the soil. The Poor Law was passed, and it has, no doubt, as Sir Cornewall Lewis anticipated, very materially aided landlords in effecting the improvements which he regarded as so essen- tial to the prosperity and the peace of the country. And it seems nothing short of astonishing, that after some advance has been made in the direction pointed out by this sagacious observer, any public men, more especially men of his own party, should be prepared to adopt a policy which must undo all that has been done in the way of improvement, in this direction at least, and take the country back to the state which he regarded as a leading cause of all its degradation and disorder ! No doubt a different view of this question is supported by some whose authority stands very high in various lines, but not, I believe, by any of much name in political science. One of whom Ireland is justly proud says, — "A time there was, ere England's griefs began, When every rood of ground maintain'd its man." And as it was no discredit to the poet to hold that the happiest state of a country was where the land was sub- divided down to the utmost limit that would support the bare animal existence of those who cultivated it, so, I suppose, it ought not to detract from the reputation of an orator to hold the same view. But it is hardly creditable to a set of men who aspire to the position of enlightened statesmen at the present day to support or coimtenance him in it. It may be said that Mr. Bright does not contemplate the conversion of very small occupants into proprietors. It is very possible that he does not, but it is plainly the necessary result of his plan notwithstanding. For the discontent which it is intended to allay does not exist so much nor in so active a form among farmers, who hold such an extent of land as might enable them to maintain their families in comfort, and to put them forward in different lines of life, as among those whose holdings are so small as barely, with the aid of wages for occasional labour, to keep them alive. Their dis- 72 MR. bright's plan content would be only aggravated, if the bounty of the State were bestowed upon those who wanted it less, while they were left without any amelioration of their condition. And as these form by far the most numerous class of occupants, any scheme for the pacification of the country, which would not only leave them discontented, but would embitter their discontent, must be a miserable failure, whatever it might do to benefit those above them. But even if this were not the immediate efiect of the plan, it would necessarily be its fesult at no very distant period. For the tendency to the subdivision of land in Ireland has been always irrepressible. In fact as children grew up and were to be settled in life, the pressure upon the head of the family to provide for them by a portion of her land became irresistible. Even if other ways of effecting the object were open to them, it would be more in accordance with the genius of the people to maintain a struggle for life upon the soil, than to seek a better livelihood in some other way; but in aot a few cases no other way except emigration was open to them. Sir Comewall Lewis says : " With this cwistant and irresistible tendency to subdivide land, it often hap- pens that the landlord, at the expiration of a lease, finds thirty or forty tenants, and as many mud cabins, instead of the one tenant to whom the farm was originally let''." And it appears by the testimony of the agMit of an exten- sive estate in the South of Ireland, which he quotes, that this subdivision was not to be prevented by keeping such tenants without leases: "It is impossible to prevent the subdivision of land among the sons ; for whether there is a lease or not they deal with their ground in the same manner. They often make wills even when they have no Ifease, and they even give leases when they have none them- selves '." Every one acquainted with the management of land in Ii'eland knows how constantly this tendency baffled the utmost watchfulness both of agents and resident landlords. And if this process went on in spite of constant resistance ' On Local Disturbances in Ireland, p. 320. ' Evidence of Mr. Furlong, Agent of the Earl of Devon. Reports of Irish Poor Commission, Appendix A, p. 691. Quoted by Sir C. Lewis, ib. FOE THE PACIFICATION OF IKELANB. 73 upon their part, when there was some power of restraining the tenant during the term of his lease, and when he might look to suffer from the resentment of his landlord on the termination of it, how would it be when there were no means of interfering with the process either in the way of restraint or pimishment, — when the land was absolutely his own, and he owed no account to any one of his mode of managing it ? Can it be doubted that gradually and certainly the old and hardly exploded state of things would return, and the process of subdivision would cover the face of the land with those minute holdings which this thoughtful observer regarded as paralyzing the energies of the country, and as the chief source of all the social evils which had made Ireland so long a per- plexing and humiliating spectacle to the civilized world? And the restoration of this calamitous state of things is, as it appears, the great boon which the regenerators of Ireland have to bestow upon our unhappy land ! This settlement of the land question in Ireland is intended to follow the proposed settlement of the Church question, if it be effected : and it is well fitted to be the sequel of that disastrous and iniquitous measure. It is of the same violent and unscrupulous character, and in the same way calculated to aggravate all the evils which it is professedly designed to heal. I have already spoken of the loss and injury which the abolition of the Established Church must bring upon its members ; but, putting these out of view for the present, it would be hard to devise any measure which would inflict deeper or more irreparable injury upon the country at large, and especially upon the poorer classes ^. Few countries need more than Ireland the presence of * A gentleman who has for forty years farmed his own pro- perty extensively in the west of Ireland, and who, from constant intercourse with the farming and labouring classes, is thoroughly acquainted with the state of opinion and feeling amongst them, told me some anecdotes illustrative of the way in which they have received the proposed peace-offering of the sacrifice of the Church Jlstablishment. They appeared to me so interesting and impor- tant that I asked him to set down some of them in writing. He kindly complied with my request, and I am very glad to be permitted to print a letter which I received from him. It will probably present a new view of the case to many English readers. See Appendix, Note M. 74 MR. height's plan those who can exert benevolent offices towards the poor, and, in connexion with such acts of kindness, exercise some restraining and elevating moral influences over them. Such centres of active benevolence and centres of refinement are the parsonages scattered over the land. The clergy are dis- tributed over the kingdom at moderate intervals; they main- tain every where the position of gentlemen, and in many places are the only representatives of that class to be found in a considerable extent of country. They have in general better education and more cultivation than country gentlemen, gene- rally speaking, possess. They are constant residents ; they spend their moderate means in the place from which they are derived, and every where directly in works of benevo- lence in a larger proportion than any other class. Nor is it only the clergyman himself who exercises such good offices in his neighbourhood, his family are for the most part employed in ministering to the wants and comfort of his parishioners both in sickness and health. All these men will either disappear altogether from their parishes, or remain there with diminished means. It can be no light calamity in such a country as Ireland to have fifteen hundred centres of civilization blotted out, and fifteen hundred well-springs of charity dried up, in whole or in part ! And it is, as I said, a very appropriate continuation of this work, to root out the proprietors who at more distant and irregular intervals are discharging, in several cases upon a larger scale, some of the same good offices to their tenantry and neighbours. It does not require very large benevolence or very exalted qualities of any kind, to make a resident proprietor a great benefit, and his removal a great evil. Merely upon selfish principles he will maintain law and order; the management of his land will, for his own interest, be such as to give a useful example to his tenantry and neighbours, which will be enforced by his personal in- fluence in correcting their bad habits of farming, and indeed many other of their bad habits. Then as to acts of benevolence, men are much more strongly moved by the distress which they see, than that which they know only by report ; and from common feeUngs of humanity, and to relieve themselves from pain, they will give much more prompt and efiiectual help to sufferers who are living near FOR THB PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 75 them, than to those who are suffering even more severely at a distance from them. All this applies also to a man's family. And one cannot think of this country when the Clergy and the gentry are altogether, or in great measure, driven away, and their place is supplied by a smaller proprietary — those of them who are best circumstanced, able to do little good in any of the various ways in which the Clergy and the land- lords are, in different degrees, doing a great deal of good, while the poorer of these new proprietors would stand in need of help from the first, and would want it more and more as time went on, and would all the time be continually becoming more wretched and more lawless— one cannot think, I say, of this unhappy country's regress to barbarism under the operation of measures which are confidently put forward as fitted to restore and elevate it, without wonder at the infatuation of the people of England, who continue to look on while desperate empirics are bring- ing back the worst part of their wretched patient's disease — the only part of it which had been in a good measure banished. But though very many in England, of whom better might have been hoped, look on with apathy, while first religious inequality, and then social inequality is redressed in Ire- land, we cannot doubt that when the same process begins on their own side of the Channel, all, except those who are actually carrying it out, will be painfully alive to the alarm- ing prospect which it opens to the country. So long as the Fenian operations were confined to Ireland, they caused but little uneasiness in England. But when they were transferred for a little to England, there was no want of interest about them. And there can be no doubt that the explosion in the Metropolis, which frighted the Isle from her propriety, and the general trepidation which followed, prepared the way for the reception of Mr. Gladstone's desperate scheme for appeas- ing Irish discontent'. No doubt, when the levelling pro- ' This has been brought out in various forms and on various occasions, but hardly any where more strikingly than in the debate in the Lords on the Suspensory Bill last year. In the course of his speech Lord Gket is reported to have said : — " There is one circumstance, and one circumstance only, in 76 MB. bright's plan cess begins in England, if it could be arrested by further sacrifices in Ireland, it would not be allowed to proceed very far. But the means of staving off the evil day at our cost will then have been exhausted ; the Church Establishment in Ireland will have been swept away; the landed pro- prietary wiU have followed it ; and then at last the pressure of the levelling party must be directly met upon English ground. I have already shown, that notwithstanding the acknow- ledged and great differences between the branches of the Established Church in England and Ireland, the overthrow of the Irish Church Establishment, — whether it be effected on the plea that it is the Church of the minority, or on the plea that religious equality must be restored in that country from which it has been so long banished, — will have cut the ground from under the feet of the defenders of the Church in Eng- land when the serious assault upon her begins. And even now, those who for a long time could only see the differences between the institutions, and who thought that the stronger which a change has occurred [since 1866], and I do confess I heard with extreme aatonishment my noble friend pointing it out among the reasons which did not formerly exist— and that was, that certain outrages had been perpetrated by Fenians. (Earl Granville made a gesture of dissent.) My noble friend denies it. I cam only say that in that case my ears entirely deceived me. (Cheers.) I will not impute to my noble friend an argument which he disclaims, but I am totally unable to comprehend the observations he made on this subject if they do not bear that construction." Earl Granville. — " What I said was, that these events had led the English people to think calmly and dispassionately upon this question." Earl Gket. — " Well, that appears to me to be an argument of a most dangerous and improper character. (Cheers.) Are you to tell the people of Ireland that the people of England will only consider their grievances calmly and dispassionately when an insurrection occurs ? (Cheers.) Remember that this is the noble Earl's own explanation. If these events were necessary to make the English people think calmly and dispassionately upon the question of the Irish Church, the inference is plain, that the English people will not consider the grievances of Ireland calmly and dispassionately without violence and insurrection. (Hear, hear.) In my opinion, a more dangerous argument cannot be used in favour of any change." — Times, June 25, 1868. FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 77 Establishment might look on without any apprehension for itself, while the weaker was pulled down, are beginning to see, more or less clearly, that notwithstanding all the differences between the Churches, they had enough in common to ensure, under the circumstances in which they were placed, that their fate should be the same. And the same is true with respect to the next step by which the social revolution in Ireland is to be further advanced. There is nothing like the same pressure for land in England that there is with us. The demand there for labour, skilled and unskilled, though liable to interruptions from time to time, which produce distress and discontent in different places and among different classes of workmen, is notwithstanding on the whole so constant, that there is scarcely any where the entire dependence upon the soil for support, which produces in Ireland that uncontrollable craving for land, that is the source of so much of the agrarian crime of the country. And no doubt there is a natural difference of character between the two races, which makes it so much less congenial to the Celt than to the Saxon to turn to trade or commerce for a livelihood. Still I believe that a passion for land, though it may long lie latent, really exists in some shape in the hearts of all the descendants of him who at the first was taken from the ground. And, independently of any such instinctive feeling, there are in England, as there are in every large community, a great number who would be roused to fearful activity by the pro- spect of having the masses of property which are now in the hands of a few broken up, for the purpose of providing small settlements for those who have little land or none, and to whom a portion of land, purchased with public money, to be repaid at an easy rate by instalments, would be a very attractive object, whether as an exchange for their present means of supporting themselves, or as an addition to them. Very many every year leave the land of their nativity, and cross the ocean at great cost of money, and of hardship both to themselves and their families, to gain such an object in a distant land. And it would seem to be very hazardous %o the tranquillity of the country to set before the eyes of such men that this object may be obtained without leaving home, by agitation, combination, and clamour, and turbulence, pro- 78 MR. bright's plan vided they are kept up pe^sever^llgly^ And this is only one of the many disturbing forces which the complicated and artificial state of society, that has grown up in England, has provided for those who keep steadily in view the object of bringing about a social revolution in that country. AU these forces will no doubt be used in their season. With what issue is known only to God. But this is a subject from which I must turn away. I have said as much already upon the effects which I believe ' The following piece of intelligence appeared in the Dublin Daily Express on May 24. I do not believe that the occurrence was reported in the Times. The demonstration was, in itself, probably, of Uttle importance, though, as an indication of what may be expected, it is not entirely undeserving of notice. I give it from its connection with what I have written above : — " London, Sunday Evening, May 2^ 1869. " Mr. Bright's gracious and generous policy in reference to the land question is bearing fruit on this side of the Channel as well as on the other. Yesterday an assemblage of roughs was held in Hyde Park, near the scene of the Reform demonstration, to demand of the Government that waste or other land (other pre- ferred) should be handed over to the working classes, free of rent. The idea of a peasant proprietory has warmed the heart of Whitechapel, and from Hyde Park the sound goes forth that Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone must not confine their truly Hberal policy to Ireland. A resolution was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously, to the effect that the Government should be called upon to find land for every man willing to squat, and that means should be resorted to for taking it by force if the Government did not see their way to immediate compliance with the just demand of the people. The meeting was composed of the dangerous classes — those whom the President of the Board of Trade calls the residuum — who live by their wits, and love to have their bands in other people's pockets — the class who are enabled by indiscriminate alms-givers to enrich the proprietors of gin palaces. They are numerous and desperate, and more than one allusion was made yesterday to the levelling of the railings and the logic of brute force. It was not settled when the Govern- ment were to be waited on, but a further meeting is to be held, at which, it is stated, the people will meet in their thousands to settle preliminaries, and to be pledged each man to use force, if necessary, to obtain a slice of some person's broad acres. This took place yesterday in the broad daylight, and in presence of the police. It is commended to the consideration of Earl Russell and the Duke of Devonshire, two of Mr. Bright's 'marked FOR THE PACIFICATION OF IRELAND. 79 the overthrow of the Church Establishment in Ireland will produce in England both upon Church and State, as I thought it useful to say, and I have been led into this addition to it undesignedly. I must return to our more immediate subject, and bring what I had to say upon it to a close. The course of events proceeds now at such a pace that it would be rash to speak of any of the effects of the spoliation of the Irish Church as distant. But those which it is to produce in England may be said to be distant as compared with those which it is to bring about in Ireland, which are at the door. We have actually begun a revolution which, though it is to be effected by law and under the authority of the Crown and Legislature, is really more thorough — wider and deeper — than would be the result of the conquest of the country by a foreign power, if only it were a civilized power. And it is actually the result of a foreign conquest, though not of one achieved by force of arms. The great difficulty which the Imperial Government has found in ruling Ireland has not arisen merely from the animosities of race and religion, from the memories of past wrongs artificially kept alive, nor from the various anomalies in the state of society which these concurrent causes, acting on the peculiarities of our national character, have produced here. The great difficulty has arisen from the fact that, behind all these forces, there was one still more formidable, that they were all but instruments in the hands of Rome in carrying on the contest with Pro- testant England. This contest has been carried on with varying success from time to time, but for a good while with a constantly relaxed energy on the part of ^England, and with a steady advance, and recently a rapid advance, in energy, on the part of Rome. And at length that great power has pre- vailed. The contest is for the present at an end, and this country at least is to be really governed by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and Clergy. What the result will be to our civil and religious liberties we may read in history, — in full assurance that however the result of Romish rule may be mitigated in form and mode, and in minor particulars little affecting its substance, the thing that hath been, that is the thing that shall he. This prospect of the future of Ireland is one which may well fill the stoutest heart with dismay. 80 CONCLUSION. "When 8ucli fears are sent to us, we are tempted to turn for relief from them rather to man than to God. But He has Himself graciously guarded us from any such abuse of the trial in this case, by taking awaj'' from us all the human supports on which we have been accustomed to lean. The attachment of England to its friends in this country, the Protestant feeling of England, the English love of justice, all have proved broken reeds in the day of trial. And painful as the conviction of their worthlessness has been, we have reason to be thankful for it, or for any thing that drives us to cease from man, and to make God Himself alone our trust. We know that when we seem to be given over defenceless to our enemies, we and they are as much as ever absolutely in His hands ; and that when the powers of this world and of the Prince of the world seem to be let loose against His people in irresistible strength, it is only to do what ffis hand and His counsel determined before to be done. May we find in this great truth the strength and comfort which it is fitted to yield to us in the time of trial. And in saying this I do not mean that it warrants us in indulging any confident expectation that our Church shall escape the heavy blow which seems impending over it. I should regard it as great presumption to draw any such conclusion from this certain truth. For though we cannot doubt that the Reformed Church has been placed here by His will as the Esta- blished Church of the country, not only to teach the truth to those who submitted to its teaching, but to bear testimony to the truth for those who rejected its teaching ; and though we may humbly trust that however weakly it has borne this testimony, it has in the main borne it faithfully ; — and we may at least thankfully hope that it has not been unfaithful to its duty, through the fear of man, that it has not held back the truth committed to it, or adulterated it, or softened it, to avert the wrath of man or to win his favour, — yet still we cannot but feel painfully that it is chargeable with too many shortcomings in its work, to allow us to expect with any confidence that it will be thought worthy to be continued in its high office on any ground of its past services. And, indeed, independently of any such reason for apprehension that we may be set aside, it would be foolish presumption to imagine that we can so scan the counsels of the Most High CONCLUSION. 81 • as to forecast wliat His decision will be in this case. Even if tlie Cliurcli had not earned her dismissal by failures and shortcomings in the work assigned to her, we could not presume to say that it may not be His good pleasure, in the accomplishment of His wise designs for the country, to with- draw her from the post in which He has hitherto maintained her. And whenever it is plain that such is His will, I trust we shall not be found to resist it or murmur against it. I hope that we feel that the place of our Church before God is with her hand upon her mouth, and her mouth in the dust. But I trust that we are not acting inconsistently with this feeling, to maintain a firm front and a firm tone towards her enemies, persecutors, and slanderers, and resolutely to resist all attempts to thrust her froaa the post which she has so long held, as we believe according to God's will, until it is made very clear that it is His will that she should hold it no longer. And — to avoid all ambiguity in a matter in which it is important that the supporters of the Church should be clearly understood — I wish to say distinctly, that I shall feel that we have conclusive evidence that such is His will, if the State in the legitimate and constitutional form of an Act of the Legislature disestablishes and disendows the Church. And I trust that the same will be seen to be the feeling of the great mass of the defenders of the Church, though, under the natural impulse of strong indignation, some of them have expressed themselves differently. I trust, and am sure that the Church is prepared meekly to submit to His wise will, whenever it is thus made known to her, to descend from the place which she has hitherto occupied, to take without murmuring whatever other place He may assign to her, and only to be anxious that she may have grace and power to honour and serve Him in the new position that He has appointed for her. The Church, after all such changes in her outward circum- stances as Parliaments can efiect, will remain still the same — the same in her constitution and doctrine and worship. She will not bear the same relation to the State ; but her relation to God will . be unchanged. And all the important duties growing out of that relation will remain the same. We shall not be released from the duty, or deprived of the privilege, of bearing witness to the truth as we have hitherto 82 CONCLUSION. done. The duty will be much harder. No one, indeed, can venture to say how hard it may become. But, howeyer hard it may be, and however weak we are, if we ask Him whose strength is made perfect in weakness, to give us strength to discharge it, doubtless we shall receive what we ask. And so His Church in this land may be enabled to glorify Grod more, and may be therefore itself more blessed and honoured in adversity, and, if such be His will, in suffering, than it ever has been in its days of prosperity and ease. THE END. OILBBBT AND EIVIN&TON, PBINTEES, ST. JOHN'S SQUABB, LONDON. BT THE SAME AUTHOR. THE loASE THE ESTABLISHED CHUECH IN IRELAND. THIRD EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX. 8vo, 2». Qd. The Appendix may also be had separately, 1«. ALSO, THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMBNT OP VSB lEISH BEANCH OF THE UNITED CHUECH CONSIDERED. Paet I. EFFECTS, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE. TBIRD EDITION. 8vo, 1«. RIVINGTONS, LoNDOK, Oxfobd, and Cambeidgb. GEOBGE HERBERT, Dttbliit. THE APPENDIX THE DISESTABIJISHMBNT AND DISENDOWMENT OP THE lEISH BEANCH OF THE UNITED GHUECH, CONSIDEREI). By jambs THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. BISHOP OF 08aOB.Y, PEAKS, AND LEIGHLZK. WITS A PBUFACE Am) TASLJEl OF CONTENTS. WATERLOO PLACK, LONDON; HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, DUBLIN. 1869, THE APPENDIX THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT OF THE lEISH BEANOH OF THE UNITED GHUKCH, CONSIDERED. By JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. BISHOP or OSSORY, FERNS, AND LEIGHLIN. WITH A PMEFACE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. WATERLOO PLA.CE, LONDON; HIGH STREET, OXFORD; TRINITY STREET, CAMBRIDGE. GEORGE HERBERT, DUBLIN. 1869. PREFACE. It is a long time since a defender of the Irisli Church could hope that any thing put forward in its behalf, whether in the way of fact or argument, could obtain a reversal of the sentence passed upon it, or even a reconsideration of the grounds upon which it has been passed. Doubt is an uncomfortable state of mind, and men are very reluctant to look back upon the way by which they have escaped from it, under a secret, though it may be an unacknowledged fear, that the retrospect may furnish reason to retrace their steps. But even when the grounds are reconsidered, the actual result is, that, however insufficient they are, the sentence is much oftener con- firmed than reversed. Some have condemned the Church upon no better ground than that it is every where spoken against. But this will appear still to many a sufficient reason. For though every one enters into the absurdity of the rustic's voting for the banishment of Aristides, because he was tired of hearing him every where praised, the vote, it seems, would not be generally thought unreasonable, if it had been given because the voter was tired of hearing the patriot every where abused. Others, however, have not come to a decision against the Church upon any such in- secure grounds. Their condemnation of it rests upon facts, — facts openly stated, — stated repeatedly, — upon the hustings, in Parliament, and in the public papers. All who have fol- lowed the course of the war against the Church, know some- thing of the nature of these ^cfc ; and, indeed, I may venture a2 IV PREFACE. to say, that those who have read my former Pamphlet of the Case of the Irish Established Church, are aware that they have been contradicted and disproved from the first ; and again and again since, as often as they have been repeated. But many have read only on one side, and have never seen these con- tradictions and refutations. And it is in vain now that you offer them, and earnestly press upon them proofs that the alleged facts are groundless calumnies or monstrous exaggera- tions. Their siege is written. And light as was the labour that the work cost them, compared with what ought to have been expended upon it, they are very unwilling that their labour should be lost, and still more unwilKng to go through it again. In every case in which a controversy has lasted a long time, causes of this kind are in action to make it very hard to persuade those who have taken one side to give a fair hearing to the arguments in support of the other. But there is something more in the present case. Besides- the dread of being thrown back into the uneasiness of doubt, or of having to go through labour that seemed well over, there is an additional difficulty in this case arising from its very peculiar circumstances. The state of Ireland has long offered a very perplexing spectacle. The discontent, and disorder, and turbulence which are occasional in other countries, are its normal condition; and the more that is done to restore peace in the land, the farther does it seem from attaining that great blessing. However widely the calm prevails, it never reaches the still-vexed Bermoothes. It is not surprising that there should be a general dis- position to welcome any solution of this strange pheno- menon, and more especially one which professes to trace it to a single cause. So that, when men have been brought to regard the Church of the minority as the cause of all the calamities and disorders of Ireland^ they can hardly be expected to lend a ready ear to any arguments, the object of which is to disturb a theory which set at rest so many PREFACE. V painful perplexities. The first preachers of Christianity had from the beginning many difficulties in engaging the ancient Romans in a consideration of the proofs which they ofiered of its truth. But their difficulties must have been greatly increased, when the masters of the world were led to ascribe every calamity that befell the City or the Empire to the malign influences of the hated sect. Why should they engage in an inquiry which might send them to look for some other cause of every thing untoward as it arose, and deprive them of the simple and easy remedy of Chris- tianos ad leonem ? But those upon whom the duty of preach- ing the truth was laid persevered in the discharge of it, notwithstanding all these difficulties : and in spite of them all, they at last succeeded. The defenders of the Church have no right to promise themselves that their labours will have the like issue. But it is not the less their duty to carry them on as long as there is any room to hope that they can be of any use. We seem, however, to have reached the point at which there is no purpose in continuing them any longer. The date at which this Appendix appears shows sufficiently that it is not published in the hope of doing any thing to defeat the wicked and violent measure to which it refers. In fact it was clear, even before the Second Part was published, that nothing that could be said would produce any direct impression upon the majority in the House of Commons, who were determined on the destruction of the Church, or even upon the great mass of the people outside, who were evidently carried away by one of those temporary fits of insanity which must be allowed to run their course to the end. But I felt that I had a sufficient motive for completing the Pamphlet and publishing it, in the hope that it will furnish a vindication of the Church which it was too late to defend. I am glad to leave a record of the case of the Church on the one hand, and of the unscrupulous and violent proceedings to which it has fallen a victim on the other. The madness which possesses VI PBEFACE. the people will pass away, and a time for reflection and repentance will come. And it is a satisfaction to my mind to believe, ttat when that time arrives, there will be found in this, and my former publication in its defence, some con- tribution towards obtaining tardy justice for our calumniated, wronged, and persecuted Church. Upon the policy which has led to the present calamitous state of things as regards Ireland, and upon the prospects which lie before England as the result of this policy, I have spoken very strongly in the present publication ; but not more strongly, and hardly more distinctly, than I did eighteen j'ears ago, when what was called Papal Aggression for a time roused the indignation of England, and seemed to have awakened her in some degree to what she had to dread and to guard against from Rome. And though I feel it is not con- venient to extend this Preface, yet it is so apposite to present circumstances and prospects, that I am tempted to add an extract from the answer that I returned to an Address from my Clergy at that time. "But amidst all the satisfaction with which we must have received such unequivocal proofs that the faith of the mass of the English people is still sound, there has been not a little to inspire apprehensions that they have not fully learned the lesson which the recent occurrences seemed so fitted to teach them. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of their attachment to the principles of the Reformation, which they have so strongly ex- pressed, and their value for the blessings which they enjoy in the sound faith and pure worship which the Reformation has secured to them. But there seems some reason to fear that they are not yet ftilly emancipated from the error of regarding the Reformed religion which they have received as a benefit which brought with it no duties, and involved no responsibilities, — as a possession which they might guard jealously for them- selves, and yet sufier others to be robbed of, — as something to be cherished and protected in their own land, and discouraged and oppressed in other parts of the Empire. And if this be the case, or in whatever measure it is the case, we may be sure that PREFACE. VU they do not really enter into the true nature of the blessing, or into the purposes of God in bestowing it on them. "Again, their detestation of Roman doctrines and practices, and their determination to resist every attempt to bring back the tyranny of Rome, have been so unequivocally expressed as to leave no room for doubting the sincerity of those feelings, and the strength of that determination, as regards themselves. But what has been said and written upon , this subject, speak- ing generally, has been very far from making it equally clear that they do not still cleave to their old error, — that they can restrain Romanism in England, and at the same time foster, and cherish, and strengthen it every where else. And if this be still their view, it is certain that they do not yet understand what Romanism is, and that they are equally far from under- standing the duties which God has laid upon England with respect to it. " In fact, amidst all the strong indignation which this aggres- sion has called forth from the people, it has not been easy to discern any disposition to trace the outrage to themselves, as in any measure to blame foi- it. The language of self-reproach and self-humiliation has been seldom heard. One has looked in vain for any distinct acknowledgment that it was their own unfaithfulness to their high duties which had given strength and confidence to Rome. And while this is the case, there can be no certainty that the short-sighted, selfish policy which has already inflicted such deep injury on the country, and involved every thing that we most prize in such imminent danger, may not be again pursued, — no certainty that the nation, which has risen so promptly to resist Rome, may not be satisfied with obtaining a few enactments to restrain the more ofiensive outward demonstrations of Roman arrogance, which have provoked its indignation, and then subside again into its former state of security as regards itself, and apathy with respect to others ; while the course of favouring and encou- raging Romanism, and discouraging and depressing Protes- tantism here, is continued ; or, it may be, carried to more de- structive extremes, to propitiate the resentment which the restraints on Rome in England will excite. And who can tell whether, if the people fall again into this sinful lethargy, from which they have but just awakened, they may not be again roused from it only to see the National Church irretrievably VIU PltEFACE. corrupted and enfeebled, and Rome rising in resistless strength to take possession of the land ? "Many will deride such fears as too utterly visionary to be seriously argued with. But no sober man will be so disposed to treat them, when he considers, that thirty years ago the anticipation of what Rome now is, politically and religiously, in this mighty Empire, would have been equally regarded as an idle fancy, — and apparently with more reason ; for, great as is the advance upon its present position, which would give- Romanism the predominance in the country, it seems less diffi- cult than that which, in those few years, has brought it to its present position. And those who think with me that the past advance has mainly arisen from that course of public policy under which Protestantism has been lowered and weakened, and Romanism has been elevated and strengthened, — under which, as has been lately stated by a Roman Catholic divine, ' every session of each successive Parliament has produced laws favourable to the increase of [Roman] Catholicity and decrease of Protestantism,' — will look upon the further advance, which would give Rome the ascendency in Church and State, as, humanly speaking, the inevitable result of the same policy, if the same be still pursued. " We have great reason to pray that this fatal policy may be changed ; great reason for our- own sakes, and still greater for the sake of England, " But if England, to keep her own branch of the Church safe, surrender ours to the will of its enemies, — if she seek to purchase immunity for herself from the attacks of Rome, by giving over Ireland more entirely to its dominion, — if she abandon the defence of Protestantism here, to avoid a nearer contest with Romanism upon her own soil, — can we doubt that she will incur the deep displeasure of God, — that such a course must lead, as it has hitherto led, to disastrous disappointment ; and that, if persevered in, it must end in degradation and ruin ? " And yet it is impossible to disguise from ourselves that the danger that such a course will be taken by England at this time is veiy great. There are many of her public men who think lightly, or not at all, of the spiritual blessings which the Reformation brought to the country, who yet value it for its connexion with civil liberty and all the temporal advantages PREFACE. IX which follow in its train, and who look upon the good which it has brought, not as the gift of God to the nation, and to be preserved to it by His favour, but as the fruit of the wisdom and the resolution of their forefathers, and to be kept by the arms by which it was won. These all would scoff at the notion that England has any duties connected with the Reformation, except to keep for herself the benefits which it has bestowed upon her ; and will press upon her, that if, in a spirit of re- ligious Quixotism, she has taken up any office which imposes upon her any wider duties with reference to it, it is her true wisdom at once to lay it down, — to be satisfied with preserving the lleformed religion in her own land, where it is strong, and not to endanger the peace and prosperity of her Empire by a desperate attempt to uphold it where it is weak. Such is the advice which will be urgently pressed upon her by the most self-confident, and the most clamorous, and the most persevering of her counsellors. But, on the other hand, we have the com- fort of knowing that there are not a few to withstand such evil advisers. I believe that there are in the nation not a few who fear God, above all, and who would tremble for their country if she gave ear to such counsel, lest she should bring down upon herself the fate of that •profane person who sold his birthright, and who repented too late, when he found that, with the birthright which he despised, ■ he had lost the blessing which he valued. They will earnestly strive against such pernicious counsel, and humbly pray that it may be rejected. And let our prayers be joined with theirs, that God may be pleased to turn aside from the people, whom He has so highly favoured, the evil which threatens them ; and mercifully grant that they may both perceive and Tcnow what things they ought to do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to fulfil the same! "And for ourselves, my brethren, may He vouchsafe, in like manner, to enlighten us, that we may see His will, and to give us strength to perform it ! May He enable Us to hold fast the truth which He lias given us ; to be watchful, and patient, and diligent, to the end." CONTENTS. PART I. Preface ......... Disestablishment and Disendowment, new words standing for new things ....... 1 Effects little realized, and require to be pointed out . 2 Inadequate notions of effects of Disestablishment, corrected ......... 2 — 9 Further effects. Appendix, Note A . . . . (1) Disendowment omitted in the Resolutions, to catch those who were opposed to it, though favourable to Disestablishment ....... 9 — 11 Further examples of similar management. Foot-note . ib. Effects of Disendowment underrated. Reason explained 12,13 Success of the Roman Catholic Church upon the Voluntary System, erroneously regarded a proof, a fortiori, that the Reformed Church will succeed . 13, 14 Supposed advantages of Reformed Church in Ireland and real disadvantages 14 — 17 Confirmed by experience of English Protestant Dis- senters, and Irish Roman Catholics . . . . 15 Further confirmation from experience of Episcopal Church in Scotland. Foot-note . . . . 16, 17 Advantages of the Roman Catholic Church, arising from its circumstances ....... 14 — 17 From its principles 17 — 21 Both advantages unfairly overlooked by Mr. Gladstone in the debate on the Irish Church, 1867. Foot-note . 21 — 23 Further example of his unfairness in same debate. Appendix, Note C (5) Real prospects of the Reformed Church under the Voluntary System 23 — 31 XU CONTENTS. PAGE Effects of the measiire in towns ..... 23, 24 Effects in the country ....... 25 — 31 Effects upon the qualifications and character of the Clergy. Appendix, Note D . . ... (8) Earl Russell's characteristic view of the effects of the measure ......... 31 — 33 Additional example of his unfairness in reference to the Church. Appendix, Note F . . . (37) Effects will extend beyond Ireland, and beyond the Church ......... 33 Objection : Injustice must be redressed, whatever be the consequences. Principle admitted, alleged fact of injustice denied ....... 34, 35 [Disproved. Part H 14 — 32] Overthrow of Church Establishment in England must follow that of Ireland, whether it be overthrown as the Church of the minority ..... 39 — 42 Or on the principle of religious equality . . . 42 — 49 Church Establishments in Wales and Scotland probably abolished first 36, 37 Religious inequalities once abolished, social inequalities will be next assailed ...... 50 — 55 Probable course of the attack . . . . . 55 — 60 Probable conduct of the present Anti-Church party, with reference to the war against social inequality . 60 — 63 Fallacy of the reasoning employed to allay such fears . 63 — 66 Practical inference from the whole .... 66, 67 PART II. Reasonableness of practical conclusion, with which Part I. ends 1 — 3 Strongly enforced by the character of the Bill, which had become known in the interval. Foot-note . . 2 — 5 Reasons for abolition of Irish Church Establishment classed under five heads 4 First : The Church a heavy burden on the impovei-ished country, from which it derives an enormous revenue. Answered ...... . . 4 — 7 Gross exaggeration on this point by Cardinal Cullen, stated and exposed by Sir R. Peel. Foot-note . . 5, 6 Second : A mass of gross abuses, which ought to be swept away. Answered 7 — 14 CONTENTS. Xlll PAGE Third : It is a gross injustice to the people of Ireland. Shown to be a hollow cry, founded upon mistakes ; mistake in principle ....... 15 — 26 Mistakes as to facts ....... 26 — 31 Mr. Gladstone's claim to Mr. Pitt's authority for his policy is founded upon a false inference from a false • statement of facts. Proved in Note K, Appendix . (52) Fourth: The maintenance of. the Irish Church a source of discord and weakness to England on the Con- tinent — the Foreign Friend Argument ... 32 Causes which have given effect to this reason . . 33, 34 Utter worthlessness and dishonesty of it . . . . 34 — 37 Fifth : Abolition of Irish Church Establishment necessary for the pacification of Ireland ... 37 Baseness of acting on this reason, even if it were well founded ' . 38, 39 Sinfulness of acting upon it . . . . . . 39 — 42 Sacrifice would be utterly unavailing for its purpose . 42, 43 Proofs from Roman Catholic authorities Address of Tenant Right Society of the County of Meath 43—45 Explanation of Address by its authors, showing that it has been universally misinterpreted, and what its true meaning is. Foot-note ...... 44, 45 Declaration in The Tablet, that redressing Religious inequality will be of no use, unless social inequality be also redressed ........ 46 Remarks upon the complaint of the late Editor of The Tablet, that this declaration has been unfairly used. Foot-note 46, 47 Reasons for redressing social inequalities no less urgent than those for redressing religious inequalities. . . 48, 49 Mr. Gladstone's inflammatory harangue on Protestant Ascendency (Wigan, Oct. 1868) .... 50 It gives an utterly false view of the actual state of things in Ireland 51 — 55 The Law of the Succession to the Throne, a branch of Protestant Ascendency ...... 55 It cannot be intended that it should be destroyed when the noxious tree is cut down. How is it to be spared ?......... 55, 56 The superiority of Protestants in position and property is doubtless a branch which is to be taken away . 56 — 59 XIV CONTENTS. PAGE Mode of effecting the operation not explained by Mr. Gladstone 59 Question partly answered by Mr. Bright's land scheme for Ireland 60—62 Mr. Gladstone's explanation of the scheme not re- assuring ......... 62, 63 Obvious objection to it re-stated by Earl Russell . . 63 Invidious position in which it would place the State . 63, 64 Mode of getting over the objection .... 64, 65 Another mode suggested in Foot-note .... 65 Necessary effects 66 — 78 It must extend over the whole kingdom ... 66 This cannot be done without violence .... 66 — 78 Even if peacefully effected, would be a retrograde movement into the Cottier-tenant System, with some aggravations 70 — 72 Sir Comewall Lewis on the evils of that system . . 72 Mr. Bright's settlement of the Land Question, a fit sequel to Mr. Gladstone's settlement of the Church Question 73 — 75 The state of Ireland specially ill-fitted to bear either . 75 England bears the same relation to both measures, and is likely to be affected by both in the same way . 75 — 77 Conclusion 77 — 82 APPENDIX. PART L Note A, p. 9. — Further Effects of Disestablishment upon the Church and the State . . . . . . (1) Note B, p. 15. — Unequal Operation of the Voluntary System (from Spiritual Despotism) (3) Note C, p. 23. — Additional Example of Mr. Gladstone's Unfairness in the same Debate ..... (5) Note D, p. 26. — Effects of Disendowment upon the Cha- racter of the Clergy , (8) CONTENTS. XV PAGE Note E, p. 29. — Plans for the Restoration of some of its Property to the Church Disestablished — Mr. Lowe, Mr. Bright, Earl Russell, Mr. Gladstone . . ■ (10) Note F, p. 33. — Another Example of Lord Russell's Un- fairness towards the Church in Ireland . . • (37) PART II. Note G, p. 3. — Extract from Author's Address at the Opening of his Diocesan Synod ..... (42) Note H, p. 8. — On the Share which Anonymous Jour- nalism has had in the Overthrow of the Irish Church Establishment (45) Note I, p. 17. — On Prescription according to Roman Catholic Authorities ....... (48) Note K, p. 31. — On Mr. Gladstone's Claim to Mr. Pitt's Authority in support of his Measure .... (52) Note L, p. 56. — On the State of Education in Ireland as a Branch of Mr. Gladstone's towering Tree of Pro- testant Ascendency (57) Note M, p. 73. — Testimony as to the feelings with which the Sacrifice of the Church as a Peace-offering has been received in Ireland (61) APPENDIX. Note A, Part I., p. 9. Further Effects of Disestablishment upon the Church and State. In the slight glance which I have taken at this extensive and important subject in the text, I have been led, as regards the effects of Disestablishment upon the Church, to confine myself to the injury which both clergy and laity will suffer from the withdrawal of the legal jurisdiction of the Bishops ; and, as regards the effects of Disestablishment upon the State, to some of the necessary evil consequences of the Abolition of the Supremacy of the Crown in Ireland. But this leaves some most important matters under both heads entirely unnoticed. I have said nothing of the disadvan- tageous position in which it will place the Clergy, with respect to their work, as compared with that which they at present hold ; and yet this will inflict an injury upon the Church, which, if it be not as great as that which it will suffer from the loss of the Bishops' jurisdiction, is certainly quite serious enough to deserve a place very near to it. And in like manner, I have passed over the guilt which the State will incur by deliberately withdrawing the public homage which it has hitherto offered to Almighty God, through the maintenance of the Church, by which it publicly acknow- ledges His Sovereignty, and its own dependence upon Him, and publicly asks for His guidance and blessing, in the exercise of the great powers which He has committed to it. B (2) Note A, Part I., p. 9. This, I say, I have passed over in the place referred to in the text, though compared with the guilt thus incurred by the State, I hold the loss and injury which the abandonment of the Queen's Supremacy in Ireland will inflict, however serious it be, to be a very light thing. But this omission I have in some degree supplied in what I have said farther on in the text— Part II., p. 17—26, Of the Duty of the State as regards the Establishment of the Church. For right appre- hensions of this duty will furnish a measure of the guilt of neglecting it, and of the still greater guilt of abandoning it and renouncing it, after having acknowledged it and dis- charged it for a time. And with this, as regards this point, I must be content. As regards the other omission, — that with respect to the disadvantage to which it will put the Clergy, — I can do nothing here to supply it ; but I wish to note it distinctly as one of which I am fully aware, and to suggest a way of repairing it, which my readers may take for themselves. In the Charge from which I have quoted in the place just re- ferred to in Part II., in speaking of the controversy upon the question " of the utility of an Established Church, regarded as means of maintaining and promoting religion in a nation," I refer for general principles to Dr. Chalmer's "Lectures on Religious Establishments," in preference to any other authority with which I was acquainted '. And I wish now to repeat the reference to the work, as one in which sound views upon the general question of Church Establishments are stated with great clearness and power. And on the present subject, of the advantages which the Ministers of an Established Church possess as regards their work, I would point out especially Chapter V., On a Territorial Establishment, and the Reasons of its Efficacy. ' The following is the reference to it in the Charge : — " Many writers of our own Church have treated the various parts of the controversy between us and Dissenters with great success. But upon the general question of the beneficial tendencies of Religious Endowments, I know no one who has written so ably and con- clusively as the great light and ornament of Presbyterianism in our own day, now, alas ! no more, in his Essay On the Use and Abuse of Literary and Ecclesiastical Endowments; and in his Christian and Civic Economy, vol. i. chap, iii." — Charge, 1848, p. 82, note. Note B, Part T., p. 15. (3) Note B, Pakt I., p. 15. On the unequal operation of the Voluntary System (from Spikitual Despotism). The following is the passage promised from Isaac Taylor. The work from which it is taken would supply not a few passages of great interest and importance upon this point as well as upon a good many others ; but as my Notes have become more numerous than I originally intended, I must content myself with this single extract : — " Theories apart, and the lessons of experience duly regarded; or, in other words, Church history looked into for practical uses, there appears reason to distrust what is termed the voluntai'y principle in relation to Church revenues, on the two opposite grounds, of its inadequacy, and of its exuberance ; or its slug- gishness in some respects, and its extravagance in others. During one and the same period, and within one and the same circle, this mode of maintaining the clergy has failed to propagate and to support Christianity; and yet has suffocated piety by its profusion; it has not been less niggardly than prodigal. " If we desire, as undoubtedly we ought, to stimulate this power in a safe manner, and to turn it into auspicious channels, we should form a sober and exact estimate of its real efficiency, and of its necessary limits. This estimate can be formed on no other ground than that of experience ; and if the hollow croaking voice of antiquity will not gain our ear, we must turn to facts under our eye. These (as we assume) make it evident that a capital, and, as it seems, an irremediable defect attaches to the voluntary system, first, in relation to the classes of the community it affects ; and secondly, in relation to the purposes to which it may be made to apply. " For the fii-st. The voluntary principle, as hitherto it has deve- loped its powers, takes effect upon the several orders of the com- munity in no just proportions; or rather in no proportion at all; for while the middle and lower ranks yield themselves to its influence, the opulent and the noble are scarcely touched by it. On all subjects of public interest,^the former are seen to be vastly more liable to be wrought upon by natural excitements than the latter ; the latter, indeed, hardly in any sensible degree ; and it must be confessed that the virtues of self-denying sympathy, and substantial generosity, expand in a much more vigorous and healthy manner among those who themselves are every day contending with the difficulties of a common lot, than the B2 (4) Note B, Part I., p. 16. pampered cliildren of pleasure and security. No motive that has hitherto been brought to bear upon human nature has availed to make the rich liberal after the proportion of the poor. " It hence follows that, if the support of the ministers of religion were left entirely to the spontaneous feeUngs of the people, no equitable proportion of ability would be observed between the wealthy and the indigent. If the spiritual wants of a country are to be fully supplied, a burden beyond endurance and fatal to the general prosperity, would be thrown upon the middle classes and upon the poor. It would be the noble-spirited artisan, the liberal shopkeeper, the generous yeoman, who would raise the minister's fund ; while just gold enough to save appearances — a peppercorn contribution would be all that would come from the heap of the opulent. In the present state of public senti- ment, or in any state which the world or the Church has hitherto exhibited, or seems likely to exhibit, nothing less than an impost not to be evaded, and which should in a fair manner dive into the rich man's bags, will avail to throw the maintenance of the clergy, in any just proportion, upon the public wealth, or prevent its falling, with a ruinous pressure, upon the industrious and the poor. " If we may take the actual working of this voluntary principle among the English Dissenters as our guide in estimating its merits, we see it resting upon the communitjps that use it with eveiy sort of disadvantageous inequality. Not here to speak of those ill consequences of this system which affect the clerical mind and temper, we find the salaries of the ministers (a few cases excepted) to be drawn chiefly from the pious liberality and affection of the humble and necessitous, while the opulent Dis- senter satisfies his sense of justice by paying for as many inches of pew-room as he and his family mathematically have need of; and in doing so, calmly sees his chosen spiritual guide — a man of piety and of as much more sensibility as learning than himself, broken in heart by the embarrassments of an insulficient income. The enormous disparities and disproportions that attach to this method of supporting the ministry, would be enough to bring its eligibility into suspicion. " But again, a disproportion of another kind attends this same system; for inasmuch as Congregationalism insulates each chapel- society, and leaves each to bear its burden as it may, it follows that while the large congregations of great towns and cities raise the salaries of their ministers with no difficulty on the part of the individual contributors, the small congregations of lesser towns and of rural districts groan under a burden, often of the most afflictive weight, and yet, with all their generous efforts, fail to afford to a worthy and esteemed pastor the ordinary comforts of life " (pp. 60—63). Note 0, Part I., p. 23. (5) Note 0, Part I., p. 23. Additional example of Mr. Gladstone's unfairness in the same Debate. The debate referred to (May 8, 1867) was upon a motion by Sir John Gray for an inquiry into the state of the Irish Church, and in the course of his speech the mover, having given a tolerably full statement of the revenues of the Church, added the following fact for the information of the House and the country : — " It was a curious fact that though the Established Church in Ireland possessed a large revenue, no less than 6700/. a year was paid by the State for the celebration of its services. The clerks, sextons, organists, organ-blowers, organ-tuners, and even the fuel for warming the churches were paid for by the State." All who read this statement in ignorance of the real facts of the case will of course suppose that this supplement to the Church's large revenue comes from the State, either in the shape of an annual Parliamentary vote, or of a fixed charge on the Consolidated Fund. And it might seem enough to say in reply, that in neither of these ways, nor in any other, does the State contribute to the Church-objects enumerated, to the amount of one farthing. But though this would be enough to remove the false impression which this misstate- ment is calculated to produce, it would convey a very in- adequate conception of the extent to which the " curious fact " alleged goes beyond a simple falsehood. Nothing can do this so effectually as a plain statement of the source from which the sum in question is actually derived. The items of Church expenditure enumerated in the speech were formerly provided for by a tax upon each parish, known by the name of Church Cess. The whole sum received for these and other church purposes was voted in Vestry, and was levied off the land by an acreable applotment, according to its value, without any distinction as to the religious de- nomination to which the owner belonged. Though this was in strict accordance with the theory of .a Church Establish- (6) Note C, Part I., p. 23. ment, it was felt to be a great hardship by Dissenters, and their discontent was often manifested in very inconvenient forms. At last it was thought right to relieve them from this impost. Church Cess was abolished by Act of ParKa- ment, and a fund was created to supply its place. This fund was derived, first from the incomes of eight of the Bishoprics which, as they became vacant, were to be united to others ; secondly, from the incomes of a considerable number of benefices, falling under a certain description, the appointment to which was to be suspended as they became vacant ; and lastly, from a tax upon all the remaining Bishoprics, and upon all livings of the value of 300^. per annum and upwards. The fund thus formed was vested in the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners, and was made subject to all the charges which had been theretofore provided for by the Church Cess. In the discharge of the duty thus laid upon them, the Ecclesias- tical Commissioners pay annually out of this fund for the various objects for which formerly payment was levied upon the parish by vote of vestry, and among them for the objects enumerated by Sir John Gray. So that the truth is not merely that the State does not pay, or contribute one farthing towards the payment of, the salaries of Church officers, or of the cost of the requisites for Divine Service, or of the cost of lighting and heating the churches, but that all such expenses are defrayed from a purely Ecclesiastical fund — a fund derived entirely, as I described, from the revenues of the Church — and one, moreover, which was actually created out of the Church revenues for the very object of relieving the public in general, and especially the Eoman Catholic and Protestant Dissenting public, from the obligation under which they pre- viously lay of contributing to such expenses ! "When this is considered, I think it must be felt that this "curious fact" is a curiously complicated and aggra- vated falsehood. But if the original author of the state- ment alone were concerned in it, it would be little worth dwelling upon at such length. The members of the House of CommoDs who owe their seats to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and Clergy can only hope to retain them as long as they do the work for which they were chosen, and carry on hostilities against the Church in Ireland, per fas et nefas. And when they put forward calumnies, however gross, against the Note C, Part I., p. 23. (7) Church, there will never be wantiiig lenient moralists, ready to grant them the licence which the witty knight claims for those who are labouring in their vocation. But when those who cannot plead the same bad excuse join in this discreditable work, few will be disposed to grant them the same indulgence. In the present case, if any member referred to this most aggravated misrepresentation, unless he held his seat by the same hard tenure as the author of it, it would be expected, I think, that, however hostile to the Church in Ireland he were, he would show some anxiety to guard himself from the guilt and discredit of any com- plicity in carrying on the war against her with such unlawful weapons. It could not therefore but be matter of surprise, when one occupying the high position of leader of the Opposi- tion came forward to lend the weight of his authority to this complicated fabrication. Mr. Gladstone is reported to have said in reference to a suggestion for an inquiry into the revenues of the Church, with a view to a better distribution of them, " Now, from his point of view, that proposition ap- peared to me to be sound. He thinks we might redistribute the Church property, and take tithes from Connaught to apply them to Dublin or Belfast. He would do this to enable the Clergy in the latter places, as my hon. friend the member for Kilkenny says, to put fuel in the churches to keep them warm, while the people of Connaught have to find fuel for the Roman Catholic churches in that province by the sweat of their brow. My hon. friend the member for Kilkenny said that the State was finding fuel for the Protestant churches in Ireland. Sir, I fear that the State is not only finding fuel for the Establishment, but feeding a great many other flames. (Cheers.)" No one can doubt, I suppose, that when Mr. Gladstone descended to utter this sorry jest, he knew as well as any man, in or out of the House, not merely that the statement of his hon. friend the member for Kilkenny was entirely untrue, but how very far it went beyond a simple false statement, and that, knowing this, he should have thus con- firmed and adopted it, is certainly among the mdst melancholy of the many proofs that have been given, that in carrying on the warfare against the Church in Ireland every principle of fairness and truth is forgotten, and that the end of injuring (8) Note D, Part I., p. 26. that Institution sanctifies all means of every kind whicli seem likely to accomplish the object. Note D, Part I., p. 26. Effects of Disendowment upon the Character of the Clergy. There can be no doubt that the kind of provision which would be made for the maintenance of the mLuistry, in the immediate neighbourhood of the landed proprietors, would be better than the utter spiritual destitution which the measure would inflict upon the members of the Church in remote and wild districts. Still it is a mode of maintaining the ministry, on which every thoughtful friend of the Church must look with very sad anticipations, not only as to its insufficiency to supply the wants of the laity, but also as to its ultimate results as regards the character of the clergy. Even if the stipends were more liberal in such places than they would be likely in general to be, they would be wholly or principally the contribution of the squire of the parish ; and as a neces- sary consequence the office must be held expressly or virtually during his good pleasure. Under such circumstances the position of a clergyman would be so disadvantageously changed that the place would only be accepted by men of inferior character or qualifications. Those whose talents and character gave them any prospect of employment in England, where the tenure of the office continued unaltered, or even in towns in Ireland where, though not one of perfect independence, it was not one of such direct dependence upon the pleasure of an individual, would gradually withdraw themselves from rural districts ; and in all the posts which were thus abandoned or declined, the social position of the clergy would be lowered, their influence in private diminished, and the efiect of their public ministry impaired. What I have said of this process of declension is not merely a theoretical sketch. It was practically exhibited in England for a considerable period, in which many possessors of small livings eked out their insufficient incomes by adding to them the emoluments of the office of Chaplain to the squire of the parish, or some other great man who indulged in that luxury; Note D, Part I., p. 26. (9) while some derived their support altogether from that office, wliich though not highly paid, always secured a maintenance in the household. It was sometimes held by men whose talents and force of character secured them respect and weight ; but of itself it hardly raised the divine who enjoyed it to the rank of an upper servant in the establishment. There were always, chiefly -at the Universities and in the capital, some bright exceptions to the general degradation of the Clergy, and none brighter than when the degradation was most general and deepest. But as for the ordinary character of the Clergy, every one acquainted with the works of fiction of the day — the plays and novels — which in every country exhibit so much of the manners and prevailing feeling of their time, knows that a clergyman is hardly ever introduced except under some ludicrous aspect, as a coarse clown, or a simple pedant, a TrulUber or a Parson Adams*. How steadily the laity must have gone down with the Clergy it is unneces- sary to say ; and it is equally unnecessary to say how much more there was in England at all times to prevent this descent than there is in Ireland. It is more necessary to remark that all that I have been saying, unfavourable as is the prospect which it holds out, does not extend beyond the time that the present race of clergymen would be available. After that the prospects are still darker. Comparatively few young men would probably be prepared for the ministry. Speaking generally, the parents and older friends who determine the way of life of the young would not allow them to choose a profession which was so lowered, and which, even as it is, maintains rather an unequal contest with other professions for the rising youth of the country. And what is also of infinite importance, the present excellent Divinity School in which our Clergy are trained could hardly be maintained, certainly not in any thing like the high state of efficiency in which it exists at present. And with this certain prospect of the diminution in numbers of the Clergy, their independence for the most part gone, their social posi- tion lowered, and their education impaired— with such a prospect for the Clergy, what is to be the condition of the laity ? " A brilliant sketch of this stage of the histoiy of the Church of England is given in Macaulay's Introduction to his History. (10) Note E, Pakt I., p. 29. Note E., Part I., p. 29. On the Plans for the Restoration of some of its Property to the Church disestablished, by Mr. Lowe, Mr. Bright, Earl Russell, and Mr. Gladstone. In tlie note with which this is connected I have stated that the leaders of the movement against the Church in Ireland had unanimously declared that its disendowment ought not to be absolute ; — that in fact all who maintained that the endowments of the Irish Church ought to be taken possession of by the State, maintained also that some portion of them ought to be given back to it again. At the time I made this statement I thought that it was true to the full extent. But I have since seen that there is at least one important exception to it. Mr. Lowe argues against the recognition of any vested interests in the case, except those of the Bishops and Clergy in their incomes. He would grant compensation to them. But beyond them, he holds that no vested interest exists, or none for which compensation can or ought to be made. And this he proves regularly thus : — " Now a vested interest must be vested in some body ; and if there be a vested interest here, it must be either in the Church, the Clergy, or the Laity." The claim of the Clergy is admitted, and satisfied by compensation. There remain then only the Church and the Laity to be disposed of; and this is easily done, as follows : — "It cannot be vested in the Church, for the Church is not a body corporate, and it can- not receive or hold any property." Whether this point is intended to show that the Church cannot sustain any injury by disendowment, because it can- not hold any property, or that it cannot be compensated for any injury that it may sxistain, because it cannot receive any property, it seems equally sound and conclusive. It is plain that no property can be taken away from the Church because it can hold none ; and equally plain that even if it were possible to take property away from it, it would be impossible to make any compensation for the loss — impossible Note E, Part I., p. 29. (11) to restore the property in whole or in part, — because the Church can receive none. This is very clear. But what then is the meaning of passing an Act of Parliament to take away the property of the Church ? Mr. Lowe ought to bo able to answer this question; for this is not only the very thing which the Bill that he and his confederates are pressing through Parliament is intended to do, but the very thing which it professes to do in express terms ! The purpose of the Bill as expressed in its Title is, to put an end to the Establish- ment of the Church of Ireland, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, &c. It would seem that the Tempokalities of the Church must at least include some Property. But if there could be any doubt about this, it is removed by the very first section, which declares it to be expe- dient, " that the Property of the said Church op Ireland, or the proceeds thereof, should be held and applied for the advantage of the Irish people." It is not very likely that those who are to hold and apply the "Property of the said Church," and to apply it to the uses to svhich it is expedient to apply it, will find that this important fact — that the Church is not a corporate body — throws much difficulty in the way of making out what the Church property is and obtaining possession of it. In fact, I suppose that during the three centuries that have elapsed since the Reformation, there never has been any doubt as to what Church Property was, or that any one of mature years, whether layman or cleric, belonging to the Church or not, would have had any difficulty in explaining that it meant property which was so appropriated to various offices in the Church, that any one appointed by the proper authority to any of these offices became entitled to a certain portion of property annexed thereto ; and the laity of a certain division of the country at the same time were committed to his care, and he became bound by law to discharge the spiritual duties of the particular office which he held '. Ajid as the whole ^ The marginal title of § 12 is " Church Property vested in Commissioners under the Act ;" and in the body of the section it appears that by "Church Property" is meant "All property, real and personal, belonging, or in any wise appertaining to or appropriated to the use of any archbishopric, bishopric, benefice, or cathedral preferment in or connected with the said Church," &c. (12) Note E, Part I., p. 29. country was divided into such districts, it is plain that the whole of the lay members of the Church had an interest in this property, which was thus made the means of providing pastors and teachers for themselves and their children ; and that if it were taken away they would sustain a grievous injury and loss. Certain as the right of the Church was to its property, and deeply interested as its members were in the maintenance of its right, it is still true that if an attempt were made to recover any portion of its property unjustly taken away, by bringing an action in the name of the Church in a court of law, the attempt would fail, on the ground that the Church was not a corporate body, and that it could not hold property or sue or be sued by law. But the case of the Church is not before a court of law, but before the High Court of Parlia- ment. There is a Bill actually before Parliament to take away its property. It is stated on its behalf, that it has enjoyed this property under the sanction and protection of law for three centuries ; that during that time and up to the present time included, this property has been all expended for the spiritual wants of its members ; and that they and their children would continue to derive the same great advantages from this property, unless Parliament interposed by its supreme authority to take it away. This is stated on behalf of the Church. And it is pleaded that this being the case, unless it has incurred the forfeiture by some offence, — which is not alleged, — it ought not to be deprived of its property, and thereby its members and their descendants in succeeding generations robbed of rights of infinite value. And if this plea fails, then comes the plea for compensation ; and it is pleaded that if it be determined by Parliament that it is necessary to take this property away, some compensation should be made for it. This is the state of the case on the part of the Church. But this plea is resisted by a Member of Parliament and a member of the Government, — not on the groimd that the statements are false — not on the ground that the measure will not inflict severe injury and loss upon hundreds of thousands of individuals — not on the ground that it is impossible to determine who the sufferers are, or even that there is any difficulty in determining exactly who they are, — but on the ground that they have not been united NoTB E, Part I., p. 29. (13) by Charter so as to form a Corporation, having power to acquire and hold property, to sue and be sued ! And that this poor, pettifogging evasion of the fact and of the argu- ment, which would be unduly dignified by being spoken of as weak sophistry, should be seriously put forward by a Member of Parliament and a member of the Government, and received by the House, so far as it appears, without any demonstration of disapprobation, is certainly a depressing and alarming sign of the times. I suppose scarcely a Session passes in which some Bill is not opposed, on behalf of certain parties, who pray that it may not pass into law, on the alleged ground that if it do it will materially injure their interests. The allegation, even if proved, may not be regarded by Parliament as a sufficient reason for not passing the Bill; but it has been always hitherto regarded as quite enough to give the parties a locus standi in opposing it. If the inhabitants of Dale were to petition Parliament that a Bill for enclosing the commons of Dale should not pass into law, on the ground that it would deprive them of certain important rights and privileges which they and their predecessors, the inhabitants of Dale, had here- tofore enjoyed, and which they and their descendants would continue to enjoy, unless they were taken from them by the power of Parliament — if such a Bill were opposed on such grounds— however Parliament might see fit to deal with the prayer of the petition, I do not suppose that even Mr. Lowe himself would think that it ought to be set aside on the ground that the Petitioners were not a corporate body, and therefore could not hold or receive property ! But then comes this question. Supposing that, under a deep sense of duty, Parliament feels constrained to pass the measure, which, under a deep sense of duty. Government has brought forward, while it is acknowledged that the clerical sufferers from the measure ought to be compensated, ought not the lay sufferers to receive compensation also ? To this ques- tion Mr. Lowe has a very decisive answer. They cannot. He says, " You cannot compensate the laity for the withdrawal from among them of the Established Church ; it is an injury to their feelings, it causes them inconvenience ; but these things cannot be estimated at money value." This is a specimen of reasoning which quite deserves the (14) Note E, Part I., p. 29. place that it has by the side of the former. Whatever might have been thought of the first of these counter pleas — that against compensating men for the removal of an institution in the maintenance of which they were interested, viz., that it is only an injury to their feeUngs — ^it seems to be hardly open to Mr. Lowe and his party to use it in the present case. For they have maintained that the injury which the endow- ment of the Established Church caused to the feelings of those who were not its members, was sufficient reason for disendowing it. And if it be so, it would seem that the injury to the feelings of its members 'which the disendow- ment of the Church will cause, ought to be a sufficient reason for giving back to them a part, at least, of what is taken away. If the " sentimental grievance" which A suffers, because B has property which he himself has not, ought to be redressed by taking away all B's property from him, it would seem that the "sentimental grievance" (if it be no more) that B wLU feel, when his property is taken away, ought to entitle him to have some portion of it restored. However, it is acknowledged that the injury to their feel- ings which this measure will cause is not the only effect of it of which the members of the Church will have to com- plain. It also causes them inconvenience. But neither does this entitle them to compensation ; for " these things cannot be estimated at money value." Suppose this were true, how would it decide the question ? If the inconvenience be caused by taking away the property which deprives the members of the Church of a convenience or conveniences, which they theretofore enjoyed in the ministrations of the parish clergy, would not the inconvenience be removed by restoring the property taken away, and mitigated, by restoring a part thereof ? This does not prove that either ovghi to be done : that question must be settled on its proper grounds. But it does, I hope, prove that either may be done, which is enough to show that Mr. Lowe's proof that " you cannot compensate the laity for the withdrawal from among them of the Esta- blished Church," is not quite as conclusive as the ingenious author evidently imagined it to be. Those who have gone through the two foregoing points will find it hard to believe there is still another which is Note E, Part I., p. 29. (15) quite on a par with them, and yet such is really the case. But I am sure that my readers will feel that they have had a good deal more than enough of Mr. Lowe on Vested Interests in the Irish Church. I will therefore release them from what must have been a very irksome occupation. Indeed I must seem to have spent a great deal too much time already in dwelling so long upon what, as I said, would be unduly dignified by being called very shallow sophistry, inasmuch as sophistry conveys the impression of fallacious reasoning which is likely to mislead, while it seems very hard to believe that what we have been reviewing could mislead any one of sound mind. And no doubt I should have been guilty of a very indefensible waste of time, if I had been examining Mr. Lowe's arguments in order to refute them. But my object has not been to refute but to exhibit them. My readers have had a good many specimens of the facts which have been so much employed and so much relied upon in the warfare against the Irish Church. And I have occasionally given some specimens of the arguments by which these facts have been reinforced. It was no easy task to bring the fallacies at all near the false statements. I do not think, however, that they have fallen far behind. But even if there had been a wider interval between them, I think my readers must feel that Mr. Lowe on Vested Interests would do a great deal to bring the logic of the Church's enemies on a level with their facts. But we may pass to the schemes which have been put forward by those of the party who hold with Mr. Lowe that the Church ought to be disendowed, but who differ from him in thinking that, besides compensation to both Bishops and Clergy for their life interests in their incomes, some portion of the proceeds of the property of the disendowed Church ought to be given back to it, apparently to aid it in the struggle for existence which it will have to maintain. Mr. Bright estimated the capitalized value of the Church Endowments at about 13,000,000^., of which he would be disposed to give back one-thirteenth. Earl Russell would give back one- eighth of the Church's property, whatever it were. This was a considerable advance in liberality, but Mr. Grladstone went far beyond both. He proposed to restore or to spare (16) Note E, Part I., p. 29. three-fifths certainly, perhaps two-thirds, of the whole money value of the Church's Endowments. This statement was made in different forms by Mr. Gladstone, with a view to abate the fears which the first announcement of his measure awakened. One of the fullest of these statements is the following : — " I believe that the efiect of this nmch-dreaded Disestablishment of the Church, conducted as I have endeavoured to describe it, would be this, that if the full money value of the entire pos- sessions of the Irish Church, fairly sold in open market, were estimated, certainly not less than three-fifths, possibly two- thirds, would remain in the hands of members of the Anglican Communion. I know not with what feelings gentlemen may listen to this announcement. It is an announcement, which, as far as I am concerned, I make quite irrespective of the reception it may meet with. It is a matter of fact. It is the best estimate that I can make ; and my belief is that between these limits of three- fifths of the whole, and two- thirds of the whole would be found the share remaining to the members of the Anglican Communion Well, but that proportion, whatever it may be, the Irish Church, the Anglican Communion in Ireland — call it what you like — would not only possess, but enjoy. It would hold its property no longer amid an estranged and alienated population ; it would hold it, 1 believe, with the perfect and cordial good- will of all sects, all parties, and all persuasions, both in this country and in Ireland." He added another great advantage which the Disestablished Church, he thought, must necessarily enjoy. " And along with that share at least of its temporalities which I apprehend it would receive — I have no authority to say so, but it seems to me a moral and logical necessity in the case — along with that, from the very moment that its title is cancelled as an Established Church, it must receive that freedom of action, that power of falling back on its own internal energies, and developing them for its own good, which so many religious communities in this country value at such a price that they feel it to be a treasure far greater than all that the State can protect, or all that the law can give." It was not surprising if many of those who heard the glow- ing statement of all that was to be done for the Disesta- Note E, Part I., p. 29. (17) blished Church should be inclined to agree with the speaker when he added, " I own that I cannot see that the condition sketched prospectively for the members of the Established Church in Ireland, is in itself at all a lamentable or deplor- able condition*."— Times, March Slst, 1868. When a man has fallen among thieves, his first thought is that all is lost, — that at the least he will be stripped of his raiment, wounded, and left half dead. And he soon begins to feel as if every thing short of this were clear gain, — that those who could take all ought to be regarded as generous in leaving him any thing, and that those who would leaVe him most were, of course, the most generous. And so, when the Irish Church, defenceless in the hands of those who were about to despoil her, found ttiat one of them would give her back but one-eighth of her possessions; and that another thought one-thirteenth was quite enough ; while a third, as high an authority as either, was determined against giving back any, even the minutest fraction of them ; it is not sur- prising that Mr.s Gladstone's proposal of only taking away * I have to acknowledge and correct a mistake in the footnote, p. 29, with which this Note is connected. It is said there, "And in particular Mr. Gladstone himself proposes to restore to the Church from three-fifths to two-thirds of the full money value of her entire actual possessions ; and he thinks that with this capital, and 'with the perfect and cordial goodwill of all sects, all parties, and all persuasions, both in England and Ireland, and with perfect freedom of action, it would seem that the Church in Ireland was likely to make a new start under hopeful circumstances enough.' " The mistake lies in enclosing a part of this so as to convey that it is a quotation from Mr. G-ladstone's speech, whereas it is only the substance of what he said, partly in his words and partly in my own. My readers who compare it with the extract fi"om his speech given above, will see that it is a perfectly fair representa^ tion of what he said in substance. But that would be no defence for marking it as a quotation, when it was in any way altered. And the account of this mistake is, that the passage was taken from a note-book, in which I had passed from a quotation into a para- phrase, without marking distinctly where the former ended ; that I made an extract for the footnote without suspecting that there was any thing wrong, and only discovered the mistake, such as it is, on looking again at the footnote in connexion with this Note. I was sony, of course, that there was any mistake, but I was very glad to find that there was no misrepresentation whatever of the substance of what Mr. Gladstone had actually said. c (18) Note E, Pakt I., p. 29. two-fifths or a third, was a relief to her; and that she was ready to exclaim, with the poor distraught monarch, — " Those wicked creatures yet do look well favonr'd When others are more wicked ; not being the worst Stands in some rank of praise. I'll go with thee." It will he seen by the footnote from which the reference to this Note is made, that I am not among those who were carried away by this generous proposal. In fact, though the proportion of the Church's possessions which Mr. Gladstone proposed to spare was large when compared with that which any of his associates had named, there was something to raise a question at least, if not a suspicion, which interfered with the happy impression that the statement was intended to make. It was said, more than once, not that it was to be restored to the Church, nor that it was to be left to the Church, but that it was to remain in the hands of the members of the Anglican Communion. There are some persons who constantly, when they are writing or saying what would seem to bind them to the maintenance of certain principles, or to a certain course of conduct, make a provision to enable them to advocate different principles, or to take a different course. This is done by the introduction of words capable of harmonizing entirely with the obvious meaning of what is said before and after, but also admitting of another sense, more or less at variance with it. This is sometimes done with a fixed purpose of taking the course which this second sense leaves open, and to make preparation for doing so. But at other times it is a mere provision to enable a man to take another course, if circumstances should render it advisable. The words which are to effect this object are not marked or prominent. It is natural that they should be read in the sense in which they agree with all with which they are connected. And should their other meaning occur to the hearer's or reader's mind, it would be rejected at once, as plainly inconsistent with the obvious sense of the context. And so they remain unnoticed until they are wanted, and if they are not wanted, they escape notice altogether. I fear that I have acquired in the course of my long life no small measure of the habit of mind which a man's friends call cautious, and his enemies suspicious. Certain it is that I Note E, Part I., p. 29. (19) always look for such words in the writings and speeches — even what seem to he very unpremeditated speeches — of some public men. And I could not come upon such an expression as that which I have noted, occurring where it does, without some uneasy feeling, and without asking the question, Does this periphrasis for the Church cover any mischief ? The obvious way of answering this question was to look back at the sketch of his plan to which the speaker refers, as the foundation of his cheerful anticipations of the future of the Disestablished Church. This sketch spread over some space, and was probably not listened to or read very criti- cally at first. Looking closely at the details of so generous a proposal would have been felt, in fact, to be too much akin to the ungracious process which is so well expressed in the homely adage which forbids us to look a gift horse in the mouths But when the question was once raised, it was abso- lutely necessary to go through the task, ungracious as it was. And certainly any one who went over the statement again, to find an answer to the question, must have found more to confirm suspicions than to set them at rest. The sketch referred to was intended, Mr. Gladstone said, to indicate concisely to the House the position in which, as it appeared to him, the proposal, if accepted, would leave what he should then ham to call, not the Irish Established Church, but for the sahe of distinction, tM Anglican Communion in Ireland. The details are as follows : — First, there was to be a recognition of every vested interest ; and in stating this distinctly, there was a doubt thrown out whether, under this head, there ought not to be included some consideration of the reasonable expectations of the curates as well as of the actual possessions of the beneficed Clergy =. * " And I am bound to sayi, in speaking of vested interests that it appears to me at least a matter of argument and consideration, whether we can strictly and absolutely limit the phrase to those who are in possession of benefices, or whether some regard ought not possibly to be had-^though it would be. premature to give an opinion upon this point-^to the case of those who had devoted themselves to an indelible profession that separates them from the great bulk of profitable secular employments, in expectation of the benefices which we have kept in existence by law under our authority, even though they may not actually have entered upon C2 (20) Note E, Part I., p. 29. Secondly, he thought that if the Irish Church were dis- established, none would propose to deprive those who had worshipped in its sacred fabrics of the future possession and use of those fabrics, provided they were willing to retain them for religious purposes, and he felt almost an equal con- fidence that the same lenient judgment, as he called it, which went to the Church, would go likewise to that which is inse- parably connected with it, viz. the residences of the Clergy. Thirdly, the proprietors of advowsons would have an abso- lute claim to full compensation for the value of their pro- perty. And it is noted that these are in a vast majority of cases members of the Established Church, and that to them loould he paid the money which the State woiM find to he the value of these advowsons. And finally caine an item which he said he apprehended was but of small amount, viz. recent endowments — Endow- ments of persons now living, some hut lately gone, who had out of their own means built churches or otherwise devoted funds for the maintenance of the Established Church. All such endowments, he apprehended, would under all circumstances be respected. These are the items enumerated by Mr. Gladstone; and them." This very guarded intimation of the possibility of going beyond the strictest limits to which common honesty absolutely required that the measure should go, in considering the claims of the Clergy, called forth some expressions of dissatisfaction amongst his followers, which at once drew out a deprecatory explanation from the speaker, which served to show very clearly how impressible he was in that direction. "(Cries of Oh! oh! and Hear ! hear!) Do not suppose that I wish to commit any one by any admissions upon that subject, or to say that these cases rest upon the same basis as well defined vested interests. I say nothing of the kind. All I say is, that I, for one, do not at this moment absolutely shut the door against them." The compunctious feeling, if it were so, which was awakened by the thought of men whom his measure was about to fix as curates (and the principle would extend to those with a hardly better lot — very often not at all better, and sometimes a good deal worse — the incumbents of small benefices), was hardly strong enough to hold out against the cry which inti- mated that he was going too far for some of his supporters, so that it is not surprising that it was entirely extinguished by the more distinct expressions of dissent and dissatisfaction which he no doubt heard in the interval between the Suspensory Bill and the Bill for the Disestabhshment of the Irish Church. At all events, it would be very hard to find any traces of it in the latter. Note E, Part I., p. 29. (21) when attention was thus recalled to them, it was impossible not to notice that the purchase-money of the advowsons is made one of them; and that the fact is pointed out and insisted upon, that the patrons of these adTOWsons were — a very large majority of them at least — members of the Established Church, and that to them this purchase-money was to be paid. This item seemed to furnish a clue to the true interpretation of the words, in the hands of members of the Anglican Commu- nion in Ireland, and to suggest that the superior liberality of the terms proposed by Mr. Grladstone might be entirely delusive, and that the three-fifths or two-thirds of the capitalized reve- nues of the Established Church, with which, as it seemed, the Church disestablished and free was to start on its new career, might upon explanation and examination prove less than Lord Russell's eighth, or even Mr. Bright's thirteenth. Such a thought was rejected by many, almost with indig- nation. It was said, ' It is unfair to ascribe such paltering in a double sense to any public man. No doubt the words, in the hands of members of the Anglican Communion in Ireland, might bear the meaning suggested, if detached from the con- nexion in which they were used by Mr. Grladstone, but, in that connexion, they could not, by any possibility, mean any thing but the Church. For what he was saying was intended to allay the natural fears which the friends of the Church felt in looking forward to the struggle which it would have to maintain, when the endowments from which provision has hitherto been made for the spiritual wants of its members were taken away. And when to meet this state of feeling, he tells them that the condition of the Church will be by no means as desperate as they think ; that in fact from three- fifths to two-thirds of the whole money value of the Church's endowments was to remain in the hands of members of the Anglican Communion in Ireland, — the assurance would be plainly appropriate to his purpose of dispelling their fears, if, by the members of the Anglican Communion in Ireland, he meant those members, as united in the Church, and forming the Church ; if, in fact, the words were equivalent to the Church, and that so it was meant that this proportion of the endowments of the Established Church was to be given to the Church disestablished, to belong to her as the whole did to the Established Church, and to be used by her for the (28) Note E, Part I., p. 29. same purposes. But if, as you suggest, the members of the Anglican Communion are spoken of not in their collective capacity, but as individuals, and that this portion of the endowments of the Church is to remain in their hands, to be held by them in different proportions, as their other property is, and used by them at their good pleasure, as their other property is, of what importance was the amount of it ? How could it do any thing to set the fears of the friends of the Church at rest. How was the Church more interested in this part of their property than in the rest of it; or in the amount of property generally which is held by the members of the Anglican Communion in Ireland ? ' This ought to be quite enough to settle the question. But in fact it was not left to inference. For Mr. Gladstone speaks expressly of the " Irish Church — the Anglican Com- munion in Ireland, call it what you will," as possessing and enjoying this proportion of the actual Church endowments under happier circumstances than the whole had been there- tofore possessed and enjoyed by her ; and as reeeimng together with it the further gift of perfect freedom of action. Even if the words to which reference has been made were ambi- guous, what room does this leave for any doubt as to the speaker's meaning ?' These obvious considerations not unnaturally satisfied most persons at the time. But some who, like myself, had been longer learning the painful lesson of distrust in the school of experience, little as they could defend their doubts, against such reasoning, could not get rid of them. And how well-founded they were was universally acknowledged at last, when, at the interval of a year, the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church appeared. It was then seen, and to an extent that even the most suspicious had not anticipated, how delusive was the prospect which had been held out to the Church of retaining so large a proportion of her endowments as a provision for her new and arduous career ; and how much more truly they judged who regarded the words referred to as "... . contrived, a double debt to pay," than those who rejected such an interpretation of th^d as doing wrong to the honour of the speaker. In the speech which introduced the Bill, Mr. Gladstone stated that the ministers of the Chxirch would receive com- Note E, Part I., p. 29. (23) pensation; but that with regard to the Church, Govern- ment proposed to convey to it nothing in the shape of what he might call marketable property ! that is, as it seems, any thing for which Government could get any thing in any other mode of. disposing of it that they could adopt. And he reconciles this with the promises of last year, which sounded so very differently, by means of those very words, the importance of which he says was not ob- served, though, as he states, he " pronounced them with some emphasis." If the object of the emphatic pronuncia- tion of these words was to enable the speaker to plead when his plan came to be stated, that he had given notice of the important fact that nothing was to be given to the Church beyond the private endowments, there is nothing to be said, except that it has served the purpose. But if the purpose really were to give notice of his actual intention, it would not only have been much better secured by an express state- ment that by the words, members of the Anglican Communion in Ireland, he meant individual members of the Church, and not the Church collectively, but in fact it could only be secured in this way. For if by his emphasis or otherwise this meaning of his words were suggested to his hearers, the thought would in most cases certainly be at once dismissed from the mind, for the reasons which I have already stated. And accordingly there were very few, I believe, who were not entirely taken by surprise by this announcement in his speech. Even those who like myself had strong misgivings on this particular point, were scarcely prepared for what they found in the Bill. It was conceived and carried out in the harshest and most hostile spirit towards the Church. To every other interest with which it dealt, it was considerate and liberal, — that is to say, liberal out of the funds of the Church. But towards the Church itself, it was grudging, grinding, and severe to an extent, as I have said, which went beyond any thing that I had anticipated ; not because I was disposed to expect any generosity, or consideration, or even merciful forbearance from its framer, but because it I went beyond any thing that I should have supposed the bitterest enemy of the Church would have thought that he could have ventured upon, without outraging (24) Note E, Pakt I., p. 29. the feelings and the principles of the country, so as to defeat his own object. But the author of the measure took a juster view of the principles and feelings of his countrymen than I did. For, though in various places a strong sense of its merciless character has been expressed, there has been no such general and, decided demonstration against the measure as was suf- ficient to arrest its progress, or to procure any material modi- fication of it. But it seems impossible that a strong feeling against the measure must not be widely awakerfed, though it may be too tardily manifested to produce any effect. It might be described, in fact, as an Act to strip the Church bare, to leave her bare, and to keep her bare. This description of the Bill would be best justified by the most complete analysis of its provisions. That, of course, I cannot attempt ; but I may give a few of the most important of its details, which will, I think, as far as they go, fully vindicate what I have said about it. The whole of the property of the Church was to be taken away, and vested in three Commissioners, to whom very large powers were given for carrying out the purposes of the Act. But if at any time it be shown to the satisfaction of Her Majesty that the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity have appointed any person or persons to represent the Church, and hold pro- perty for its use, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by charter to incorporate this body, with power, notwithstanding the statutes of Mortmain, to hold lands to such extent as in the Act is provided for, but not further or otherwise. These are the two bodies with which, after the passing of the Act, the Church will have to do °. My readers have seen (p. 20, ante) what was said of the sacred edifices, and, as connected with them, of the residences of the Clergy, in the speech last year which was to propitiate the friends of the Church ; and the Bill proposes that the Church shall have both. But stiU there is a difference between the ' The provisions of the Bill relating to the first of these bodies are very ably analyzed in a speech delivered by Master Brooke at the late Church Conference. It is published in the Authorized Report of its Proceedings, and contains a fuller exhibition than I have seen anywhere else, of the unconstitutional character of this irresponsible Commission, which, considering its almost boundless powers, makes its acts a subject of very anxious apprehension. Note E, Part I., p. 29. (25) promise and the performance as regards the latter object which requires to be distinctly noticed '. When it was held out that the glebe-houses were to he left to the Churchj no one, I presume, could have supposed that what was intended was, that the house and offices, and garden, standing, as they generally do, not in a town but in a field, should be given to the Church without any land beyond that which they occupied ; that not an inch beyond should be given to the clergyman ; so that, walking from his hall- door -to the high road, the clergyman would be a trespasser if he stopped off the approach ! No one, I suppose, in England anticipated that this was to be the extent of the donation, and that any laud beyond the specified limits must be pur- chased by him. But such is the fact. And moreover, even the house and offices are not to be had without paying for them. It was discovered that not a few of the houses were subject to a charge, being the residue of the cost of the buildings left after the former and actual occupants had paid their proportion of it. In many cases the whole charge had been paid off, but in others, different proportions of it remained, amounting on the whole to 240,000^. In taking possession of them by the Commissioners, Government must, of course, pay that amount to those who were entitled to it. And such was the mean rigour of the measure, that instead of making this a charge upon the Church property vested in the Commissioners, — which it was known would leave a surplus embarrassingly, large — and so making the houses a free donation to the Church for the benefit of the Clergy, they were to be paid for in every case in which there was a charge ; and even when there was none, the site of the " Ecclesiastical residences with the cur- tilage and garden thereto " was to be paid for as land ° ! ' I pass over the provision with regard to the Churches, because, in its progress through the House of Commons, the principal cause of complaint in it was removed. ' While these pages were passing through the press, there was a Debate in the House of Lords upon an Amendment of this pro- vision, proposed by Lord Salisbury, — the effect of which would be to transfer the glebe-houses, free of charge, to the Representative body for the use of the Church. This attempt to efface from the Bill one of its unfairest and meanest provisions was resisted unsuccessfully by Government. Lord Granville defended the provision on the ground that " it will come exactly to the same (26) Note E, Part I., p. 29. I liave spoken of the spirit in whicli the Bill is framed as harsh, grudging, and grinding ; and I am sure, after stating this provision, it wiU be felt that I may fairly add to these epithets, shabby. It is said that the sums to he paid in every case will be small '. I say, if that be true, in the degree in which it mitigates the harshness of the measure, it renders its shabbiness the more intense. But though I believe that the grudging and shabby spirit in which this provision is conceived is what is most noteworthy in reference to it, the severity of its operation ought not "to be passed over. Though it is said that the charge would be small, it does not seem that it could be less than 200,000/.' Now, where is the E/cpresentative body, which receives literally nothing to start withal, to get such a sum, even if it had. no other demands to meet ? thing if the building charges with respect to these houses were put upon the Clergy." Very true. But what possible justifica- tion could there be for putting these charges upon the Clergy under their altered circiunstances ? It is true that a Clergyman now receiving a glebe-house would be obliged to pay the charge upon it. In that respect the Bill would leave his successor's posi- tion unchanged. But it proposes to make another change in Kis position which is of some importance to him, though often appa- rently forgotten by the framers of it, — viz., to take away the income out of which the charge is to be paid ! Lord Salisbury described the measure as one which Shyloch might envy. Lord Granville complains of this reference to Shahspeare, as exceedingly exaggerated and unfair. I am afraid he will be no better pleased with a reference to an older book, which, nevertheless, I am sure the provision has brought to many minds : " But he said, Ye are idle, ye are idle : therefore ye say, Let us go and do sacrifice to the LoKD. Go therefore now, and work ; for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks." ° The sum to be paid is — where there is no building charge, twelve times (in the Amended Bill sent up to the House of Lords ten times) "the annual value of the site of such eccle- siastical residence estimated as land, and of the said garden and curtilage ;" the value to be determined in case of disagreement by arbitration : and where there is a building charge, whichever is the less of the two sums, that is, of the amount of the charge, or of twelve times {ten times) the annual value of the ecclesiastical residence with the garden and curtilage thereto, estimated by the general tenement valuation. ' Mr. Gladstone says that the valuation is 18,600Z. per annum, but that to this 20 per cent, should be added, to bring it up to the rack-rent. This, at ten years' purchase, would be 223,200Z. Note E, Part I., p. 29. (27) Mr. Grladstone, in tlie speech last year whicli was to quiet the fears and to raise the hopes of the friends of the Church, gave the compensation, which was to be made /or life interests, a place among the items which made up the three-fifths or two- thirds of the Church property that was to be spared. And no doubt compensation might be made in such a way as would leave a fund, larger or smaller, for the use of the Church of the future. When it was the design that compensation for vested interests should serve this purpose, there was no Ssifficulty in securing the object. In the case of Maynooth, a lump sum was given, amounting to fourteen years' pur- chase, of the annual grant which that College received from the public funds. The annual grant was partly expended in paying the salaries of professors, and partly in paying the cost of supporting the students. In the case of the latter, which was much the larger part of the whole amount, the average vested interest of the individuals did not exceed four - years, but for this as well as for the other part of the sum, compensation of fourteen years was given. This was fully exhibited to the House in the Debate, May 6th, 1869. And though it was denied by Mr. Gladstone that there was any thing in what he proposed beyond a fair compensation, the case was so clear, that in the Times on the following day, an article on the Debate, which betrayed, or, perhaps it might be more truly said, manifested the usual bias of that journal, ended with the following distinct acknowledgment : " The real defence of this ministerial proposal is found in the declaration, that it is proper to enable the managers of Maynooth to tide over the interval of transition between a condition of dependence upon State aid, and one of inde- pendent self-government. And th© majority of 107 in favour of the proposal was a remarkable testimony as affirming the policy of this liberal recommendation." I shall not attempt to settle whether this is a good or a bad defence, or what is the value of " the remarkable testimony " borne to it by the majority of 107 by which it was carried, or even what claim that testimony has to be called remarkable in a House which seemed to furnish, as a rule, a large majority in support of every thing proposed by Mr. Gladstone. The important point is that it was considered the best defence that the proceeding admitted of by the Times, (28) Note E, Part I., p. 29. and regarded as a sufficient defence by a large majority of the House of Commons ; and therefore, whether the defence be good, bad, or indifferent, it is not open to the party to impugn the principle on which it rests. Now what is this principle ? It is that when it is determined to withdraw by public authority from a public institution the funds on which it has been wholly dependent for its support, it is proper to enable those who have the management of it " to tide over the in- terval of transition between a condition of dependence upon State aid and one of independent self-government." And when Grovernment have contended successfully for the applica- tion of this principle to Maynooth, what is there to release them from the necessity of applying it to the Church in Ire- land, when its endowments are taken away ? It is true that it cannot be described as having hitherto been dependent upon State aid, for it received no aid from the State. But that does not affect the application of the principle ; for it was dependent upon funds which the State has claimed the right of taking away ; and we are speaking on the supposition that the power of taking them away has been actually exercised. The Church has, therefore, this transition state to go through. W.hy should it not be enabled to tide over it, upon the same principle that Maynooth has been ? It would appear that there was no difference, as regards the immediate point, between the cases, except that the funds from which com- pensation is to be made are taken from the Church, which goes for nothing, — and that the wants of the Church are vastly more urgent, which, as it seems, goes for very little. The want created by the withdrawal of the Church funds is far greater. In fact there could be no real difficulty in raising 26,000Z. per annum among the Roman Catholics in Ireland, to supply the place of the Parliamentary Grant. But how is the income of the Church to be raised by volun- tary contributions ? Many of the enemies of the Church will be ready to say that there is no need of raising any thing like the amount of its actual income, for that the income was always immensely beyond its real wants. I have shown how unfounded this assertion is '. But, supposing it to be true, it wiU hardly ' The subject is fully treated in The Case of the Established Church in Ireland, p. 22 — 30 ; and it is glanced at again in Part II., pp. 4—10. Note E, Part I., p. 29. (29) be maintained that the amount could be reduced below one- half, consistently with making the most moderate provision for the spiritual wants of the members of the Church. And where is the Church to raise 150,000^. per annum ? It will be repeated, as it has been again and again, that seven-eighths of the landed property belong to members of the Church. I have already discussed that argument, and have shown how little ground of hope the fact offers that the Church will be provided for, beyond what is absolutely necessary for the families and dependents of the proprietors in the immediate neighbourhood of their residences. And I have confirmed the conclusion at which I have arrived on this point, by a reference to the actual state of the Episcopal Church in Scot- land (Part I., pp. 13 — 17). And in the same way, whether the provision for the ministry in towns where any such pro- vision was made was good, as it would be. in some cases, or indifferent, as it would be in others, it would be every where confined to a supply of the wants of the place, and we may say, would do nothing to. make a provision for other parts of the country, however great were their need, and however little able they were to supply it themselves. Mr. Gladstone had the hardihood to take credit for con- ferring a great boon, and as it seems he would have it thought, a large pecuniary benefit upon the Church, in leaving it to the Church body to carry out the commutations with the Clergy, instead of reserving the power to the State itself. He says, " Let me suppose, that if, instead of placing that power in the hands of the Church body, we had kept it in the hands of the State, what would be the result ? I do not hesitate to say, that £1,500,000, or perhaps £2,000,000, is the sum which the State might easily have the privilege of keeping in its own hands, if, instead of leaving those commutations to the Church body, it were to deal with them itself. This, however, we have left, — and, as I believe, wisely left to be harvested and stored by the Church body, regardless of the imputation that we were re- endowing the Church ; yet we are now told by those who received these equitable provisions in silence, that we should construct the clause relating to Maynooth on totally different principles." I may say in passing, that what the friends of the Church have generally told him and its other enemies, is not that (30) Note E, Part I., p. 29. the clause relating to Maynooth should be constructed on totally diflFerent principles from those on which the pro- visions relating to the Church are constructed, but that the latter ought to be constructed on the same principles as the former. But the point to be specially noticed in the foregoing pas- sage is the statement of the benefit bestowed upon the Church by the proposed arrangement. What benefit has been given up on the part of the State it is not easy to see, provided it was intended that it should deal fairly with the Clergy. But however that be settled, it seems clear that, as regards what the Church gains, the statement is entirely misleading. If the Representative body had the power of drawing the whole amount which might be needed to effect a commutation of all the annuities, or even if it had the power of drawing£2,000,000 or even £1,500,000, and keeping it to meet the applications of the Clergy, as they were made from time to time, it might no doubt make something, though not much, for the Church, by " harvesting and storing" that sum. But that is not the state of the ease. The Representative body cannot do this; all that it can do is, to receive from the Commissioners the estimated value of the annuity of each of the annuitants who applies to have it commuted, and to pay the annuity to him, year after year, while he lives. The calculation would be that, when he died, the sum would be exhausted. And if aU commuted, the result, so far as calculation goes, would be, that the whole sum would be exhausted as the last life dropped. 'Now, such being the limits of the powers which the Bill gives to the Representative body, is it not a strange misrepresentation to speak of the Representative body as having the power of "harvesting and storing" the sum named, or any sum, for the benefit of the Church ? How this misrepresentation could be made innocently by any one who had read the Bill once would not be easy to understand. But what is to be thought of it, when it comes from the framer of the Bill ? I shall not attempt to answer this question. But whatever is to be thought of the misrepresentation, there can be no doubt that the truth is, that this provision for securing vested interests not only does not go beyond that object, so as to provide any fund, great or small, for the benefit of the future Church, but that it actually makes a Note E, Part I., p. 29. (31) deficient provision for its professed object, inasmuch as it gives nothing to cover contingent losses or to meet the cer- tain expenses of management. Thus the security which the Annuitants would have, if they commuted, would be plainly insufficient, while, as long as the State keeps its hands off the property vested in the Commissioners, their security wiU be perfect ; so that it is very unlikely that many will commute. But whether there be many or few the result to the Church would be the same. Nothing beyond the actual payment of the annuitants would remain as a Church fund ; and so, as the existing Bishops and Clergy died, there would be no provision for supplying their places. And so far as this Bill is concerned, the whole body of the Church would be left without any ministrations when the last of its actual ministers had passed away! The churches, whifch the State could neither give to any other religious denomination nor dispose of for any secular purpose, and the glebe-houses, of which very nearly the same may be said, were to be left to the Church — the glebes subject to a charge — but all its other property was to be taken from it ! Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues might well disregard the imputation that they were re-endowing the Church ! There was an exception to the general rule of taking every thing away, which served to mark more distinctly the spirit in which the measure was framed. The modern endowments were to be spared. Of course it was an interesting question what date would be taken as the limit within which the endowments would be regarded as modern. Most persons, I believe, who hazarded a conjecture upon the point, thought that the main object would be that the Church should not retain any thing that the Eoman Catholic Clergy could lay any claim to, according to the popular notion, to which I have before referred, that at the Reformation they were deprived of the endowments which they had previously enjoyed. And so it was generally supposed that all endow- ments since the Reformation would be left to the Church. Some perhaps had fixed upon other dates. But I believe that there was not an individual, beyond those actually in the secret, who was not taken by surprise, when it was announced, that the event from which the modern endowments were to date was not the Reformationj but the Restoration ! (32) Note E, Part I., p. 29. Those who had fixed upon the former date thought that if the framers of the Bill took from the Church all to which the Roman Catholic Church could lay any colourable claim, they would be doing enough to secure their great object of pro- pitiating the Roman Catholic hierarchy. But they forgot that this object required that they should do all that it was possible to do to impoverish and weaken the Church. And as very valuable endowments were given between the Re- formation and the Restoration, it was necessary to fix the lower date. But great as was the surprise which this announcement of the date caused, I believe that the reason for fixing upon it caused almost as much. It appeared that the Church had not assumed a settled form till then. Its Episcopal form was not fixed, and its doctrines were intensely Calvinistic. It was then that " the Church of Ireland — the Reformed or Pro- testant Church of Ireland — assumed its present legislative shape and character." Presbyterianism and Episcopacy were struggling powerfully together during the reigns of James I. and Charles I. ; and during the same time, the Articles of the Irish Church embodied the well-known Lambeth Articles. So that even if we could trace private endowments so far back, there would be a strife between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians for the right to them. But from the date of the Restoration " a man at any rate knew what he was doing ; and the fair presumption arises, that if he gave his money to the Church, it was for the support of the form of religion to which it is now applied." The old fable of the Wolf and the Lamb seems to be intended to exhibit conscience in the degraded state in which she is too much enfeebled to attempt to restrain a man from any crime that he is resolved to commit, but in which she still requires him to give an excuse for it before he commits it ; while he on his part is content to render this show of homage, because he knows that any excuse will be accepted. I suppose that there seldom has been a more striking illustration of this moral phenomenon than is furnished by this proceeding. It is perfectly plain, and every man in England and Ireland who is capable of forming a judgment upon this most shameless act of injustice knows, that the true history of it is, that the lower date was fixed upon, because Note E, Part I., p. 29. (33) it was resolved to intercept from the Church the valuable endowments which it would receive, if the date of the Reformation were taken. But though this was resolved upon, and though Mr. Gladstone, with the help of his devoted followers, was as well able to commit the wrong as the wolf was to devour the lamb, and just as determined to do so, yet it was not to be done without assigning a reason for it : and this singular one has been found for bringing down the date to the Restoration. And no doubt if there had been the same real reason for bringing it down to the present year, an equally good ostensible one would have been discovered. It would be trifling to spend time in examining a reason which is so palpably got up for a purpose that makes its quality of very little consequence. I shall, accordingly, say but very few words upon it. It amounts, so far as it is intelligible, to this, — that Presbyterianism and Calvinism so abounded in the Church in Ireland from the Reformation to the Restoration, that one cannot be sure that an endowment given in terms to the Established Church, would be given by the donor to a Church so littleTPresbyterian and so little Calvinistic as the Established Church of the present day. Now I will not stop to say more upon the principle on which the right of the present Esta- blished Church in Ireland to the endowments made during that period is questioned, than that it would equally apply to the Church in England, as the Bishop of Derry very truly re- marked, in his speech at the late Church Conference in Dub- lin^, and would indeed render insecure the endowments of ' " We are punished for being too much Anglicans in 1869 ; we are mulcted for being too little Anglicans in 1615 ; we have not a clean bill of ecclesiastical health. From 1615 to 1634, we were in fatal complicity with the unhappy 104 Calvinistic articles. When I heard this curious argument announced, and had re- covered my first surprise, I remembered that I had heard of Calvinism in England about the same time. Why Barnet was solemnly condemned by the University of Cambridge for preach- ing Arminian doctrine ! — ' Propositiones repugnantes religioni in regno Anglise, legitima auctoritate stabilitae.' Barrow, the Divinity professor, for the same offence was cited before Arch- bishop Whitgift at Lambeth, and before the University autho- rities at Cambridge, and by both formally censured. The Cal- vinism was rather a proof of the unity than of the diversity of D (34) Note E, Part I., p. 29. every institution tliat has undergone great changes in the lapse of time,, whether insensibly or by public authority, — that is to say, of every old institution. But as to the appli- cation of the general principle to the actual case, it really amounts to this, — that it is so likely, or at least so possible, that it was James the First's known predilections for Presby- terianism, arising probably from tender recollections of his early training, and the favour with which Archbishop Bram- hall notoriously regarded Calvinism, that led them to endow the Church of their day so largely ; and that if they could have foreseen that it would have lapsed in the course of time to such an extent into Episcopalian and Arminian prin- ciples, the Monarch and the Prelate would have bestowed their bounty in another way ! It is possible that they would have chosen the Presbyterian body as the object of it. This is not so certain, perhaps, as to warrant a proposal to transfer it now to that body ; but that it is so doubtful, is quite enough to justify Parliament in taking it away from the Established Church, whatever may be then done with it ! This is really in substance, though not in words, the argu- ment by which this flagitious act of injustice is defended ; and it may be fairly left to the common sense and common honesty of all who possess any measure of either. I need say no more, I think, to justify my description of the Bill as framed to strip the Church bare, and to leave it hare. And the desire to Iteep it bare is clearly evinced in the rigid limitation of the provision which enables the Queen to incorporate the Representative body of the Church, " with power, notwithstanding the Statutes of Mortmain, to hold lands to such extent as is in this Act provided, but not further or otherwise." This limitation would prevent an endowment in lands from being vested in this corporate body for the benefit of the Church, and leave it under all the disadvantages of having to frame separate trusts for every such endowment, the two Churches. I confess, however, that the argument gave me no great impression of reality. When I recalled the date of the plantation of Ulster, I was suspicious enough to conclude that this date was taken, not on account of the extent of our Calvinism, but of our glebes, — that the 104 Articles were the shadowy pretext, and the 111,000 acres were the solid reality." — Authorized Report of Conference, pp. 120, 121. Note E, Pakt I., p. 29. (35) — disadvantages from which the Eoman Catholic Church has been relieved by the Charitable Bequests Act. This is enough to say, though a great deal more might be said, to show how delusive were the promises which Mr. Gladstone made a year ago, when his object was to disarm the suspicions and lull the fears of the friends of the Church ; and how different was the measure which he actually proposed, when the elections gave him a large majority in the House, took away the motives for concealing his real feelings, and left him at liberty to act openly upon them. Enough has been done too, I hope, though a great deal more might be done, to show the real character of the Bill and the real animus of its framer or framers ; and if so, enough has certainly been done to vindicate its title to the character which I have given it, of harsh, grudging, grinding, and shabby. The exhibition which I have been able to supply of the measure is a very imperfect one. But I can hardly tHnk that there is any one who has gone through it who will not be surprised at the strange hardihood with which the author of the Bill claims credit for the fairness and even considera- tion towards the Church with which it has been prepared! But Mr. Gladstone went a good deal further. He was exasperated against the friends of the Church who were not prepared to admit this more than groundless claim, and re- proached them for disturbing with their complaints the lively satisfaction, or, at least, calm acquiescence with which the measure was received by all others ! That is, the Pres- byterians, who were treated with justice ; the Eoman Catholics, who were treated with liberality ; the landed proprietors, who are now obliged to pay the tithe rent-charge for ever, but who by the Bill would only be obliged to pay it for the next half-century; the lay-patrons who are to receive the full money value for their advowsons;— all were happy or con- tent, or at least acquiescent. But Churchmen who saw that all these parties were satisfied out of funds which were unjustly and violently taken away from their own Church, and who also saw that this measure, which was satisfying others, brought to their poor brethren anguish and fear for the present, and spiritual destitution with all its consequences D 2 (36) Note E, Part I., p. 29. for the future, could not join in the general approbation of the Bill, or even refrain from expressing their sense of its injustice and cruelty. This expression of natural feeling was too much for Mr. Gladstone's temper, and drew from him the following acrimonious reproaches : — " On the part of the Established Church there has been one continued strain of deplorable lamentation, and nothing but charges and accusa- tions against the majority of this House for tlie unequal measure that has been dealt to them." And again : " I now come to the Church, and when speaking of it, we have one uniform and sustained groan from those who think they represent the interests of the Church, and who imagine that they can find nothing but harshness and inhuman cruelty in the mode in which the provisions relating to it are devised ■*" {Times, May 7th, 1869). It might seem, that when so flagitious a wrong, pregnant with such deadly injury to the present generation, and to all future generations, was perpetrated, the tone and temper of the author of it would be a matter of such minor consequence as hardly to deserve consideration — that if we felt as we ought the wickedness of the act, there would be no room in our minds for any feelings about the intemperance, or bad taste, or bad feeling of the author or of any of the promoters of it. But we are not so constituted. I believe, on the contrary, that the more the mind is pressed with weightier evils, the harder often does it find it to bear a trifling addition to them. I do not suppose that it has ever been thought that Job did not feel as deeply as he ought the heavier calamities that had fallen upon him — poverty and bereavement, and loathsome disease — because he was stung by the unjust sus- picions of his unfeeling friends. And I believe that in the present case it was those who entertained the deepest sense of the iniquity of the measure and of all the calamitous conse- * " On Easter day, after solemn service at St. Paul's, I dined with him. Mr. Allen, the printer, was also his guest. He was uncommonly silent ; and I have not written down any thing, except a single curious fact, which, having the sanction of his inflexible veracity, may be received as a striking instance of human insensibility and inconsideration. As he was passing by a fishmonger who was skinning an eel alive, he heard him ' curse it, because it would not he still.' " — Boswell's Johnson (Croker), vol. vii. p. 254. JSToTE F, Part I., p. 33. (37) quences which were to follow from it, who felt most indignant at the heartless insolence of this ebullition of temper on the part of the author of it. Note F, Part I., p. 33. Another Example of Lord Russell's Unfairness towards the Church in Ireland. The following is the passage referred to : — "In 1831, the tithe war, which had been hitherto a species of guerilla warfare, marking every winter with a stain of blood, broke out in a more aggravated form. If I remember right, it began by the seizure, in the parish of Graigue, of the cow of the Priest who was the religious teacher of the people, in the name and in pursuance of the claim of the Clergyman of the Established Church, whose teachings the people refused to hear." — Earl Russell's First Letter to the Right Hon. Chichester Fortescue, p. 15. The noble Lord's pamphlets have many readers. It is not to be supposed, however, that at this time of day all of these make it a matter of conscience to read his historical Intro- ductions honestly. Some will be content, as Dr. Primrose was, with the beginning of Mr. Jenkinson's learned formula, and think that they have heard all this before. But a good many, I suppose, read them still ; and of those, a very large proportion will no doubt feel all that the noble Lord could desire, in reading this incident, which he has so simply and so touchingly told. They will burn with indignation at the picture of the Priest's cow seized by the covetous Parson in the face of his devoted flock, who, though suffering from the same oppression, felt more for him than for themselves, and who, though they could not express the g,ntithesis between the Priest, " who was the religious teacher of the people," and the Clergyman of the Established Church, " whose teach- ings they refused to hear," as dexterously, yet, no doubt, felt it as strongly as the noble Lord himself. Could flesh and blood endure such proceedings? And who were really to blame for the outrages that followed, but the Church of the minority and its Minister, who was rigorously enforcing his legal rights ? A few, perhaps, would say that such an occurrence was (38) Note F, Part I., p. 33. undoubtedly a very unfortunate one, but that in fairness and reason it ought to create no prejudice against the Church or the individual Clergyman concerned. If there be an Esta- blished Church, and if the claims of the Clergy to the pro- vision which it secures for them be resisted, they must be enforced. And if, unhappily, the Priest of the parish, whose example is certain to produce such an effect upon the people, should be among those who resist him, the Clergyman could not shrink from the painful duty of dealing with him as with the other recusants without culpable timidity, which would give irresistible strength to the lawless combination that he was bound to resist, not for his own sake only, but for the sake of his brethren in the ministry, and for his and their successors, and, indeed, for the people committed to their care. It would be much to be regretted, but it could not be helped. But those who would take this temperate and rational view of the case would be very few indeed, compared with the numbers who would receive the story as a decisive confirma- tion of all their prejudices against the Church, as. exasperating the people amongst whom it was maintained. No doubt it was to excite such feelings that the story was told. They are very easily raised in the case. I do not indeed expect that much will be done to allay them, even when it is shown that the incident on which they are founded is itself without any foundation. Having had the honour of being born in the same year as the noble Lord, I remembered very well, as I very weU might, the event to which he refers. And. I ought to have remem- bered the circumstance which is so remarkable a feature of it in his account of it, if it had really occurred. I did not. But I fielt that this was no sufficient reason for doubting it, if the noble Lord or any body else actually did recollect it. And if he had stated it positively as a fact which he remem- bered, I probably should have acquiesced in it, without think- in g any more of it. But there was something in the phrase, if I remember right, which awakened some suspicion in my mind. If the story which it introduced were either favour- able to the Irish Church, or even neutral in its character, I might perhaps have read the passage without dwelling on the phrase. But considering the manifest tendency and the Note F, Part I., p. 33. (39) manifest purpose of bringing in the incident in the place in which it occurs, and considering how unscrupulously the object of inflaming the prejudices against the Irish Church had been pursued by the noble writer, I could not come upon words in a publication of his which sounded so lifie providing for a retreat, without suspecting that he was conscious that what he was writing might make it convenient for him to avail himself of the provision. And there was certainly nothing in the style in which the story was told, which, when suspicions of its truth were once raised, was much calculated to lay them again. Being absent from home at the time that I came upon the story, I wrote to request a friend to examine the files of a local paper in which all that took place was sure to be related circumstantially, telling him the special point on which I wanted to be exactly informed. He told me, and he is one upon whose exactness in such a case I can entirely rely, that he examined all the numbers in which the riot is related or referred to, without finding any mention of or allusion to the fact in which, if Lord Russell remembered right, it originated! And he sent me the notes which he made of the places in which any reference to it occurred. I print them, because they must, I think, satisfy every one, that if the seizure of any of the Priest's goods had taken place from first to last, it could not possibly have been omitted ; and because, unimportant as the fact is now, it is not un- important as an illustration of the discreditable means to which the enemies of the Irish Church were ready to resort when they were likely to do it any injury. From the Kilkenny Moderator, under date. 1st Notice, Saturday^ December 11, 1830 : — " The peasantry of the parish of G-raigue are much excited in respect of a Tithe Composition Assessment to which it has for some time been subject, and of which some parishioners have claimed a reduction. " The reduction was refused by the Incumbent. A similar application, made to the Bishop of Leighlin and Ferns, was refused ; ' and we understand that it became ultimately necessary to distrain some of the lands assessed to the Composition.' Since this proceeding, we learn that the persons thus distrained, in concert with others, have evinced a disposition to resistance, from which our respectable informant apprehends the most sei'ious results to the peace of that district. . . . And as Monday (40) Note F, Part I., p. 33. next has been fixed for the sale of the distrained property, it is to be feared that the defaulters, who most probably have been excited to these proceedings by men who, when the moment of danger comes, will assuredly avoid all personal liability .... will resort t(^ actual violence on the day of sale." 2nd Notice, Wednesday, December 15 : — " The riotous spirit of the Graigue peasantry was met by a corresponding show of magisterial vigour. On Monday last a considerable military and police force was brought to the intended scene of action. The concourse of people was immense. The magistrates remonstrated with the country people, and ultimately induced them to disperse. But this submission was but mo- mentary. On the disappearance of the military, the rabble reassembled, and would not permit the sale to proceed. Thus the matter is circumstanced at present. The plan of resistance is represented as concerted with more thau ordinary steadiness and precision, and rendered more alarming from the discipline that it exhibits." 3rd Notice, Saturday, December 18, 1830 :— " It appears that our informant was in some respects in- accurate. We have since learnt that it had not been necessary to bring the military and police on Monday. The magistrates of the district, and Sir J. Harvey and Major Browne, were in attendance. The cattle which had been distrained had been restored to their owners, on security being given for their return on the day of sale ; but as they were not returned, no sale took place." 4tb Notice, January 1, 1831 : — "Alarming assemblages of peasantry. The meeting at Graigue, of which we lately gave some particulars, which it was in vain attempted to disperse, was the first indication in this part of the country of any general or connected opposition to the tithe claims, and was rapidly followed up by meetings of the country people throughout the adjacent parishes." 5th Notice, March 19, 1831 :— " Several head of cattle, which had been distrained at Graigue for tithe due to the Rev. Mr. Alcock, were yesterday sold by auction, and were bought in by the owners (sic), at an amount covering Mr. Alcock's claims and costs. The money was im- mediately paid down, and the cattle taken away." 6th Notice, March 26, 1831 :— " Several seizures of cattle have been made at Graigue within the last few days, in consequence of want of hay to keep them longer locked up in houses, which was the plan resorted to by all Note F, Part I., p. 33. (41) the fai'mers there, in order to prerent their horses, cows, &c., from being seized for amount of tithes and arrears due to the Rev. Mr. Alcock. On Tuesday last nine persons, residing in the parish of Graigue, voluntarily discharged the demands of the Rector. The people are at length beginning to find out that the Govern- ment ai'e not to be trifled with, and that they are determined to enforce a proper obedience to the laws of the land." This is all upon the actual occurrence. The following appears to refer to what was said in Parliament about it. July 2, 1831 :— " His Lordship " [the Bishop of Ferns] " is reported to have said, that no opposition had been given to the collection of tithes in Ireland, except in those parishes which were not under the Composition Act. Can the Right Rev. Prelate have already forgotten the recent case of the parish of Graigue, in his Lord- ship's own diocese, where the first determined resistance was offered to the collection of tithe ? " July 20, 1831 :— A letter is printed, referring to the organized resistance at Graigue, signed ' Vindex,' in reply to a statement of Lord Duncannon's, that there was no organized resistance in the county of Kilkenny to the payment of tithe. Few, I think, who read over these notes can entertain any doubt tbat the touching fact which the noble Lord professed to have drawn from the stores of his memory, was really supplied, purely and simply, by his imagination, quickened by bis animosity against the Irish Church. There may pos- sibly be some authority of which I know nothing, for the accessory incident which he introduces. But I can hardly conceive, and I think my readers will agree Nvith me, that if it had actually occurred, it would be possible that it should not have had, somewhere or other, a place in the successive notices of all the proceedings connected with the move- ment, which appear for more than three months in succes- sion in a paper published within twenty miles of the scene of action. If I find that there is any sucb authority for the historical recollection, I shall be very ready to retract all that I say under the belief — for wbich I seem to have good reason — that there is none. It may seem that, after all the examples I have given of (42) Note G, Part II., p. 1. the unscrupulousness of the enemies of the Irish Church, my readers' time and my own have not been very well expended in tracing out and exhibiting this additional one. And I am by no means prepared to say that too much time may not have been spent upon it. But I am sure that it deserved some place in connexion with what is one of the main objects of this publication, which is to exhibit and record the course of the warfare that has been carried on against the Church. And I think that after all the examples that have been given of the exaggeration, and misrepresentation, and falsification, which have been freely employed in the cause, there is something additional in this case which entitles it to the place that I have given it. When a writer of high position in society, and in the political world, in relating an event of more than thirty years' standing, deliberately makes a gratuitous addition to the actual facts, for the object of adding to the load of obloquy which his party's calumnies have heaped upon the Irish Church, introducing his inven- tion by the formula, "if I remember right," — though he may not exhibit a greater want of right principle or right feeling than has been shown by others, I think there is another quality in which he must be felt to have sounded a lower depth than any that have gone before him. Note Gr, Pakt II., p. 3. Extract from Address at the Opening of Diocesan Synod at Kilkenny, March 31, 1869. In the Times (April 22, 1869) there is the following " The 27th section of the Irish Church Bill has, in fact, been the subject of more general and persistent misconstruction than any other. Even Dr. Hale, the ablest and not the least candid of those who have attacked the measure, can scarcely have read the provisions on which he commented. Mr. Disraeli showed in one sentence that he was not acquainted with them ; and the Bishop of Ossory, at his recent Diocesan Conference, betrayed an ignorance of them which entirely vitiated his argument." I have said a good deal on this section of the Bill in Note E, and I do not mean to enter again upon the consideration of it WoTE G, Pakt II., p. 3. (43) here. I only .return to the subject in connexion with the fore- going passage in the Times. And in reference to it, I merely wish to say, that on reading over, what I said at the opening of my Diocesan Synod, I could find in it no evidence of ignorance of the provisions of the section of the Bill referred to. The statement which it contains of these provisions is veiy brief; and if it had been fuller, it might, no doubt, have been clearer. But that is not the question. The question is, whether it misrepresents the meaning of the. original? And that I must maintain it does not. To enable my readers to judge for themselves, I print the only passage in the Address which has any reference to the particular point, as it appeared in the local paper (the Kilkenny Moderator) in its next publication, three days after the Synod was held. I print it unaltered (with the exception of supplying in one place the marks of a parenthesis), refraining even from making the verbal correc- tions which are obviously required. " Now I cannot, as I have said, recognize the sacredness of the duty of committing this act of spoliation. I do not know whether I am right ia calling it an act of spoliation; but I can find no reason given for the act in the Bill, except that it is expedient. We know that it is very expedient in a very im- portant sense; but what that sense is I shall not attempt to explain, nor shall I attempt to decide whether the reason assigned takes the act out of the category of spoliation, and puts it into that of confiscation. But be it spoliation or confiscation, I cannot recognize the duty of carrying out the object of the Bill. But men are diflferently constituted ; and it is possible that a man may imagine that this was an act of justice, and consequently an act of duty. But if any man had persuaded himself that such a duty rested upon him, if he had a touch of humanity, he would feel it to be a very painful duty; he would engage in it with reluctance, and, as far. as was consistent with the discharge of his supposed duty, he would be anxious to exercise forbearance and consideration — and, if one may use such a word, generosity. Now from the beginning to the end of the Bill, I do not find a single trace of any such feeling. It seems to be conceived and carried out in a spirit of inveterate hostility to the Church. And I do say that, if it had been framed by the most inveterate avowed enemy of the Church — an enemy on religious and poli- tical grounds — it could not have been made with more un- mitigated severity. This being the case, it is inconceivable to me how not only praise but adulation can have been lavished on the framci's of it by persons avowedly opposed to the measure. I have used strong language with reference to the Bill, and I (44) Note G, Part II., p. 3. cannot go over the details to justify it, but I will give one instance as a specimen of it. When it was announced a year ago that all the glebe-houses were to be retained by the Church, was there any man in England — I will not say in Ireland, for there may have been some in the secret in this country, for aught I know — but was there a man in England who understood the promise in the sense in which it has now been interpreted ? Was there any Churchman or any Protestant in England, of any denomination, who thought the meaning of it was that the house should be transferred to the Church, provided it paid the charge upon it, and that if there were no charge, the curtilage (which, I suppose, includes the enclosed offices) and the garden, were to be paid for as the condition of the transfer, and the donation of the house was not to carry with it the site on which it stood — even that was to be purchased. Certainly, Mr. Bright did not understand the promise in that way ; for I remember in a speech of his he said that he would be favourable to giving with the house a moderate portion of land. But the whole was treated at that time as a free donation — a free donation out of the Church's own property. Such being the measure, I did not think it was right that we should meet and part without expressing our judgment upon it. The resolutions that are to be proposed do pass a severe judgment upon it — I do not think too severe, and some will probably think not severe enough." It is here stated, that if there is a charge upon the Glebe- House, it is to be paid by the Representative body ; and that if there is none, they are to pay for the curtilage and garden, and for the site of the house. I suppose it will not be denied that this is the case. If I were professedly giving a detailed account of the BiU, no doubt there would have been a good deal more to be stated of the mode in which the amount to be paid is to be determined in both cases. But I was only giving such a notice of the provision as would justify the statement which I had made with respect to it. To this purpose, these details (even if they had been more in harmony with the character of my brief address) were of no importance whatever. What was really of importance was, that the Glebe-Houses, which had been held out as a donation, were actually to be paid for by the Church, which had built them, and from which all means of paying for them were to be taken away ! Note H, Part II., p. 8. (45) Note H, Part II., p. 8. On the Part which Anonymous Journalism has borne in the Warfare against the Irish Church. At the Church Congress in Dublin, 1868, a well-informed and interesting paper was read by the Archdeacon of Dublin on The Church and the Periodical Literature of the Day. In speaking of the hostile attitude towards the Church which this very formidable power now generally maintains, the Archdeacon makes the following very just remarks upon the extent to which the danger from this enemy is unfairly increased by the fact, that the war is carried on anony- mously : — " But while the Churcli does not shrink from encountering the hostile attitude which periodical literature has of late assumed towards her, she may on her side claim that the contest shall be conducted with fairness, that the warfare shall be carried on on equal terms. Now, the terms are not equal so long as the assaults of newspapers and serials are shrouded under the veil of anonymous, or, as some prefer to call it, unsigned writing. With the increase of science and education on every side, the influence of periodical literature must continue to spread; but, while the legitimate influ- ence of that literature may be fully and entirely recognized and welcomed, there is, surely, uo interest, whether in Church or State, that can be saved when that influence is upheld by means which are illegitimate. The legitimate influence of periodical literature can be maintained solely by the force of truth and the might of argument. To seek to add to this influence something over and above what the appeal to reason bestows, is to convert the Freedom of the Press into an absolute de.=potism. There is at present a sort of corporate power in journalism the existence of which depends on the authorship of the diflTerent leading articles, or reviews, or letters inserted, being concealed — a power which would at once disappear were signatures enforced, whether by law or by mutual convention. The result of withholding their signatures is, that men without any qualification are thereby enabled to lay do-wn the law on all subjects as dogmatically as if they uttered the embodied wisdom of the country. A sort of mysterious authority is thus conferred upon a collection of anony- mous essays, not one of which should properly carry with it greater weight than what it derives from its own contents. Accord- ing to the present system, the sentiments which an anonymous (46) Note H, Paet II., p. 8. article conveys are taken by the mass of ordinary readers to be those of some infallible oracle, while they are no more than the fugitive opinions of the peison or persons of whom the staff of contributors to the ne>vspaper or serial consists." I do not think that it would be very easy to resist the force of these reasons for the introduction amongst ourselves of the practice which in France is enforced by law, namely, " that the author should attach his name to his contribution, whether to a newspaper or a serial." I have never seen any thing of much weight on the other side. It is urged with some plausibility, indeed, that the sensitiveness of genius requires the kind of protection that the admitted practice of anonymous writing gives ; and that, in fact, some of the brightest ornaments of literature would never have brought themselves to encounter the ordeal of public criticism, if it were necessary that their publications should have appeared with their names. I do not say that this statement is entirely without foundation, but I believe that it is greatly exaggerated. I believe that this sensitive- ness is very often mere coyness, which would be very easily overcome ; and I believe it would seldom, if ever, deprive the world absolutely of any works of genius, though it might some- times delay their appearance, which would be probably rather an advantage both to the authors and to the public. But even if this plea were better founded, it can only be offered in the interests of literature, while the graver interests of truth and justice are deeply involved on the opposite side. I should hold this to be sufficiently proved by the arguments which I have just quoted from Archdeacon Lee. But I should myself be disposed to press the plea against anonymous writing on further, and I think still stronger grounds. I think it is not only justly objected to, as lending an unfair prestige to the lucubrations of an individual, as if they were the utterances of the combined wisdom of a conclave, but moreover as often concealing some positive disqualifications in the individual which ought to be known. It might be, and if it were the case it ought to be known, that, upon the subject on which he was writing, he laboured under disqualifications which would justly affect very materially the weight and value of any thing that he wrote upon it. Any well-authenticated KoTE H, Part II., p. 8. (47) facts in his contribution, and any sound arguments which it contained would retain all their weight; but it might be that on the subject on which he was writing, his testimony was not to be relied upon, that his judgment was not to be trusted; and whenever this is the case, surely, in the in- terests of truth and justice, it ought to be known. But this can only be secured by a general rule, in accordance with what is the law in France. I have very long thought and felt as I do now upon the subject of anonymous journalism. But I am sure that my sense of its evils has been not a little quickened by the share which it has had in the overthrow of the Irish Church Establishment. How large that share has been, every one acquainted with the course of the prolonged war against the Church knows. It cannot be doubted, indeed, that the success of the final assault against it is mainly due to the preparation that was made for it by the long course of calum- nies which has been perseveringly carried on against it. I have spoken on this subject so fully in this, and still more in a former publication, and have given so many specimens of the monstrous misrepresentations that have been circulated against it, that I need not now dwell upon it^. I need only say here, in connexion with my immediate subject, that though a good deal of this work of inflaming the public mind against the Irish Church has been done by orators in and out of Parliament, and pamphleteers, far the greater part has been effected by the public press — the Hoil's share belonging, of course, to the leading journal °. 'Now, if some of the anonymous articles against the Church in the Times and in other journals, which have produced the strong- est effect, had borne the signature of some known member of the Liberation Society ; or of the Roman Catholic Church, or, still more, of some one who had gone over to the Roman Catholic Church ; or of some one known in other ways as a virulent enemy oi the Irish Church, — how much and how very legitimately would it have taken away from the force of the attack ! Statements of facts which were received without ' Case of the Established Church in Ireland, passim. ° Case of the Established Church in Ireland, pp. 17, 18. 31, 32, 33, and Note C, Appendix, pp. (11)— (28). (48) Note I, Pakt IL., p, 17. any hesitation as true when the author was unknown, would be read with caution and suspicion when his name was dis- closed, and would not be believed without further and more unexceptionable testimony. The reluctant protests of "An English Churchman " against the sister Church in Ireland, and the candid admissions of "An Irish Churchman" of its weaknesses and defects, would lose a great deal of their force if they bore the signature of an Irish Roman Catholic, or even of an English ITon conformist. And the indignant demands of the "English Protestant public" to be relieved from the weakness and discredit of maintaining the Church of the minority would hardly be felt to be so formidable, if the leading article which contained them were subscribed by a name, the owner of which, as soon as it was found out who and what he was, would appear to be rather better qualified to speak on behalf of the Liberation Society, or of the Irish Roman Catholic Hierarchy, than of the Protestant people of England ! And surely it must be acknowledged, that this is no more than can be claimed in the interests of truth and justice. And if this claim had been allowed on behalf of the Irish Church, how different might the result have been ! Note I, Part II., p. 17. On Prescription according to Roman Catholic Authorities. All the evidence on which men's rights depend is subject to decay. Living witnesses soon pass away ; oral tradition is soon corrupted ; and even documentary evidence is not secure from the ravages of time ; so that often, however well-founded his title were, if a man were called upon to prove it at a date long posterior to its origin, he might be altogether unable to meet the demand. The continuitj'- of his chain of proof might be broken, and it might be impossi- ble for him to supply the missing links. Every civilized country has felt the necessity of guarding against the injustice that would often be committed, if every possessor could be put at any time upon the proof of his title, under the penalty of losing his property if he failed to establish it. It has Note I, Paet II., p. 17. (49) therefore been determined that a certain length of possession shall secure a man against such a demand. This provision, by which Time the destroyer is made to repair his own ravages, is justly esteemed a great triumph of law over nature. The length of possession which dispenses with the necessity of proving a title, and so serves itself as a title, is different in different countries. But the Church of Rome, which so long claimed an immunity from the restraints of civil law, succeeded in esta- blishing and maintaining for a long time its superiority to any such limitation. And the maxim nullum tempus occur rit Ecclesice embodied the principle, that no length of adverse pos- session of the property of the Church gave the possessor any such right as he would have had, if it had been secular property. In our own country this maxim was retained for a long time, though only with a limited application, and finally the special privilege which it was intended to secure was taken away by law. It was a matter of considerable interest with reference to a property held by the Established Church and by indi- viduals, to ascertain whether any similar limitations had been admitted at Rome. In fact, one of the hindrances in the way of granting the claims of Roman Catholics to an equality with their Protestant fellow-countrymen in civil privileges was raised by the fears which many entertained, that the increased power which would be thus possessed by the body, would be used under the direction of the hierarchy and the Clergy of that Church, to press its claims to the property held by the Established Church and by many private individuals, to which it was often alleged that the Roman Catholic Church had a right. It was a very great object to allay such fears, and accordingly the leading Roman Catholics and their friends in Parliament were able to accumulate evidence that there was no longer any ground for such apprehensions. They stated that the Roman Catholic Bishops had solemnly renounced upon oath, and were ready to renounce again in the same way, any such pretensions on the part of their Church; that they had denied, and were ready to deny again, any inten- tion or wish to disturb the present possessors, whether lay or clerical, in the property which they have so long enjoyed. But they did not stop there. They brought forward what seemed to be most satisfactory evidence, that they had, accord- E (5=0) Note I, Part II., p. 17. ing to their own Canon Law, no right to disturb the Reformed Church in the enjoyment of its possessions. A Professor of Canon Law in the College of Maynooth ' deposed before the Commissioners of Irish Education, that the actual possessors of Church property in Ireland had a just title to it on various grounds, one of which was length of possession. He stated that, even according to the Roman law, one hundred years' possession was a sufficient bar to any claim upon the part of the Church ; and, as the Irish Established Church had possessed its property for nearly three times that period, it seemed plain that no attempt could be made to impugn its title. This testimony was naturally regarded as conclusive at the time. But that time is past. The claims which it was ' The Professor was the Rev. Nicholas Slevin, D.D. His evi- dence is given in full in the Appendix to the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Irish Education, 1826. In answer to questions put to draw from him distinct testimony upon the point, he declares that he thinks that the present possessors of Church pro- perty in Ireland, of ivhatever description they may be, have a just title to it on various grounds, "Although Catholics may consider the original transfer to have been unjust." The third of the grounds on which their right, according to the Professor, rests, is the renunciation " in the most positive manner, and even upon oath," of all claim upon the Church property by the Bishops and Clergy of the country, in whom the claim " would be according to the principles of canon law." But we are more concerned here with his testimony as to the law of prescription. It is the second ground : " Secondly, on the ground that they have been bond fide possessors for all the time required by any law for prescription, even according to the pretensions of the Court of Rome, which requires a hundred years." And he further showed that the title of the present possessors was just on all the principles laid down by the Pope in the rescript on the title of the Antibarians. The Pope was Benedict XIV., and his decision was adverse to the title of the inhabitants of Antibaris because it was defective in certain points which he stated. And the Professor's argument is, that ac- cording to the principles on which the title of the Antibarians is examined and found wanting, the title of the possessors of Church property in Ireland must be pronounced valid ; — first, by lawful transfer made by the Government; secondly, by lawful prescription; and thirdly,.by the consent of those who might have any claim to it." And in answer to the question, How far those positions were reconcilable with the Canon Law ? he replied, " Most certainly they are perfectly reconcilable to the principles of Canon Law as they are understood all over the world." Note I, Pakt II., p. 17. (51) brought forward to aid were granted ; and all the powers that were acquired by the concession of them have been ever since steadily used to weaken and overthrow the Established Church; and have finally been brought very effectively to aid in the unprincipled attempt which has now been made — too suc- cessfully, it would appear — to rob it of all its possessions. In whatever other way the part which they have taken might be justified, it would seem that Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics were estopped by their own Canon Law from claiming any right to these possessions on behalf of theif own Church. This seemed, as I said, to be established by the most unimpeachable evidence. But when the change of circumstances has called for it, there has not been wanting very weighty evidence upon the opposite side. Bishop Moriarty, in a letter to his clergy on the Disen- dowmentofthe Established Church, 1867, came forward to declare that no length of time, that no length of possession, was a bar to the rights of the Church to property once possessed by it ; and he applied this principle unhesitatingly to the actual case, de- claring that the right of his Church to the property which it possessed in Ireland (and of course, though he did not say so, in England, too) was in no way invalidated by the length of time which the unjust possession of it had lasted *. It might be presumptuous to attempt to settle the question whether the law of prescription in the Church of Rome is really as formerly stated in 1826 by Professor Slevin, or as now stated by Bishop Moriarty. But there is no presump- tion, I think, in saying that the extraordinary difference between them is an additional proof that it is very difEcult, if it be possible, to ascertain what the principles of the Church of Rome really are. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo ! * " Before answering the objections which we stated at the outset, we must bear in mind that the CathoHc Church is the rightful owner of all ecclesiastical property in this country, with the exception of what the Protestant Church may have acquired since its separation. [This, by the way, seems rather strong tes- timony for 1560 and against 1660 in the Bill.] There has been no concordat, ceding this property to the British Crown, or sanc- tioning its secularization. We acknowledge no prescription in this case. The Church does not allow a statute of limitation to bar our claim. The title of the Protestant Church has not even the colour of validity. Our right is in abeyance, but it is unim- paired," pp. 25, 26. E 2 (52) Note K, Part II., p. 31. Note K, Part II., p. 31. On Mr. Gladstone's claim to Mr. Pitt's authority in support of his measure. I proceed, in fulfilment of my promise, to show how en- tirely without foundation is Mr. Gladstone's often repeated assertion, that his Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendow- ment of the Established Church in Ireland, is only a legiti- mate following out, under the altered circumstances of the present day, of Mr. Pitt's intentions with regard to Ireland. His proof is, — "Mr. Pitt, according to his biographer', used these words, and they are very important, as showing that he did not contemplate only a relief to the Catholics from political disability, but that his large and comprehensive mind contem- plated putting them on a footing of religious equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects as soon as the opportunity for so doing should arrive. He said, ' By many he knew it would be contended that the religion professed by the majority of the people would at least be entitled to any equality of privi- leges.' "What was Mr. Pitt's answer to that ? That it was a thing intolerable in principle ? No ; but that it could not be done while Ireland remained a separate kingdom; that ' No man could say that, in the actual state of things, while Ireland remained a separate kingdom, full concessions could be made to the Catholics without endangering the State and shaking the Constitution of Ireland to its centre.' " I think, therefore, there is ample room for the opinion, that Mr. Pitt contemplated at least a system which is now become wholly impossible, namely, that of general endowment. But that endowment was a means by which he sought to obtain an end, and that end was nothing but religious equality. " This seems a very curious mode of quoting Mr. Pitt's " impor- tant words." They are, indeed, to be found in Lord Stanhope's pages, but they are there in an extract from Mr. Pitt's celebrated speech on proposing the Resolutions affirming the principle of the Union with Ireland, January 31, 1799; and Lord Stanhope states as a reason for extracting more largely from it than was his custom, that it was one of the few speeches (three) which Mr. Pitt had ever revised for the press. Note K, Part II., p. 31. (§3) That, we are endeavouring to reach by means now open to us ; and in doing so, we are acting in accordance with the views and the spirit of Mr. Pitt" (Hansard, vol. cxci. p. 479). In the place from which reference is made to this Note, I quoted the latter part of the foregoing extract, and, in con- nexion with it, undertook to prove that Mr. Gladstone's claim to Mr. Pitt's authority on his side rests altogether on a false inference from a false statement of the facts of the case. I now proceed to redeem my pledge. And beginning with the facts — I say distinctly, not only that there is no evidence in support of the statement that Mr. Pitt ever intended or wished to establish religious equality in Ireland, in the sense of raising the Roman Catholic Church to a level with the Reformed Church established in that country ; but that there is the clearest evidence that he did not entertain any such purpose or any such desire. And more- over, that this evidence was all before Mr. Gladstone in the book from which he drew his proof of Mr. Pitt's design ! It can be clearly shown, that where he speaks of equality in reference to Protestants and Roman Catholics, he means equality of civil privileges, and that he did not contemplate bestowing any religious privilege upon them — beyond that of giving some support to the priests ; and in arguing in favour of either concession, he always endeavoured to show that neither would bring danger to the Protestant Establishment or the Protestant Constitution. In connexion" with the passage before quoted, Mr. Pitt shows very clearly what he means by the "full concessions" of which he speaks. He says, "On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion or the propriety of discussing the question, or saying how soon or how late it may be lit to discuss it, two propositions are indisputable : First, that when the conduct of Catholics should be such as to make it safe for the Government to admit them to a participation of the privileges granted to those of the established religion, and when the temper of the times should be favourable to such a measure, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in a United and Imperial Parlia- ment with much greater safety than it could be in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it certain, that, even for whatever period it may be thought necessary after the Union to withhold from the Catholics the enjoyment of those (54) Note K, Part II., p. 31. advantages, many of the objections which at present arise out of this situation would be removed if the Protestant Legis- lature were no longer separate and local, but general and Imperial; and the Catholics themselves would at once feel a mitigation of the most goading and irritating of their present causes of complaint." And then follows, as a distinct and additional subject, what he thought might be done as regarded religious differences : "How far, in addition to this great and leading consideration, it may also be wise and practicable to accompany the measure by some mode of relieving the lower orders from the pressure of tithes, which in many instances operate at present as a great practical evil, or to make, under proper regulations, and without breaking in on the security of the present Protestant Establish- ment, an effectual and adequate provision for the Catholic Clergy, it is not now necessary to discuss. It is sufficient that these and aU other subordinate points connected with the same subject, are more likely to be permanently and satisfactorily settled by a united Legislature than by any local arrange- ments" {Stanhope's Life of Pitt, vol. iii. p. 175). And in his letter to the King (January 31, 1801) he states his opinion " that the admission of the Catholics and Dis- senters to offices and of the Catholics to Parliament (from which latter the Dissenters are not now excluded), would, under certain conditions to be specified, be highly advisable, with a view to the tranquillity and improvement of Ireland and to the general interests of the United kingdom. For, ' himself he is, on full consideration, convinced that the measure would be attended with no danger to the Established Church, or to the Protestant interest in Great Britain and Ireland." Then follow the conditions on which he thinks the concession might be safely made ; and he adds, " that with respect to the Catholics of Ireland, another most im- portant additional security, and one of which the effect would continually increase, might be provided by gradually attach- ing the Popish Clergy to the Government ; and, for this purpose, making them dependent for a part of their provision (under proper regulations) on the State, and also by subject- ing them to superintendence and control " {Life of Pitt, vol. iii., Appendix, p. xxxv). I do not think that my readers will want any further proof Note K, Paet II., p. 31. (55) that Mr. Gladstone's statement that Mr. Pitt entertained a design of setting up religious equality in Ireland is made, not only without evidence, but contrary to very clear evidence; and that the utmost that the large and comprehensive mind of that great statesman contemplated, was the payment, under certain regulations, of Roman Catholic Priests. And that, so far was he from intending to bestow this boon in any way that could encroach upon the position and privileges of the Established Church, that he advocates it as contributing to the security of the Church and to the maintenance of the Protestant Con- stitution in Church and State. I could give additional proofs and many collateral confirmations of this statement, but I think that the proofs of it which I have given will be felt to be conclusive, and that any addition to them would only overload the subject. My readers will now see, I trust, that I was fully warranted in asserting that Mr. Gladstone's inference was drawn from a false statement of the facts of the case. I shall now pro- ceed to show, as I promised, that even if the facts were as he has stated them, the inference from them would be altogether unwarrantable. Supposing, then, that Mr. Pitt did, as Mr. Gladstone asserts, entertain a project of establishing religious equality by raising the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland to a level vsdth the Reformed Church established there, what right has he to infer that when it became impossible to effect the object in that way, it would be " in accordance with the views and the spirit of Mr. Pitt " to accomplish it by depriving the Established Church of its place, privileges, and endowments ? Does it follow, that because a man thinks that a certain object is desirable, and that he ought to endeavour to secure it by certain means, he is prepared to adopt any means that may be necessary to secure it ? We know the class of divines who have been charged with holding and acting upon this principle ; and of the many charges which have been brought against them, there is none, I believe, which is generally felt to be graver. And the principle would be as false in politics as in morals. It is in public life as in common life. That which is well worth having if it can be procured at a certain cost, it might be desperate imprudence to purchase at the price which must be paid for it, or it cannot be had. And so (66) Note K, Pakt II., p. 31. a statesman may feel that wliat he is bound to seek as advan- tageous to the country, if obtained by certain means and at a certain sacrifice, he is no less bound by a consideration of public interests to give up, if he finds that other means must be adopted and further sacrifices incurred to secure it. If Mr. Pitt really entertained the design which Mr. Glad- stone ascribes to him — but which we have seen he did not entertain — of establishing religious equality in Ireland, — as he had no scruple against making a State provision for the Roman Catholic Priests, and as he thought that this might be done with perfect security to the Protestant Con- stitution in Church and State, and that in fact it would rather contribute to than in any way detract from the security of the Established Church in Ireland, — it is perfectly intelligible that he should be prepared to bestow any such advantages upon the Roman Catholic Church as were necessary to effect the object. But what reason does that offer for supposing, that if, under altered circumstances, he could not attain the object without destroying the Protestant settlement of the Constitution in Church and State, and without weakening and impoverishing the Reformed Church, and actually over- throwing the Church Establishment — what reason is there to suppose that he would be prepared to secure the object at this enhanced price ? What right have we to suppose, that because he thought that he ought to pursue the object by a course which was not only consistent with the main- tenance of the Church, but calculated as he believed to add to its security, he would be still prepared to pursue it, when it not only could not be supposed to promote the safety of the Church Establishment, but actually required its over- throw ? Though Mr. Gladstone's temper and character blind him to the fallacy of such reasoning, I can hardly think that any thing beyond a distinct exhibition of it can be necessary to secure ordinarily-constituted minds against being misled by it. We know that Mr. Pitt reaUy did entertain a project of establishing civil equiiKty in Ireland, that he attached great importance to it as a measure of public policy, and that .his feelings personally were strongly engaged in its favour. He was baffled in the attempt, however, to cany the mea- sure. The king's scruples against it could not be overcome. Note L, Part II., p. 56. (67) There are some statesmen, so called, who would not have given up the project under these circumstances. They would, at all hazards to the Constitution, have brought popular force to overcome the resistance offered by the king ; or, finding themselves unable to establish civil equality by bestowing upon the Roman Catholics the privileges which they were seek- ing, they would have set about establishing it by robbing the Protestants of the privileges which they enjoyed. But Mr. Pitt did not belong to this class of statesmen. He gave way to an obstacle that could only be overcome, if at all, by an amount of violence which would involve evils far outweigh- ing the utmost good that could be expected from the project, even if it could be carried out peaceably. And as to attain- ing his end by levelling doum, when levelling up became im- possible, — we have no right to say that he rejected this desperate expedient, for we have no reason to think that it ever occurred to his large and "comprehensive mind." I hope my readers will feel that I have fulfilled my promise of proving that Mr. Gladstone's claim to Mr. Pitt's sanction of his policy is founded upon a false inference, from a false statement of the facts of the case. No one would be disposed to blame his anxiety to secure that great statesman's autho- rity for his measure, if he could do so fairly : but I should think that few will be prepared to defend the means that he has taken to accomplish the end. Note L, Paet II., p. 56. Upon " the State of Education in Ireland " as one of the Branches of Mr. Gladstone's Tree of Pkotestant Ascendency. In the place from which reference is made to this Note, I express my inability to believe that any reasonable man can sincerely think that there are now any grounds for regarding, as Mr. Gladstone professes to do, " the state of education in Ireland" as one of the branches of the tree of Protestant Ascendency. It is true that there is a great Educational Institution in Ireland, which is coeval with the Reformation in that country, and was from the first closely connecteJ with the Church (58j Note L, Part II., p. 56. there. It was and is a Protestant Corporation ; and it has been always the place in which a vast majority of the Clergy of the Established Church received their education, both academical and professional. All the advantages of the education which it gives, and of its degrees, have been thrown open for three-quarters of a century to botb Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, who can graduate in Arts and, with the exception, of course, of Theology, in all the faculties. But the corporate offices, wbich. are bonourable and lucrative, are filled exclusively by. members of the Established Church. If this, so far, makes this Institution a relic of Protestant Ascendency, there is to set over against it the grants to Maynooth; and the Queen's Colleges, whicb were founded by Sir Robert Peel for the express objects of making some compensation to dissentients from the Esta- blished Church, for the special advantages enjoyed by her members in Trinity CoUege, Dublin. He with the same view increased largely the annual grants to Maynooth. The Parliamentary grants voted for the year ending March 31, 1869, in aid of the institutions referred to were — Queen's University £3,155 Queen's Colleges 4,265 Queen's Colleges, Consolidated Fund. . . . 21,000 Maynooth College, Consolidated Fund . . . 26,360 Theological Professors at Belfast, and retired allowances to Professors of Belfast Academi- cal Institution 2,050 £57,230 To Trinity College, Dublin, no grant appears among the votes for that year, nor for many a preceding year. But on the other hand Parliament left it, I cannot say in the peace- able, but in the actual enjoyment of the income which it derives from lands bestowed upon it by Royal Charter at the Reformation, amounting to 36,478^. per annum, and the income derived from fees, amounting to 27,351/., making a total of 63,829i?. Now, as Parliament might have taken away all this, and did not, I suppose that, according to a recently established priuciple, that sum is to be esteemed as a Parlia- Note L, Part II., p. 56. (59) mentary grant to this Protestant Institution, and to be set down over against the above items on the other side ' ! In this way of calculating the account, there would be a small balance on the Protestant side. But I think it must be felt to be not only cleared off, but converted into an enormous balance on the opposite side, by the National System of Education for Ireland. To make this clear, it will be only necessary to state, as a matter of fact, what the actual relation of the Clergy to the system is, without in- quiring from whose fault it has arisen. The fact, then, is, that at no time since its first introduction, I believe — cer- tainly this was true at no very distant date — were there more than 100 parish Clergymen whose schools were connected with the system. And when it is considered that the parish Clergy are always in want of aid for their schools, the fact that less than one-fifteenth part of their whole number have been able to avail themselves of the very great advantages which the National Schools in this country enjoy, seems to show that there is something in the system itself, or in the administration of it, which wears a very unfavourable aspect towards the Established Church. But this is not all, or nearly all, that is to be said on the subject. For though the great majority of the Clergy of the Church felt constrained to reject the system on conscientious grounds, the Presbyterian Clergy, after a while, felt able to adopt it. And thus Protestants, though not of the Esta- blished Church, had a share in the benefits of the system. But they had from time to time cause to complain of ine- quality in the dealing with them and Roman Catholics ; and the concessions to the Convent schools — which had always ' This ought rather to be spoken of as the revival of an old principle than the invention of a new one, for it seems the very one on which the Wolf counted the Stork's fee as liberally paid, by his forbearance in not snapping off her head when it was actually in his mouth : — " Votre salaire ! dit le loup : Vous riez, ma bonne commere ! Quoi ! ce n'est pas encore beaucoup D'avoir de mon gosier retire votre cou ? Allez, vous etes une iugrate ! Ne tombez jamais sous ma patte." Fontaine, Le Loup et la Cicognc. (60) Note L, Part II., p. 66. been an anomaly in the system— at last rose to such a height, that in 1864 the case was brought before the House of Com- mons, in the way of complaint on behalf of a large body of Presbyterians connected with the system. They were fortu- nate enough to have their case brought forward by Lord Cairns, who was then in the Lower House. He conducted it entirely, on the part of his clients, not as a question of the merits of the system, but of its fair administration. And what the strength of the case which he made out was, may be best judged by the nature of the article on the debate which appeared in the Times on the next day, June 16. " It may further be conceded, that they have made continual progress in this sort of usurpation, and that a series of Prelates and high functionaries who had devoted themselves to caiTying out the ' National System ' in its original purity, have been suc- cessively obliged to abandon the field with much disappointment, not without bitterness, and with much claim, if not to our entire sympathy, yet to our respectful consideration. There is no Englishman, with our national love of fair play and our fidelity to engagements, who will not be grieved to know that any class in Ireland has so much reason to feel itself illused, as the Protestants undoubtedly have in the matter of National Education. We cannot but be aware that every concession made to the Bishops is hailed as a victory, and the Protestants are thus made to feel themselves at once beaten by their antagonists and deserted by their friends. All this we must lament : and since it is one of the chief consola- tions for a wrong, that it should be graven, as it were, on tablets of brass and proclaimed with trumpet voice to all the world, we congratulate the Irish Protestants very heartily on the possession of such an advocate as Sir H. Cairns. Through him the whole world will know that in Ireland — which, on the Continent, is a byword in every one's mouth against this country — the principle of religious liberty is carried out rigorously, and fastidiously, and squeamishly in favour of Roman Catholics. Through him the world will know that the Roman Catholics expect, and receive at the hands of the British Government, relaxations and indulgences which they would not for an instant allow the Protestants to share with them. The oppression, if oppression it be, which consists in the Church property and the great bulk of the land being in the hands of Protestants, is one which, after the prescription of three centuries, it is easier to mitigate than to extinguish. But in those matters that still remain within reach of legislation, the world may learn through Sir H. Cairns, and through the speeches of those who would contradict him if they could, that it is the fixed policy of the British Government, as administered by suc- cessive bodies^ of statesmen from all political schools, to make every possible sacrifice, even to the sacrifice of consistency and Note M, Part II., p. 73. (61) faii-ness itself, for the welfare of tlie Irish Roman Catholics and their elevation from that slough of despond in which they have lain for ages," Of course the defence is, that by such concessions the Roman Catholics receive education to an extent which they otherwise would not ; and that this gain, not to them only but to the Empire, is well worth the price paid for it. With the truth or falsehood, the sufficiency or insufficiency of this plea, I have nothing to do here. My concern with the pas- sage is, that in this apologetical article, a warm advocate of the System is obliged to admit that it has been administered upon a principle of concession to Roman Catholics, which was incompatible with consistency, or fairness, or fidelity to engage- ments. And when it is once understood that an educational system — the only one in Ireland which receives support from the public funds, and which actually receives such support to the amount of more than 360,000/. per annum, — is adminis- tered according to its most strenuous supporters, on a prin- ciple of unlimited concession to Roman Catholics, I cannot believe that any moderately candid man will think it fair or reasonable to represent the actual state of education in Ireland as a branch of the towering and noxious tree of Protestant Ascendency. Note M, Part II., p. 73. Testimony as to the feelings with which the Sacrifice of the Church as a Peace-offering has been received in Ireland. My correspondent has kindly allowed me to make any use that I think fit of his letter, and my first thought was, to print it in extenso. But though I am sure' it would be read with interest and advantage, it would make rather too large an addition to this Appendix, which has already insensibly swelled to an inconvenient size. I will therefore confine myself, though unwillingly, to the parts that bear upon the immediate object of this note, which is to illustrate from authentic sources how the peace-offering of the sacrifice of the Church has been received in Ireland. There is a. great deal in the letter that is of great interest and importance upon the (62) JS^OTE M, Part II., p. 73. past and future relations of Ireland and England, and of the way in which they must be affected by this base and violent measure. It inflicts irreparable injuryupon the most important interests of the' members of the Church, and outrages their strongest feelings. Their wealth, intelligence, energy, and in- dependence give them an importance far beyond their num- bers. They have been hitherto distinguished for their loyalty to Imperial rule and their attachment to British connexion ; and it seems impossible that the heartless injustice with which they have been treated should not make a great change in their feelings — impossible that it should not convert their strong attachment to England and firm confidence in her into indignation, settled resentment, and distrust. And it is equally impossible, one would say, that such a change can take place in the feelings of this portion of the population without materially adding to the difficulty of maintaining the Union with England, of which they have been hitherto the chief supporters. Upon this subject there is, as I said, a great deal which is very important and very interesting in the letter. I can only give so much of the substance of it, however, as bears most directly upon my limited object. The writer states, that having made it an object to discover the real feelings of all classes, and particularly of the middle and lower classes, in relation to the measure for the overthrow of the Church, and having perse veringly pursued the object on all occasions, he can truthfully declare, that with the exception of four or five priests, one gentleman, some officials, and a few Dissenters, he had not in two years met a single person of any rank, class, or religion who did not express more or less disapprobation of it, and that this was true not only of Churchmen, but also of Roman Catholics of all ranks. The Pro- testant Dissenters who favoured it always professed to believe, from their own experience, . that it would have a beneficial effect upon the Church, not taking into consideration, he savs, that the Church population is in very many cases scattered as well as poor, and that their people are more condensed in par- ticular places, and generally consist of independent persons of the middle class. He then tells an interesting story, which I shall give in his own words : — "Knowing that my own Poor Law Board of Guardians had signed petitions at the chapel door in favour of Mr. Glad- Note M, Part II., p. 73. (63) stone's Bill, I took occasion to ask each of them, first. How the Clergyman of the parish was paid. There were eight present. The vice-chairman said, 'By the Government.' Four others agreed with him ; and two said, he was paid out of the county taxes. The eighth, being an under-agent, knew the reality. I then explained the case to them, and stated the sums paid by each of the landlords, and requested a direct answer to the second question, Whether they would double the Clergyman's income, or take it away. There was a general exclamation, ' Double it ! double it !' 'Well, gentlemen, you have signed a petition to take it away.' They pleaded ignorance, and expressed regret. " I have since put the same question to a great number of most respectable farmers and shopkeepers. Their answers displayed the same ignorance ; and the result, when the fact was explained, was uniformly, 'Double it !' I have repeated the experiment in Leinster, Ulster, and Connaught, with the same result. And in one case, in the county of Meath, there were thirty or forty farmers present, paying large rents from 60^. to 200/. yearly. And they were unanimous that the Clergy were paid out of the county cess, and that the cess would be very low when the Bill passed. As soon as I gave my explanation and put my question, they all cried as before, ' Double it !' " And now I have to add a still stronger fact of the same kind. A very strong partisan, who took an active part on the Liberal side in the last Dublin election, when asked by me in his own house, in the presence of several gentlemen, all engaged in the same way actively in the election. Had he ever paid any thing to the Rector of his parish ? he told me he never had. 'Pray,' said I, then, 'how is he paid ?' He con- fessed he did not know ; neither did any one of the six gentle- men in the room, every one of whom, however, admitted that they never had paid a sixpence to any Protestant Clergyman. " To descend to a still lower class. The driver of the post car from this town is a very sharp old fellow. As we passed the Rector's house a little while ago, I said to him, ' That is the last Rector you ever will see there.' He said, ' Is that really true? I can't believe it.' I said, 'It is true, and all for the good of Ireland.' 'Oh!' said he, 'the English Government will leave us nothing that's good. Didn't- they (64) Note M, Part II., p. 73. take away the Bishop from Elphin, and see what a place it is now ! It destroyed Elphin, and did no one any good. It's all a plan to get the country deserted. And if they take Mr. away, won't they take the best man in the parish out of it? Ko one will gain, all will lose by the good gen- tleman going away.' This is, I think, word for word what he said. He said a great deal more to the same effect, the words of which I cannot remember." This is a curious illustration of the conciliatory effects of this healing measure. It was represented — and, in the deep ignorance of the state of feeling in Ireland which prevails in England, it was believed — that the overthrow of the Church of the minority would be received as itself a great measure of justice on the part of England, and as an earnest of her deter- mination to redress all the wrongs of this down-trodden coun- try. "Whereas it is received by some with entire indifference ; and by others as an addition to the many wrongs that Ireland has received at the hands of her more powerful Sister — as, in fact, a project of the English Government to take the last rem- nant of good out of the country, and leave it deserted ! It would be strange, indeed, if the humble classes in Ireland did not look with some regret and some apprehension to the prospect which the reduction of the means of the Clergy, or their absolute banishment, holds out to themselves. They must be very dull, which they certainly are not, — or very ungrateful, which, unless when their feelings are perverted by malign influences from without, they certainly are not, — if they could contemplate such a change with indifference. As I have said before, the Clergyman expends his whole income in the place from which it is derived, and a very large portion of it in ministering to the necessities of his poorer parishioners, without any distinction of creed, except such as must result from carrying out the qualification, " specially unto them which are of the household of faith," which the Apostle adds to the command, " Do good unto all men " — a qualification which gives to the poorer members of the Church the first claim on his good offices, but does not exclude from them the members of other communions. And, in fact, there is no such exclusion. AU who need help re- ceive it from the parish Clergy, to the utmost of their power, pea, and beyond their poiver. Of course, this duty will be dis- Note M, Part IT., p. 73. (65) charged, as other duties of their office are, differently by dif- ferent men, according to the differences which obtain among them, both as regards their practical sense of duty, and also as regards their natural disposition and character. But I do not believe there are any of their duties which are more gene- rally or better discharged. Whatever may have been the deficiencies, as regards other qualifications for their office, which I have met with in some individuals, I cannot recall even a single case of a Clergyman who was wanting in bene- volence. And their wives and children are generally, if not universally, efiective auxiliaries in this good work. They are often obliged by the usages of society to keep up an appearance, for themselves and their families, which is beyond what their income— generally very slender — would warrant. A very undue share of the local contributions to the bene- volent and religious societies falls upon them. And, after all, they expend more in proportion to their means than any other class in the direct relief, in various forms, of the distressed. The heaviest calamity which the measure will inflict is the spiritual destitution which so many of our own poor will suffer from it. But the one which will be most widely felt is the cessation or curtailment of the charities of the Clergy, which will affect the poor of all creeds. Of course, if a vote upon the maintenance of the Church were taken openly throughout the kingdom, there would be a very large majority against it. But if it could be taken by ballot, I am very sure that the majority would be very decidedly the other way. At all events, if the voting were confined to the humblest class, I think there can be no doubt that such would be the result; and it would be very strange if it were otherwise. They must feel that they are losing their kindest friends ; and the feeling will be still keener when they find that there is nothing to supply the loss. Six weeks later my correspondent says, " Since I wrote to you, I have been obliged to travel a great deal, and have met a vast variety of persons. And from all, I have heard the same cry, 'We never sought for the overthrow of the Church. It's an English move. It will do us no good.' The land has, however, been forced on their minds, and they have in the last month taken much more decided views in respect to it. Fixity of tenure is now the cry, not payment for im- F (66) JToTE M, Part II., p. 73. provements ; but the real feeling of all classes of the people is a growing determination for nationality." Upon this subject, as upon others connected with the future of the Church and the country, there is a great deal in these letters which would be well worth transcribing. But it would lead me too far away ; and I will end with a striking contrast which the writer draws between America and Eng- land, in connexion with the rights of the Church : — " America left untouched 400,000/. a year, given only thirty years pre- viously, by George III., belonging to one English Episcopal church, and equally respected it since, during her great pecuniary difficulties. England seizes, in violation of a solemn treaty, and of all good faith, a similar gross sum, devoted for three hundred years, not to the support of one church, but of 1500 churches, ministered to by 1700 Clergymen ! And this to conciliate a foreign and hostile Hierarchy, and in terror of Fenianism ! " THE END. GILBEET AND EITINaTOK, PBINTEES, ST. JOHN'S SQUAEE, LONDOK. THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT op THE lEISH BEANCH OF THE UNITED CHUECH, CONSIDERED. By jambs THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D. BISHOP OF OSSOBY, FERNS, AKD LEIGHLIK, Parts I. and II. " I hope it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the High Court of Parliament, that it may not be sacrificed to clamour, or overborne by violence; and though (which God forbid) the greater part of the multitude should cry, Onicify, crucify, yet our governors would be so full of justice and courage as not to give it up until they perfectly understand Quid mali fecit 1" — Chilling- WOETH : The Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy. WITH AJSr AFFUNBIX. EIVINGTONS, Hmttton, (©)iIova, anU CamlJriWs<- sf TEE SAME AUTHOR. THE CASE OP f HE esta:blished chuech nr lEELAND. THinB EDITION, WITH AN APPENDIX. 8vo, 2». Qd. The Appendix may also be had separately, It. XLSO, THE DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT 0» THE lEISH BEANCH OE THE UNITED CHUECH CONSIDEEED. Paet I. EFFECTS, IMMEDIATB AND EEMOTE. THIRD EDITION. 8to, la. Paet II. REASONS, FOR AND AGAINST. second edition, 8to. U. RIVINQTONS, LoHDON, Oxpobd, awd Cakbbisos. GEORGE HERBERT, Dotlik. ft«»^'^ri^0^^i 'A vitl iff-i «*lffe f. ,'^,iCJ''5^Vw\'5^' B mm 1^ ffx!v?Rr JaLia^kT wHra 'ff. w»..