i^i^ii^ 
 
 
 .ry-
 
 THE DISENDOWMEXT OF THE IRISH CHURCH, 
 
 A SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 
 
 OX 
 
 MONDAY, MARCH 2'2, 18G9, 
 
 BY 
 
 SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, 
 
 M.P. FOR RICHMOND. 
 
 ON THE SECOND HEADING OF 
 
 THE IRISH CHURCH BILL. 
 
 ICoirboii : 
 
 MAOMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1869.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 R, (LAY, SONS, AND TAVLOR, PRINTEUP, 
 
 BREAD BTRK.ET UlLL.
 
 A SPEECH, 
 
 dec. 
 
 Me. Speaker : — 
 
 I DO not think it is possible that therc can be any 
 member of this House to whom this measure has been 
 the occasion of greater anxiety and solicitude than it 
 has been to myself. Almost all the motives which 
 most powerfully actuate and influence human nature 
 would lead me to be desirous of giving my support to 
 the Bill proposed by my right hon. friend at the head 
 of the Government. If general agreement of political 
 opinion were sufficient for that purpose, I may say 
 that there is no man whom for many years past I have 
 .so much wished to see occupying the position which 
 my right hon, friend now fills ; and having for nearly 
 nine years been acting in close and cordial co-operation 
 with the party Avho occupy the benches on this side 
 of the House, I am bound to say that nothing has 
 occurred during that time which ha,s made me other- 
 wise than proud of and satisfied with that connexion, 
 and full of sympathy for the high and patriotic aims 
 which I know to actuate that party in general, and 
 full of personal respect for all the members of it with 
 whom I have been brought into immediate contact. 
 If personal attachments, if a sense of the highest 
 personal and political obligations could be enough to 
 
 B
 
 determine any man s course upon this occasion, there 
 are no attacliments of mine stronger than those which 
 I bear to some of my friends sitting on the bench 
 below me ; and from the first time that I became 
 connected with them until now nothing has been 
 omitted which could possibly have been done to make 
 me more and more deeply indebted to them for every 
 sort of consideration and kindness. 
 
 The House will therefore believe that if I am unable 
 to go with them upon this question, it is only under 
 a sense of imperious and overwhelming necessity. My 
 difficulty is not diminished because there are points 
 on which I certainly cannot profess to differ from the 
 advocates of this measure. I have no sympathy what- 
 ever with those who impugn the motives either of my 
 right hon. friend at the head of the Government, or of 
 any of those associated with him in this undertaking. 
 I know their motives to be as pure, I know them to be 
 as completely reconcilable in their minds with a just 
 regard to the interests of religion as my own, or as 
 those of any other man ; and I hope that in expressing, 
 as I mean to do with freedom, my own opinions upon 
 this subject, I shall not be betrayed into a single word 
 which can for a moment cast the slightest reflection 
 upon their intentions or motives. Furthermore, I can- 
 not shut my eyes to the fact, that there is a real crisis 
 in Ireland ; a crisis to my mind the more grave and 
 the more serious for the very reason that Ireland has 
 been improving for many years in its condition, for 
 the very reason that the Legislature of this country 
 has shown so much anxious care to make the 
 union with Ireland a real and hearty union. These 
 circumstances, instead of producing a political recon- 
 ciliation between the majority of the people of Ireland 
 
 tuKjc!r
 
 and the people of this country, seem only to make 
 things worse, and I cannot but think we are called 
 upon, more than at any previous period, deeply to 
 consider the causes of this evil, and discover, if we 
 can, a remedy for those causes. T agree with what 
 was so eloquently said by the President of the Board 
 of Trade, that we ought, if we can, discovering that 
 remedy, to lay aside all party considerations whatever, 
 and be willing to make any sacrifice — be it merely a 
 sacrifice of interest, of prejudice, of feeling, not of 
 duty — which would meet so grievous a state of things ; 
 and even upon the point of the disestablishment of 
 the Church, I shall presently show that there is a 
 certain length to which I might be able myself to go 
 in company with my right hon. friend. 
 
 When I look at this Bill, I cannot conceal from my- 
 self that the principle of it is not disestablishment 
 simply in the sense in which I use that term, but dis- 
 establishment accompanied by universal disendow- 
 ment. That is a principle to which I cannot agree. 
 It is advocated as an act of justice. To my mind it is a 
 great act of injustice. It is advocated as likely to have 
 salutary and beneficial consequences. I confess that I 
 apprehend from it consequences which may tend to 
 destroy the salutary effect of those parts of the measure, 
 from which I might otherwise have anticipated good 
 results. 
 
 It is my duty to inform the House how far I 
 am able to go with the Government on this point of 
 disestablishment. I mean by disestablishment the 
 severance of direct political relations between the 
 institutions of the Church and the laws and govern- 
 ment of the State. Taking it in that sense, and care- 
 fully separating the question of disendowment from 
 
 B 2
 
 disestablisliment, I must say I cannot agree with those 
 who say that the severance of the political relations of 
 the Church with the State is, and necessarily must be^ 
 an abnegation of national Christianity, or an act of 
 national apostasy. 
 
 It appears to me that such a view is founded on an 
 entirely false notion of the vocation of civil govern- 
 ment and of the nature of national relioion. The 
 duty of civil government is to govern all and every 
 part of the country committed to its charge wdth 
 imjDartiality and justice, and with a regard to those 
 interests which it belongs to human laws to protect. 
 National religion, as I understand it, is not any 
 profession, embodied in laws, or forms and ceremonies^ 
 made by those w^ho are at the head of the Government ; 
 but it is the religion of the people who constitute the 
 nation. It may be, and must naturally be under 
 many states of circumstances, that the religious con- 
 victions of the people will express themselves in the 
 forms and institutions of their Government. Under 
 all circumstances, they must exercise a great influence 
 over public legislation ; and, if the rulers are religious 
 men, whether as members of a legislative body like 
 this House, or as administering public authority in any 
 other way, they will carry wath them their religion, 
 and be controlled or guided by its moral influence, in 
 the discharge of all parts of their duty. But the 
 forms of national institutions do and must, in this as 
 in all other respects, vary from time to time, according 
 to the circumstances of the country ; and it is impos- 
 sible to lay down d priori a rule to decide whether 
 this change or that change tends to a departure from 
 the national religion. Every single individual wdll be 
 in point of religion what he was before the change,
 
 and therefore, unless you believe that those who 
 advocate the change have themselves departed from 
 the principles of their religious profession, it is a 
 monstrous and self- calumniating thing to say that an 
 act of the nature now under consideration is an act of 
 national apostasy. 
 
 These views receive confirmation when they are 
 examined by the light of history. In reality nothing 
 has more changed and fluctuated in form and almost 
 in substance than this idea of Establishment, as ap- 
 plied to the Church in this country, and to the insti- 
 tutions of the State in relation to the Church. The 
 idea of Establishment at this day is different from 
 what it was in the time of Elizabeth and Mary, and 
 down to the time of the Eevolution in 1688. It then 
 meant that the Church and its doctrines were by the 
 law of this country incorporated with the laws of 
 the realm, and every person was presumed and com- 
 manded by law to be a member of that Church ; and 
 he was punished by the temporal law if he did not 
 discharge the duties belonging to a member of the 
 Church. That is a totally different sort of Establish- 
 ment from any now existing in this country. There 
 were, doubtless, persons who, when the toleration laws 
 were first introduced, thought that we were giving up 
 national Christianity because we did not any longer 
 compel every citizen to profess the faith of the Church, 
 which had been until then identified with the State. 
 Do we not know, with respect to the penal laws, which 
 all of us now condemn, that there w^ere men who 
 looked on every one of them as a badge and mark of 
 national Christianity, and fancied that if we removed 
 them we should shake the foundations of the faith ? 
 Do we forget how our metropolis was agitated in the
 
 e 
 
 last century, when propositions were made for the 
 mitigation of those penal laws, and how it was said 
 that if those propositions should be successful the light 
 of Protestantism would be extinguished. It is well 
 known that many persons declared, when the Roman 
 Catholics were first admitted to political power, that 
 the extension of that privilege to them amounted to a 
 giving up of national Christianity. The same thing 
 was said when we admitted the Jews to this House. 
 But have we been (I speak of the nation as a whole) 
 less Protestant or less Christian since 1 Those who 
 are Roman Catholics now (still speaking generally) 
 were Roman Catholics then ; those who are Jews 
 now were Jews then ; the religion of the people is 
 the same, not having in any way altered. These 
 adjustments of institutions to the necessities of civil 
 government, as time went on, simply tended to make 
 the Government a more true and faithful represen- 
 tative of the social condition and actual state of the 
 people ; and the exclusion of any classes of persons 
 from their fair share of political power, on the ground 
 that they do not belong to a dominant Church, 
 is no longer recognised as being good either for the 
 State or for the Church. Therefore we must approach 
 the question of any political privilege given to the 
 Church, by considering whether the privilege is for the 
 public good ; for if it be not, I am sure it is not likely 
 to be for the good of religion ; and, if it were good 
 for religion, it would doubtless be for the public 
 advantage. 
 
 In the case of Ireland, I ask myself whether 
 there are or are not valid reasons of State for 
 the existence of that political privilege which con- 
 stitutes an Establishment, and which may or may not
 
 be of utility to the Church. 1 confess I am at a loss 
 
 to see in what point of view the political privilege of 
 
 which I speak is at present useful for the spiritual 
 
 objects of the Irish Church. We are bound to inquire, 
 
 first, whether there is or is not reasonable ground for 
 
 believing that this political privilege of the Protestant 
 
 Episcopal Church is one of the causes of disaffection 
 
 among the great body of the Irish people ; and, 
 
 secondly, whether it can be justly maintained for 
 
 reasons higher and more important than those which 
 
 are put forward to justify its removal. The lion. 
 
 member for Hertfordshire, in moving the Address 
 
 to the Crown on the first day of the session, said that 
 
 what some people call sentimental grievances are 
 
 calculated by their nature to excite most substantial 
 
 irritation. There is real truth in that observation. 
 
 The same feelings which prompt men to make great 
 
 sacrifices for political freedom, or for national honour, 
 
 are excited to resist any form of political ascendency, 
 
 which is created and maintained by external power in 
 
 favour of any class, who, if that external power were 
 
 removed, would have no moral right to claim it. The 
 
 case is not as if there were one Church Establishment 
 
 for the whole United Kingdom : Scotland is, for 
 
 this purpose, separately considered ; and it is natural 
 
 that Ireland should claim to be so too. 
 
 But then, if the grievance consists in a violation of 
 the national sentiment, what ought to be the remedy ? 
 Why should the remedy go beyond the disease ? If 
 the grievance is political ascendency, surely the removal 
 of political ascendency will be the sufficient remedy. The 
 grievance consists in giving, by State Establishment, 
 to the Church of a small minority of the Irish people a 
 superiority of rank, and an exclusive right — a right
 
 8 
 
 which no other religious body in the country possesses 
 — to have its laws deemed part of the laws of the land, 
 to have courts maintained for the execution of those 
 laws — in the association of the Sovereign with the 
 appointment of its chief officers, like the great officers 
 of State, — and in the introduction of those chief officers 
 into the hiofhest seats in one of the two Houses of the 
 Legislature. These are the signs and marks of political 
 ascendency, these are the political privileges, these are 
 the things that cause this rankling and irritation of 
 feeling ; and, in my humble judgment, the exigency of 
 the case, this so-called sentimental grievance, may be 
 met by the corresponding remedy — by the removal 
 of those distinctions which elevate factitiously the 
 political position of this particular Church above the 
 other religious bodies in the country. But the c|ues- 
 tion, whether you will take away their property, seems 
 to me an entirely different thing. 
 
 I. come, then, to that question ; and I ask whether, if 
 you concede what I have conceded — if you do what I 
 have stated myself willing to acquiesce in — although, 
 of course, it would be with reluctance that, belonging 
 to the Church of England, so long associated with the 
 Church of Ireland, I could see anything like an apj)a- 
 rent diminution of the honour and dignity of the 
 Church, to which I am deeply attached — yet, conceding 
 w^hat I have conceded, I ask, is it really a necessary 
 consequence of it, that you are to introduce and pass 
 this measure of universal disendowment ? I will try 
 and limit myself to the use of the word '' disendow- 
 ment.'^ It means the same thing with another w^ord, 
 '' confiscation,'' which I have been quoted in this 
 debate as using elsewhere, but which I did not use as a 
 word of contumely. As I take it, that word properly
 
 means taking property not at present riglitfully in the 
 coffers or treasury of the State, and putting it there. 
 It is not to be denied that there are occasions and 
 causes which might justify acts properly described by 
 the ^Yord " confiscation/' The Cjuestion is whether 
 this is such a case. I confess I think not. 
 
 I turn, then, to the cj^uestion, is this universal dis- 
 endowment a necessary consequence of taking away 
 political ascendency and political privilege 1 As a fact, 
 it may possibly now have become so ; but if so, who 
 made it necessary ? I don t think that such a necessity 
 would be inherent in the nature of the change. I 
 cannot be persuaded that it is a necessity arising 
 from the justice of the case. It may have now become 
 a political necessity ; but I can take no part in the 
 responsibility unless I think it always was so, and 
 is also just. I will first ask whether any kind of ]3re- 
 cedent can be found for it. I confess I know of none. 
 It appears to me unparalleled even by the extensive 
 appropriations of Church property at the time of the 
 Keformation in this country, appropriations which, I 
 suppose, no one will deny, were attended or followed 
 by very serious evils, and which few people have 
 entirely sympathized with, though they may be 
 thought to have been politically necessary. These 
 appropriations were of property belonging to institu- 
 tions which it was deliberately thought should cease, 
 not merely as then established, but should altogether 
 cease to exist — institutions which were thought 
 practical evils in themselves, and which it was con- 
 sidered the interest, if not the duty, of the State 
 altogether to suppress. Had that been the view 
 taken of the present Church of Ireland, of course we 
 might have admitted the parallel, although we might
 
 10 
 
 not agree with the opinion. But every line of this 
 Bill — which from the point of view in which it has 
 been conceived displays the most anxious desire to do 
 as much justice as possible consistently with that view 
 — every line bears Avitness to the fact, that it is not 
 thought that the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ire- 
 land ought to be suppressed, or can or will cease to 
 exist. We have therefore no parallel, even in the 
 extensive appropriations of Church property which 
 occurred in this country at the time of the Eeforma- 
 tion ; nor am I aware of any parallel cases in any 
 other country, although in some other countries these 
 appropriations have taken place under circumstances 
 so revolutionary as to form no precedents at all. Has 
 anything like this happened in Canada ? In Canada, 
 as was well pointed out by the hon. and learned 
 member for the University of Dublin, in that remarkable 
 speech, to which we all listened with so much satisfac- 
 tion on Friday night — in Canada the whole case was 
 essentially different. There were certain lands reserved 
 by Act of Parliament which were originally supposed 
 to belong to the Protestant Episcopal Church, and it 
 was afterwards determined by law that, according to 
 the true construction of the Act of Parliament, they 
 belonged equally to all Protestant denominations. A 
 large part of these lands had never become profitable : 
 the income arising from other parts, which had never 
 been assigned or appropriated as endowments to any 
 particular rectories or parishes, had been distributed 
 among the Episcopal clergy. These, when the reserves 
 were resumed by the State, were dealt with very much 
 in the way proposed by this Bill — that is, all persons who 
 had got the benefit of the distribution previously made 
 of the income had their life interests respected ; they
 
 11 
 
 were commuted ; and, as this portion of the reserves 
 had not been appropriated for the use of any local com- 
 munities, so as to give them any vested interests in 
 their continuance, there was nothino; else to take care 
 of. But there was a third class of lands which had been 
 actually appropriated to the endowment of particular 
 rectories — I think between thirty and forty, or more, 
 as was stated on Friday evening. These lands were 
 appropriated to particular rectories of the Church of 
 England, exactly in the manner in which tithes and 
 glebe-lands are now appropriated to the purposes of 
 the Irish Church. What was done with them ? Were 
 they taken away ? No. They were respected ; they 
 were left. It was felt there was no way of com- 
 pensating those vested interests, except by leaving 
 the Churchmen of those parishes in the possession of 
 the property ; and they are in possession of it to this 
 day. 
 
 But what happened in the United States of 
 America? Surely, if there ever was a case in which 
 this principle of universal disendowment might have 
 been naturally expected to be applied, it was in the case 
 of the separation of the United States from the mother 
 country. In some of the colonies something like 
 ascendency had been given to the Church of England. 
 In the great state of New York there were royal 
 grants — not very old, the latest not much more than 
 150 years from the time I am now speaking; very 
 valuable land in the city of New York had been 
 granted for the endowment of Trinity Episcopal 
 Church. We know, on that great Keyolution, the 
 great Eepublic did not think it its Christian duty to 
 establish any particular Church or religious denomina- 
 tion — it was not, I apprehend, less religious on that
 
 12 
 
 account — it is only evidence that there was in that 
 great country a divided state of religion which made it 
 inconsistent with civil harmony to introduce such an 
 institution. But did they on that account think it 
 necessary to confiscate and take away the endowments 
 granted to particular Protestant Episcopal Churches, 
 though granted by the Kings and the State of England 
 in previous times '? They did not. It happened, not 
 very recently, that a question arose before one of the 
 Courts of the United States as to the endowment to 
 which I have referred. According to one account which 
 I have received, the value of that endowment is now 
 about 400,000?. a year — not so very far from tlie total 
 value of the endowments of the Irish Church. (A voice 
 from the Treasury bench, '' §400,000.'0 No, the sum 
 was reduced from dollars to pounds in the statement 
 I have received. In another statement, however, the 
 value was given at 100,000?., but, by the falling in of 
 leases, it was thought likely soon to reach or exceed 
 the larger sum I have named. The question was 
 raised, whether Trinity Church was entitled by the 
 laws of the United States to the benefit of that endow- 
 ment ; or was it to be dealt with as national property, 
 disposable by the nation '? It was held that no law 
 to take it away had been passed by the United 
 States, and till such a law had been passed it could 
 not be so treated. Till you make such a law it is not 
 national property, or to be treated as national pro- 
 perty. But what is the key-note of this whole debate ? 
 Why, that this is national property now ; not that we 
 are now to make it so, but that we are to take it as 
 being already so, to treat it as already in our pockets 
 as a reason for putting it there. 
 
 I would ask the House further, is there nothing in
 
 13 
 
 the nature of public endowments in any of our own 
 colonies and foreign possessions where there is no 
 Established Church ? There are such endowments, as all 
 who are acquainted with the colonies know. I am not 
 sure how it is in India, but certainly in several of our 
 colonies there are such endowunents, although no Estab- 
 lished Church. The questions of disendowment and 
 of disestablishment, therefore, are not inseparable, 
 and they ought not to be so treated. Whatever other 
 reason can be given for so treating them, it is not a 
 case of necessity. Granting that, I will now ask 
 whether, although it is not necessary, it is right ? 
 Upon that question I think that the burden of proof 
 — and much more proof than I have yet heard ad- 
 dressed to that part of the question — lies upon those 
 who assert it. However, I will do my best to accept 
 that burden myself, and I will inquire whether there 
 is any reason for believing that it is just or unjust, 
 that it is likely to be salutary or otherwise ; and here, 
 if the House will permit me, I will distinguish a little 
 between the different portions of the revenues of the 
 Irish Church. 
 
 I must not be understood as saying that the ques- 
 tion of disestablishment might not, to some extent, 
 involve some change in the appropriation of the 
 revenues of the Church. I have never said that, 
 because it is manifest that there may be revenues so 
 obviously connected with the position of dignitaries in 
 an Established Church, as such, that I would not for a 
 moment say, if it ceased to be an Established Church, 
 the raison d'etre of those particular possessions might 
 not, either to some extent or altogether, cease. That 
 is undeniably the case with the Episcopal revenues, 
 and no one dealing with the question with that degree
 
 14 
 
 of honesty and candour with which I shall at all events 
 try to deal with it — for I shall express my real opinions 
 as they appear to my own mind — I say that no one so 
 dealing with the question can fairly and truly say that 
 the amount of the Episcopal revenues, or the number 
 of Episcopal sees, now existing in Ireland, has nothing 
 to do with the position of the Church as an Establish- 
 ment. No one can truly say that they have not so 
 much to do with it, as to make it very difficult here 
 to separate the question of establishment from that of 
 endowment. These Bishops are all directly nominated 
 by the Crown, and they sit by turns in the House of 
 Lords. Take away the Crown nomination and patron- 
 age, and the Parliamentary position — let the Church 
 be reduced to the position of a disestablished Church, 
 with the right to make and multiply its own offices 
 and appointments freely, ijari passu with the other 
 voluntary Churches of the kingdom — and I cannot 
 carry the argument myself so far as to maintain 
 that the same amount of Episcopal revenues can be 
 claimed by the Church, or that the Episcopal revenues 
 stand on the same footing as the parochial revenues. 
 And I will not enter into the question whether or 
 not it would be just or obviously necessary to take 
 away the whole of those Episcopal revenues. I wish to 
 make my argument as cogent as I can on those points 
 where it seems to me to be impregnable ; and I will for 
 the moment assume that the burden of proof is so 
 shifted on myself, as to this point, that I am unable 
 to satisfy it as to the whole amount of those revenues. 
 I will also suppose the same as to the capitular 
 revenues, and also that those funds which are in the 
 hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to be 
 dealt with as in the same category. Those altogether 
 
 J
 
 15 
 
 amount to a very considerable sum, because the aggre- 
 gate of the three is not less than 186,651?. 12*. Sd. 
 a year. But this leaves untouched the case of the 
 parochial endowments, which correspond with the 
 rectories of Canada and the United States, of which 
 I have spoken, and in which the people have the real 
 vested interest. 
 
 Their case stands thus : — The total amount of 
 the endowments of the parochial clergy in Ireland 
 is 395,180/. 175. lOJ., of which 329,087/. 175. lOd. is 
 derived from the tithe-rent charge ; the sum of 
 62,124/. 125. Id. from glebes ; and the rest from 
 miscellaneous sources, of smaller amount. How stand 
 the facts as regards the population of the parishes that 
 are so endowed ? I find from the Commissioners' 
 report, that, if you take the figures at which they 
 propose to suppress benefices — namely, forty Church 
 members — I do not say whether that is a right principle 
 or not — there are 199 such benefices, with a total 
 annual value of 37,097/. 125. 6d. In their last ap- 
 pendix they give the total number of parishes having 
 less than 200 Church members, which number is 
 431. The House will recollect that the total number 
 of parishes in Ireland is something above 1,500. 
 Therefore less than one-third of the whole number are 
 parishes Avith less than 200 Church members, which 
 includes the 199 parishes having less than forty Church 
 members. The income of these 431 j)arishes is 54,620/. 
 Suppose, then, you were even to take all that away, in 
 addition to the total Episcopal capitular and Commis- 
 sioners' fund, you would still leave the sum of 340,000/. 
 as the present endowment of parishes, in every one of 
 which there are more than 200 members of tlie Church. 
 Now, let us consider the sources of these endowments.
 
 IG 
 
 It would be a great mistake to imagine that tlie present 
 Irish Cliurcli remains in possession of tlie wliole of the 
 ancient national endowment of the ancient Church of 
 Ireland. The whole course of centuries, down to the 
 present time, has been occupied in its spoliation. 
 Take one item — the tithe-rent charge. Tliat is computed 
 to represent not more than one-sixth of the original 
 value of the tithe. It has been melted away by various 
 processes. A large portion has been appropriated from 
 time to time by lay hands, In the latter part of the 
 last century, when, by several actions at law, the right 
 of the Church to agistment tithe had been established 
 — that is, tithe on pastoral land, and Ireland is a 
 great pastoral country — an Act of Parliament was 
 passed which abolished that tithe altogether. Then we 
 come to the Composition Act of 1823. The com- 
 positions for tithes were very much below their value, 
 and by that Act those compositions were made per- 
 manent. Then came the Cess Act of 1834, which 
 threw all the rejDairs which would be met in England 
 by the Church-rate upon the funds of the Church. 
 Then we come to the Commutation Act of 1838, which, 
 as the House knows, gave one-fourth of the commutation, 
 which was paid on the amount of composition, to the 
 landlord as the price of collection. In that way, I find 
 it stated in the second appendix to the report of the 
 Irish Church Commissioners, that the whole value of 
 the remaining tithe is not more than one-sixth of the 
 original value, or, as Mr. Shirley says in his " Historical 
 Sketch," which the Commissioners have published, only 
 a fraction of the original tenth remains to the clergy — 
 scarcely a larger portion than would have fallen to their 
 lot if the whole tithe had been a national provision, 
 and had been divided between the Church of Kome in
 
 17 
 
 Ireland, the members of the other Churches, and tlie 
 Protestant Episcopal Church itself. Recent measures 
 ns to tithes, church-rates, and ministers' money are 
 stated to have had the effect of diminishing the re- 
 venues of the Church, even during the present century, 
 bj nearly 250,000/., or about one-third of the whole 
 amount. Let us not speak, therefore, as if the entire 
 ancient ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland remain, and 
 are still enjoyed by a small minority of the population. 
 It will be seen, on the contrary, that they are in pos- 
 session of property not much, if at all, more than 
 equal to their due proportion of the jDopulation in 
 general. I do not pretend to put this matter before 
 the House with numerical exactness. I merely mean 
 to say that the disproportion is not anything like 
 what it would be if all or the greater part of the 
 ancient provision made for the Church in Ireland 
 when the people were united in religion still remained 
 in the hands of this small minority. 
 
 Now I want to consider what the effect of this Bill 
 would be on these endowments. Practically, the 
 Bill takes away everything, saving only the life in- 
 terests, and private endowments since 1660. I will 
 consider the life interests presently ; but I want now to 
 know whether there is really and truly a clear and 
 satisfactory distinction between these private and non- 
 private endowments. I know that my right lion, 
 friend the member for South Lancashire — I oudjt 
 to have spoken of my right hon. friend hj that 
 title, which I am much more hap])y to apply to him 
 — that of Prime Minister of England, — I know that 
 my right hon. friend is perfectly aware that, except as 
 a matter of sentiment, there is no distinction, because 
 he said so. In his speech at Liverpool he .-aid that 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 the sentiment was irresistiljle. I confess I agree with 
 him. I think the sentiment is irresistible, when you 
 propose to take away private endowments. But I 
 carry it somewhat further. I think it is equally 
 irresistible with regard to all parochial endowments 
 whatever, I have said there is no distinction in prin- 
 ciple between the case of private and other endowments. 
 And why ? Because the private endowments were 
 given to the Established Church. And if it be true 
 that the glebes given by kings — and the tithe given by 
 ancient piety, and afterwards consolidated by law — 
 are to be regarded as given to the Church only as an 
 Establishment — given on condition of the continuance 
 of its privileges by the State, as a Church having its 
 institutions united by law to the political institutions 
 of the State — it is irresistible logic that the donors of 
 these private endowments must be held to have given 
 them just as much to the some Institution, and for 
 the same reason. The real truth is, that if you try 
 to find any solution of the question, you must look to 
 general considerations of reason, policy, and justice ; 
 and I say that reason, policy, and justice oblige the 
 man who takes away to show the reason why he 
 does it. To my mind that reason has not yet been 
 shown. 
 
 But now let us consider what this distinction 
 between public and private endowments, since the 
 Reformation, really is worth. The whole of the 
 glebes in Ulster, and by far the greater part of 
 those in other parts of Ireland, were given after the 
 Reformation. And how were these estates gfiven "? 
 Were they given by Acts of Parliament or by solemn 
 acts of the State, to which you can refer, and on the 
 face of which you can find that the gift was U230n
 
 condition of the continuance of the existing state of 
 
 rehitions between the institutions of the Churcli and 
 
 the institutions of the State ? They were given by 
 
 kings, out of hinds which came by confiscation into the 
 
 hands of those sovereigns, exactly as those sovereigns 
 
 gave other portions of the same lands to private persons, 
 
 whose descendants enjoy them to this day. I own it 
 
 was a matter of some surprise to me to hear, I think 
 
 from my right hon. friend, but, at all events, from one 
 
 speaker on the Treasury bench, that these glebes, and 
 
 parts of the tithes which are dealt with by the present 
 
 Bill, were given by way of restitution, because they 
 
 had previously been taken from the Church by some 
 
 former process of disendowment. It certainly is a 
 
 very formidable doctrine that you are to go back 
 
 from the existing title to a more remote title, which 
 
 had been destroyed, and, on the ground that the new 
 
 title is to be referred to the old, to conclude, for some 
 
 reason connected with the old, that the proj)erty itself 
 
 is to be taken away. A most formidable doctrine this, 
 
 I must say, and especially for the new voluntary 
 
 Church body, which you are going to create under this 
 
 Bill. According to that doctrine, there mil certainly 
 
 be no security for the new Church body — no security 
 
 for the churches or houses which may be left to them — 
 
 no security for anything which may be saved througli 
 
 the commutation of their life interests. For these may 
 
 all be said to be, in some sense, a residuum remaining 
 
 out of the old endowments. I confess it seems to me, 
 
 that when a State gives freely and does not annex 
 
 specified conditions — when Kings, more especially at 
 
 periods of our history which enabled them to deal with 
 
 property as if it were altogether their own, or when 
 
 private individuals, give property to persons capable of 
 
 /. »>
 
 20 
 
 taking it by legal titles, titles as valid at the time of 
 the gift or grant as any private titles could be — when 
 that is done, the gift takes effect exactly in the same 
 manner, to all intents and purposes, whether the donor 
 be the King, the Parliament, or a private individual. 
 You must look at the title, see when it was granted, 
 and what conditions were annexed, and if the con- 
 ditions were the same in one case as in the other, there 
 is no more justice in taking away the property in tlie 
 one case than in the other. 
 
 I have thus given my reason for not thinking, that 
 you can possibly stop at private endowments, or at 
 Churches, if you recognise the principle of some moral 
 claim on the j)art of this body, even after it should 
 cease to be established. I may, perhaps, be permitted 
 to say one thing more in this connexion. If we are to 
 frame for ourselves hypotheses as to the motives and 
 reasons for these grants, and to say it was because the 
 Church was established, and it was supposed it would 
 continue to be established, that these gifts were made, and 
 that now it is to be disestablished these grants are to be 
 withdrawn and to revert to the country, I should like 
 to know, that line of argument once adopted, where 
 we are to stop ? I pointed out in the early part of 
 these observations that the Established Church did not 
 mean the same thing at all periods of our history, that 
 it was very different before the Toleration Acts from 
 what it was afterwards. Before the Toleration Acts, 
 the idea was, that the State and the Church were 
 absolutely one, and everybody was bound by law to be 
 a member of the Church. Some one may improve 
 upon the view I am at present combating, and may 
 say, that the reason why all the endowments granted 
 to the Church, at all events from public sources, down to
 
 21 
 
 the Revolution of 1G88, were so granted, was because at 
 that time all persons were supposed to be of one religion, 
 and were, in fact, required to be so by law ; but that 
 the law on that subject being changed, cessante ratio ne 
 cessat lex. In other words, such a line of argument 
 puts it in the power of any one taking a retrospective 
 view of history to annex conditions, not expressed, to 
 all ecclesiastical property whatsoever, and, because of 
 the changes which have occurred in our legal, social, 
 and political systems, to say that those unexpressed 
 conditions have been violated, and therefore that the 
 State has the right to resume the property. That, I 
 say, would be a new and very formidable doctrine. 
 
 Then I come to the next point, the limit of 1660. 
 The principle upon which that date has been adopted 
 appears to me more difficult to understand, than almost 
 anything else in the Bill. It is said, that, because the 
 Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were not 
 adopted by the Irish Church until 163 4 — not 1660 — an d 
 because the system of Church government and Church 
 discipline in Ireland may have been practically consoli- 
 dated, in its present exact form, after the Restoration 
 rather than before, you are therefore to take matters as 
 if an entirely new start bad then been made, and a new 
 Church established, and as if all kinds of endowments 
 given between the Reformation and that date of 1660 
 had been given to some Church other than the present. 
 But those who say so cannot possibly be ignorant of this 
 plain matter of fact, that by the legislation — wdiich few 
 of us entirely approve — of the 2d of Elizaljeth, it was 
 expressly stated that the wdiole of the bishoprics in 
 Ireland were to be in the nomination of the Crown, 
 as they were in England, and even more absolutely ; 
 that the Litur^v of the Church of Enu'land, as such,
 
 9-^ 
 
 was to be in use in all clmrclics in Ireland, and 
 everybody was to be obliged to conform to it ; and 
 tliat tills included tlie Ordination Service, and every- 
 thing else cliaracteristic of tlie constitution and 
 discipline of the Churcli of England. And altliougli 
 it may be true that the Thirty-nine Articles were 
 not adopted till 1634, will anybody say that there 
 was not substantial community of doctrine and of 
 worship in the two Churclies in the interval — at all 
 events as far as tlie law w^as concerned ; or will 
 anybody say that persons wlio gave private endow- 
 ments during that interval gave them witli a view to 
 the Eoman Catholics usurping the benefices, as tliey 
 did in some portions of the country during a con- 
 siderable part of tliat interval, or with a view to 
 Episcopalian clergymen fraternizing in other places 
 with Presbyterians, — as my right lion, friend said they 
 did fraternize — possibly very much to the benefit of 
 both '? It is evident that the gifts must have been 
 to the Church then established by law, and not to 
 some other Church which, as the law stood, could 
 not then exist. The suggestion is, that there was 
 a good deal of confusion, and a good deal of usur- 
 pation of benefices in different ]3arts of Ireland, by 
 persons not conforming to the Established Church, 
 during the interval of Avliich I have been speaking. 
 I believe that there is much exaggeration in this 
 statement ; but if it were ever so true, it could 
 not justify the assumption that persons who gave 
 endowments to the Church established by law before 
 the year 1660 did not mean the same thing as persons 
 who gave endowments after that date. Why, the very 
 confusion, the very invasion by Eoman Catholics here, 
 and Presbyterians there, must have made the induce-
 
 23 
 
 meut stronger to give new endowments to the Cliurcli 
 to replace what she had lost. 
 
 And now I come to a question of much more im- 
 portance. Why do you respect only life interests? 
 Are there no others ? I say there are. And the Bill, 
 in this respect, seems to me the ne plus ultra of that 
 system, — I hardly know how to characterise it without 
 usino' some word stronsrer than I should wish to do — 
 of that practice which too much prevails in our legis- 
 lation, of looking to the individual interests of persons 
 who discharge public duties, more than the rights and 
 interests of those for whose sake they discharge them. 
 It is a distinguishing feature of the present working 
 system of the Church of England, that there is hardly 
 anything for which a clergyman once appointed can 
 be turned out of his living. But who are the persons 
 who have the real interest and benefit in the ministra- 
 tions of the clergyman ? The people of that religion 
 whose minister he is. They are the persons whose 
 servant he is. And when you find that there is a 
 community, necessarily permanent, which your legis- 
 lation neither will destroy, nor is meant to destroy, 
 who will continue after it has taken effect with tbe 
 same spiritual needs as before, and obliged either to 
 go with these needs unsupplied, or to find new pecu- 
 niary means for their supply, then, I say, the true 
 vested interest is the interest of those persons, and 
 not that of the minister. 
 
 Now, let us look at what is proposed. It is pro- 
 posed to give to these persons their churches — a costly 
 boon. Let me not for a moment be misunderstood. 
 I should be truly sorry if they were not to have their 
 churches. But still it is a costly boon. We find fi'om 
 tlie Commissioners' report that at this moment tlip
 
 24 
 
 total anniuil cost of their maiiitcnaiice, includiug 
 repairs, for the year 1867, was 62,043/. 175. lid 
 They have been maintained out of the Church funds 
 exclusively — not a shilling, not a penny has been 
 levied from the people, since the abolition of cess 
 in 1834. You are now going to throw that 
 62,043Z. 17s. lid. upon the members of the Church, 
 besides everything else, although they will no longer 
 have the Church funds to assist them. Now, let us see 
 how the fact stands, as to whether there are such 
 persons —large permanent bodies, in parishes as 
 populous as ordinary English parishes are — who have 
 the local claim, who will continue to have it, and 
 from whom you are taking away this property, not 
 to give it to anybody else ; for this disposal of the 
 surplus — although I have not a word to say against it 
 if there be a surplus — is manifestly an ingenious 
 discovery under great difficulties, for the purpose of 
 finding out what to do with it. 
 
 Now, let us see whether there are in truth such people 
 as I have referred to, existing to any great extent in 
 Ireland. I find it stated in one document appended to 
 the Commissioners' report, that, in one-third of the 
 dioceses in Ireland, all the parishes are sufficiently 
 populous to require the exclusive services of a resident 
 ministry, so that it would be inexpedient and unfit to 
 unite any other parish to them ; and that, as to the other 
 two-thirds of the dioceses, one-half of the parishes are 
 so. That is the general statement ; but it applies still 
 more forcibly to particular parts of the country. With 
 the permission of the House, I will take for illustration 
 two dioceses in the north of Ireland — first, the united 
 diocese of Deny and Raphoe, and, secondly, the 
 united diocese of Down, Connor, and Dromore.
 
 25 
 
 lu tlie first of these dioceses there are 111 benefices, 
 to only 20 of whicli is there attached a less church 
 population than 200. One of them has more than 
 3,000, 17 of them between 1,000 and 2,000, 3 between 
 900 and 1,000, 7 between 800 and 900, 9 between 
 700 and 800, 7 between 600 and 700, 14 between 
 500 and 600, 12 between 400 and 500, 11 between 
 300 and 400, and 10 between 200 and 300. Now, 
 anywhere else, should we say that these were not cases 
 in which the population was adequate to a permanent 
 endowment ? I say nothing against anybody who 
 might suggest, that by possibility in some of those 
 places the endowment may be excessive, and more 
 than can be justified by the population. If such be 
 the case, let that be the subject of investigation and 
 adjustment. I would yield this, as I have yielded 
 some other things for the sake of peace, where I was 
 not bound by justice to maintain them. But surely 
 these are populations, which have some right to say, 
 " We ought not to suffer. You are taking away from 
 us our permanent endowments, although you provide 
 for our servant the minister, and are gi^^ng us in 
 return no compensation whatever, although we want 
 an endowment as much as ever we have done, and 
 have not done anything whatever to forfeit it.'* 
 
 Let me now take the population connected with the 
 benefices in the diocese of Down, Connor, and Dro- 
 more. Of 11 parishes in Belfast the aggregate popu- 
 lation is 24,534. Of the remaining 133 parishes only 
 24 have a population under 200 ; 1 has a population 
 of above 5,000, 1 between 4,000 and 5,000, 6 between 
 3,000 and 4,000, 9 between 2,000 and 3,000, 17 
 between 1,000 and 2,000, 7 between 900 and 1,000, 
 3 between 800 and 900, 8 between 700 and 800, 7
 
 26 
 
 between 600 and 700, 11 between 500 and 600, 7 
 between 400 and 500, 15 between 300 and 400, and 
 17 between 200 and 300. From these 109 parishes, 
 having such a substantial population, you propose to 
 take away all provision for a religious ministry. 
 
 But this does not apply only or principally to 
 populous parishes in towns, where it is comparatively 
 easy to suj^ply the religious wants of the population. 
 The Eev. Mr. Sadler, a clergyman of the Church of 
 England, who has written a very able pamphlet upon 
 this subject, and in whose views I may say I almost 
 if not altogether agree, has given a table of the 
 Protestant Episcopal population in 44 parishes, merely 
 as examples, and m.any more might be found. He 
 has excluded from that table all places containing 
 either the whole of any large towns or any parts of 
 them. In every one of those 44 parishes there is a 
 population of at least 300, and in many of them much 
 more, and they are scattered over no less than 25 
 square miles, and in some instances over 35 square 
 miles, being eight times the area of average English 
 parishes. In one of those parishes there is a popula- 
 tion of above 4,000, in another of above 3,000, in two 
 of 2,000, in thirteen of 1,000, and so on below that 
 number. In those cases the people are in such circum- 
 stances, that it is very difficult indeed to suppose, 
 that if you take away from them the existing provision 
 for religious ministry they will be able to supply one 
 for themselves. But is it not quite 23lain, that, unless 
 you can show that in taking away that provision there 
 is some manifest good to be done — that it is to be 
 given to somebody who has a better right to it — you 
 are doing a wrong to these people ? Because I say 
 that, to take awa}' my propevt}', not because it belongs
 
 27 
 
 to somelxxly else, but because you want to take it 
 away, is doing me a wrong. 
 
 Passing from that point, I would ask, wliat would 
 be the result of the change you propose to eifect? And 
 here T will take the liberty to refer to the appeal which 
 was so eloquently made by the right hon. gentleman 
 the President of the P>oard of Trade on Fiiday last, in 
 that splendid speech, which we all- heard with so much 
 interest. May I be excused if I respectfully take the 
 liberty of saying, that I listened to that speech, and all 
 other recent speeches made in this House both this 
 year and last, by tlie right hon. gentleman upon this 
 subject, not merely with intellectual admiration, but 
 with a very large degree of moral sympathy. He does 
 not accept my conclusions ; he thinks both them and 
 my reasoning entirely wrong ; but I do take the liberty 
 of saying, that with the feeling which actuated and ani- 
 mated him in those speeches I entirely sympathise ; 
 and it is only because I think that unjust which seems 
 to him just, because I think that although his end is 
 good his means are not so, that I do not go along with 
 him, as, if I were merely to indulge my feelings after 
 hearing his powerful appeals, I might be disposed to do. 
 The right hon. gentleman endeavoured to show that, 
 after all, the effect of the proposed change would not 
 be the spiritual destitution of these communities 
 of the Church. I wish to avoid the fallacy of 
 generalising, by speaking of the Church as a w^hole, 
 I will, therefore, not speak of the Church as a cor- 
 poration, because hon. members have been very pro- 
 perly pulled up for speaking of the Church as such. 
 When you speak of the Church as a whole, you 
 lose sight of some of the main points of the question. 
 It is of tlic endowed commujiitics, of the people
 
 28 
 
 ill the parishes, that I want to speak. Tlie right 
 hoii. gentleman says, "AVhy entertain such gloomy 
 views ? Why have you not more faith in the power 
 of your religion ? Don't you remember what hap- 
 pened in Scotland ? Don't you remember that mag- 
 nificent spectacle ? " — and it was a magnificent 
 spectacle, one of the finest moral spectacles which 
 history has ever presented — " of that great body of 
 men who went out for conscience sake from tlie 
 Establishment, without any compensation for vested 
 interests, leaving house and home, and immediately 
 betaking themselves to the founding of a new 
 Church," — with that remarkable and extraordinary 
 result, which the right hon. gentleman so powerfully 
 depicted. 
 
 I would, however, ask the House whether there is 
 not a very great fallacy in pointing to that spectacle 
 as an example to us at the present moment, as if that 
 case possibly could be like the one we are now 
 considering ? 
 
 In the first place, I beg to observe, that the State 
 has dealt very differently with the Established Church 
 in Scotland from the way in which she has dealt with 
 the Episcopal Church both in England and in Ireland. 
 The Established Church in Scotland enjoys, in my 
 humble opinion, a much better government, a much 
 better oro-anization — I don't allude to the difference 
 between Presbytery and Episcopacy, of course — than 
 the Church of England. She has her Kirk Sessions, 
 her Presbyteries, her Synods, her General Assemblies, 
 each step of self-government rising above the other, 
 so that she has been well exercised in the whole art 
 and power of self-government, self-legislation, and 
 self-expansion, no State control coming in to stop lier
 
 29 
 
 synods from meeting, or from exercising all necessary 
 powers of legislation and discipline. There the great 
 men who afterwards became the leaders of the Free 
 Church movement had as much liberty of speech as we 
 have in this place. There they formed their parties, 
 there they organized their system, there they col- 
 lected together such a power and bond of moral 
 public opinion as enabled them to go forth trium- 
 phantly, even when leaving all which in this world 
 they possessed. 
 
 Have you so dealt with the Church of Ireland ? 
 Have you not imposed upon her, as the very condition 
 of the Establishment which you now seek to remove, 
 such restraints as prevented that organization of the 
 powers of self-government, that organization of ways 
 and means, and that organization of feeling, opinion, 
 and discipline, which we have seen existed in Scotland ? 
 I am not speaking of an abstract difference, I am speak- 
 ing of a difference which had a direct practical bearing 
 upon the very case itself ; because how was the Free 
 Church formed ? Was it the birth of a moment ? Did 
 it spring up full armed like Minerva from the head of 
 Jupiter ? By no means. It was formed in the General 
 Assemblies of the Established Church. There it was 
 that, by legislation, by council, by deliberation, by 
 carrying on a long battle against the powers of the 
 State, the principles of the Free Church were estab- 
 lished and consolidated, and the bond of union 
 formed between those who afterwards seceded. But 
 has anything of the kind occurred, or could any- 
 thing of the kind have occurred, in Ireland ? If it 
 had, you might have said, " The Irish Church has dis- 
 established itself, and must take the consequences." 
 
 The next observation I have to make is this, — There
 
 30 
 
 is all the moral difference in tiie world between the 
 raan who goes out of his own accord and the man 
 who is turned out. The man who goes out of his 
 own accord goes out in a cause in which he is the 
 aorpressor at all events, and mav think he will be the 
 Conqueror ; but the man who tries to hold his own, and 
 is not abk to do so, is in a very different situation, and 
 a very long period indeed must elapse before he can 
 arrive at the ],x)s^ession of an organization suitable to 
 his altered condition. Mr. Bence Jones well remarks, 
 that a " a man reduced from wealth to poverty is in a. 
 very different state from one who has never been other- 
 wise than poor, and has numberless difficulties of which 
 the other knows nothing.'^ 
 
 Now, as to the Voluntary system. Certainly I am not 
 one of those who have ever stood up to a])use the 
 voluntary prinoiple. It has done great things, and 
 may do great things again. Christianity conquered 
 the world under the voluntary principle ; and, no 
 doubt, in the times in which we live, it looks a little as if 
 the world was endeavouring to i^conquer Christianity, 
 ynder the opposite arrangement. But though endow- 
 ments may not be the sumjuiim honum which some 
 persons seem to believe them to be, we have, I think, a 
 right to consider, whether those who have lived under 
 endowments can be able all at once to do equally wtII 
 without them. It is said, that if the Church in 
 Ireland should be disendowed the Protestants will be 
 able to provide for themselves. In proof of that pro- 
 position, it is said, that the Roman Catholic Church 
 in Ireland is a]:>le to provide for herself now by the 
 voluntary principle. The Roman Catholic Charcli in 
 Ireland does so, but certainly by means in which the 
 clergy of the Protestant Church of that country are
 
 81 
 
 not instructed — by means to which the people of tlie 
 Establislied Church are not accustomed. A Church in 
 possession of large endowments is able to give a 
 gratuitous ministry. Such a Church makes its people 
 accustomed to a gratuitous ministry ; but of course, a 
 Church which is organized on an opposite principle, 
 accustoms its people, as far as their means go, and 
 sometimes above their means, to contribute to their own 
 spiiitual wants. Undoubtedly, in the course of time, 
 the Church which is now endowed in Ireland mijxht 
 accustom itself to the voluntary system ; but how^ 
 long a time will be necessary for that purpose ? How 
 long a period will be rec[uired to teach those who have 
 always relied upon a gratuitous ministry to do other- 
 wise ? It appears to me, that independently of all 
 the changes which it may be found necessary to make 
 in its system of local organization, you must take a 
 long time before you can arrive at that. 
 
 I think there is a fallacy in the argument used by 
 those who say, that the rich in Ireland belong to the 
 Church with which we are dealing, and that the poor 
 chiefly constitute the Eoman Catholic Church in that 
 country. It does not quite follow that because the 
 rich belong to a Church they will contribute to it w^ith 
 a liberality proportionate to their means, especially if, 
 as in this case, many of them are not residing on their 
 properties ; nor does it follow, that, if they do not do so, 
 the poor will not be the sufferers. Who wdll be the 
 sufferers if a ministry be not provided ? Will it be the 
 rich non-residents, or even chiefly the rich residents ? Ko. 
 It will be the poor, the permanent local poor — they 
 will suffer most. You don't suppose they will change 
 their religion upon account of the passing of this Bill. 
 If they are not in circumstances to pay their clergy,
 
 32 
 
 are the clergy to depend on the rich ? Bishop O'Brien 
 
 says : — 
 
 " To the successful working of the Vokintary v«!ysteni numbers 
 are of much more importance than wealth, and the diffusion of 
 the wealth of the religious community than its amount." 
 
 And he quotes Isaac Taylor, who observes : — 
 
 *' Xo motive that has hitherto heen brought to bear upon 
 human nature has availed to make the rich liberal after the 
 proportion of the poor." 
 
 But I would not have it supposed that in this case 
 I am willing to do injustice to the rich. I ask 
 the House to consider their position. They will for 
 forty-five years, at all events, continue to pay tithes, 
 though they will not have provided for them that, to 
 provide which, and which only, tithes exist. It is 
 true that their titles do not comprehend that interest 
 in the land ; but it is also true, that the tithe rent- 
 charge never was State property in any sense whatever. 
 Tithe rent-charge, since the law established it, (and the 
 law only established it because conscience had done so 
 before,) has only existed as a charge on land for the 
 express purpose of providing religious ministrations. 
 It may be said that some of it has been appropriated 
 by lay impropriators. That was done in bad times, 
 and I don't think that such an arrangement could 
 now be repeated ; but I say this, that tithe rent-charge 
 is a local charge, that it never was imposed and never 
 could have been imposed for general or Imperial pur- 
 poses, and it would be most unjust to use it for such 
 purposes. I have high authority for that. I have 
 a S23eecli which contains these words : — 
 
 " Those funds, gentlemen, are local funds. The tithe of a 
 parish was never given except for the purpose of maintaining
 
 33 
 
 religion in the parish ; and to take the tithe out of a parish of 
 Galway or Clare for the purpose of meeting the wants of Protestant 
 congregations in Dublin or Belfast, whatever the intention may be, 
 is — I care not who hears it — in my opinion very like indeed, 
 and dangerously like — whatever the intention may be, that is quite 
 another matter — an act of public plunder." 
 
 Whose words are those ? They are the words, 
 spoken during the last election, at Newton, of my 
 right hon. friend at the head of the Government. I 
 don't for a moment suppose there is a syllable in them 
 from which my right lion, friend would now shrink. 
 I have no doubt my right hon. friend would repeat 
 those words now ; but if those funds are local funds, 
 if the tithe of a parish was never given except for 
 the purpose of maintaining religion in the parish, and 
 if to take the tithe out of a parish in the west or 
 the south of Ireland for the purpose of maintaining 
 religion in the north or the east is very like an act of 
 public plunder, I own that I think the transfer must 
 have the same complexion, if you withdraw such a 
 local fund from a parish in one part of the country 
 for the purpose of maintaining in another part of the 
 country — no one knows where — for the purpose of 
 maintaining lunatic asylums. I don't understand that 
 the lunatic asylum need be in every particular parish. 
 I don't understand that there is to be even any ap- 
 proximation to that principle in the scheme of my 
 right hon. friend. The real truth is, that the funds 
 described by my right hon. friend as " local funds," are 
 funds which it is now proposed to treat as ordinary 
 State property, disposable in any manner that Parlia- 
 ment may think useful on the whole, and which it is 
 proposed to transfer from spiritual to secular, from 
 local to general purposes. What 1 think on this point 
 
 D
 
 84 
 
 cannot be better stated than in the words of a very 
 able man, the Knight of Kerry. He says — 
 
 *' It may be held to be quite right that a great public good 
 should be effected, even where it inflicts wrong on an individual ; 
 but it is fair at least to admit that it is a wrong. I think the case- 
 may be made more clear, by excluding the ecclesiastical element 
 for a moment, and treating it on ordinary principles of business. 
 Suppose, for example, that all the estates in this country were 
 liable to a charge of, say Is. per pound for the maintenance of 
 some necessary local institution — the county hospital, for example 
 — which we will suppose, moreover, had for centuries been sup- 
 ])orted from this fund and this fund alone ; would not all the 
 landowners of this county have just cause of complaint, if an Act of 
 Parliament seized the above fund for the public exchequer, and 
 left them either to support the hospital out of their own pockets 
 or to allow it to collapse 1 I confess it does seem to me that a 
 serious injustice would be done in this case, and I cannot possibly 
 see where the parallel fails." 
 
 Hitherto, I have dealt with the sufferings and loss 
 that will be inflicted upon this portion of our fellow- 
 countrymen ; and I will now incjuire as to the reason. 
 First of all, have they done anything to forfeit the 
 advantages which they enjoy ? Now, I confess it 
 seems to me, that the considerations applicable to 
 that question, instead of leading to an affirmative con- 
 clusion, greatly add to the weight of everything which 
 I have already advanced. How has the State dealt 
 with this Church in past times ? It has loaded her with 
 all the evils, with all the drawbacks, and with all the 
 difficulties, arising from the grossest misgovernment, 
 from the grossest and most profligate spoliations, and 
 from those detestable penal laws which have done so 
 much to alienate from this country the hearts of the 
 people of Ireland. I certainly think that it is m^uch more 
 owing to the acts of the State than to anything that
 
 35 
 
 she has done, that the Church has been laid open to 
 the charges which are made against her. And, there- 
 fore, I do not think that the State is warranted in 
 regarding as a ground of forfeiture that degree of 
 faihire in the Church in IreLand, which is mainly attri- 
 butable to bad civil Government and bad legislation, 
 more especially as it is admitted on all hands that in our 
 own time she has done her duty well. I may here 
 refer to the expenditure which is proved to have been 
 made upon the faith of these endowments since 1833. 
 We read not only of all the clmrches and parsonage- 
 houses in Ireland beino- built since the Reformation, 
 but the total expenditure in building and improve- 
 ment of churches and parsonage houses amounts to a 
 million of money since 1833, and that is only the ex- 
 penditure, to the recorded proofs of which the Eccle- 
 siastical Commissioners are able to refer. Now, let us 
 consider for a moment, whether you do justice, when 
 you treat that as the measure of the claim upon you, 
 which such an ex23enditure creates. You cannot sepa- 
 rate private and public expenditure in such a matter 
 as this. You must take into account all that has 
 been done on the faith of the possession of these 
 endowments. Those who have supplied this money 
 may fairly claim to have considered, not only the 
 money which they have actually laid out, but all the 
 other circumstances which attended that outlay. If I 
 contribute lOOZ., and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 
 give 50/. in aid, is it to be said that I am not entitled, 
 as a purchaser, to the aggregate endowment ? Some 
 talk as if the wrongs done in former times ought now 
 to be visited, by way of retril)ution, upon the Irish 
 Church of this day. But if the people who now 
 derive benefit from those endowments are wholly 
 
 D 2
 
 36 
 
 innocent of those wrongs, if their clergy have been, 
 far beyond the memory of the present living genera- 
 tion, exemplary, useful, and efficient, and have given 
 no ground for complaint, it is impossible to make out 
 a cause of forfeiture against those communities, which 
 the moral sense of those communities at all events 
 can be expected to recognise and allow. 
 
 I will not weary the House by referring in detail 
 to other considerations, connected with the immigra- 
 tion into Ulster, with the plantation of Ulster when 
 the improvement of lands, formerly waste and wild, 
 was undertaken by a Protestant population, invited 
 to come there upon the faith of their possessing an 
 endowed Church. They were promised, and they 
 received, a Church endowment of so many acres, in a 
 fixed proportion to the number of acres improved and 
 brought into cultivation by them. This part of the 
 case is powerfully and clearly set forth in a recent 
 declaration, numerously signed by Protestant gentle- 
 men in Ireland ; and, as it has probably been read by 
 most members of this House, I do not feel myself 
 justified in repeating it here. 
 
 I will now endeavour to graj)ple with the argument 
 so often adduced, and which is really the main assump- 
 tion on which all the other arguments in favour of this 
 measure are founded, that this is public State national 
 property, which is at the present time misappropriated 
 for the benefit of a few, when it belongs to all. That 
 appears to me to be a doctrine which is, not on 
 technical grounds of law, but upon substantial 
 grounds of law and fact, absolutely untrue, in the 
 sense in which it is brought forward. I do not mean 
 for a single moment to deny, that the nation has a 
 large interest in and control over every species of
 
 37 
 
 public property. But of public property there are 
 various kinds. There is that in the public exchequer, 
 contributed by the taxes of the country, and there is 
 that which is vested in the nation at large, or in the 
 sovereign, for purposes co-extensive with the general 
 government of the country. These are national pro- 
 l)erty, in the largest and fullest sense of the word. 
 But every species of property, given for every kind of 
 use beneficial to any portion of the community — the 
 property of municipal corporations throughout the 
 kingdom, the property of the City companies, the pro- 
 perty of the Universities and of the colleges in the 
 Universities, the property of all hospitals and charities 
 — is in a certain sense public property, suljject to public 
 regulation and control ; and in the due management 
 of this species of property the public has always an 
 interest. But that is a sense, in which every one 
 would perceive that the State would not be warranted 
 in treating it as disposable at its own mere will and 
 pleasure. And, on the other hand, the public interest in 
 it is not of that nature, which would warrant any one 
 in saying that the State can be called to account for its 
 use and application, as if the State were annually giving 
 the same amount of money for the purpose out of the 
 public exchequer. There is a confusion of thouglit, 
 when we fail to perceive that there are many grada- 
 tions of what, to some extent, may be regarded as 
 puljlic property ; and that money belonging to a por- 
 tion of the community ought not to be taken away l)y 
 the whole of the community, unless good cause of 
 forfeiture or proof of misuse can l)e clearly made 
 out. 
 
 Now, it seems to me that to apply this })rin('iple to 
 the local parochial endowments, in which the local
 
 38 
 
 communities have au interest, to deprive them of that 
 which they woiikl either have to supply out of their 
 own pockets, or, still worse, go without — is much more 
 unjust, than if you were to apply it to any kind of 
 corporation which would cease to exist upon your 
 taking away its means. Take the case of the monas- 
 teries, for example. They absolutely ceased to exist 
 when they were by law dissolved ; you dissolved com- 
 munities which then, in the nature of things, necessarily 
 came to an end as soon as the individual members, who 
 were then living, died. So it would be in the case of 
 the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. There is no 
 permanent body of persons which would continue after 
 their dissolution, and be a loser. The public, or the 
 Church, might be a loser, by the destruction of valuable 
 institutions ; but there would be no individual persons 
 who would be in want of what they, or their prede- 
 cessors, had before. But here you are dealing with a 
 permanent class of persons in the enjoyment of local 
 funds, who will remain and continue in existence after 
 you have done this, who will want those funds after- 
 wards as much as they did before, and who will either 
 have to supply the deficiency themselves, or go without 
 that which is much more valuable. I cannot but 
 think, therefore, that this plea of national property is 
 altogether unsound. 
 
 Now, I frequently hear the word "prescription" 
 employed by hon. gentlemen opjDosite. Prescription 
 signifies a title established by enjoyment for a length of 
 time, where there is no proof of any original right. But 
 in this case we have, with enjoyment for a great length 
 of time, a clear legal title to that enjoyment. How 
 did the House think it right to deal some years ago 
 with the case of the charitable trusts in this kingdom
 
 39 
 
 which were enjoyed by Unitarians, but were originally 
 founded for the benefit of Trinitarian congregations 1 
 The congregations had gradually lapsed into a dif- 
 ferent faith, and for much more than twenty years 
 Unitarian congregations had been in the practical 
 enjoyment of funds to which the courts of law deter- 
 mined they had no legal right. My right hon. fri'end, 
 and Lord Macaulay, and other great authorities, said 
 it was riocht even to leoislate in that case for the 
 purpose of applying the principle of prescription. I 
 am wholly at a loss to understand w^hy the claims 
 of conoTco-ations of our own faith in Ireland, whose 
 legal title is so much better, and who can urge 
 the enjoyment of centuries in their support, should 
 not be at least as much respected ; or wdiy the rights 
 of those persons who have from time to time laid 
 out their money, and made all their arrangements 
 on the faith of the continuance of these endowments, 
 should not be equally regarded. And certainly it is 
 not an answer to say that the legislation of 200 or 
 300 years ago, w^hich settled the existing title to a 
 portion of these endowments, was a violent and 
 oppressive legislation. Because wrong w^as done then, 
 you cannot take from those who have had a valid 
 legal title for centuries that which they have done 
 nothing to forfeit, simply on the ground that at a 
 remote period your predecessors may have done some- 
 thing equally unjustifiable. 
 
 Another great argument which I will take the liberty 
 of referring to is the argument of equality. That 
 seems to me, in the sense in which it is put, to be a 
 very dangerous argument. It is new to me, that it is 
 the business of the State to abohsh all inequalities of 
 property. Of course nobody contends for this as
 
 40 
 
 affecting individuals ; and nobody, in truth, contends 
 for such a principle, as that it is the business of the 
 State to abolish inequality of property among religious 
 bodies, whether they have or have not been originally 
 created by means of public endowments. As far as I 
 have heard in these debates, and in recent discussions 
 of these subjects by advocates of the present measure, 
 everybody repudiates the application of such a principle 
 to Scotland or England. This principle of equality, 
 when it is brought forward to justify you in taking away 
 local funds from those who have done nothing to forfeit 
 them — not to give them to anybody else, not to restore 
 or redistribute them, not to establish another Church 
 because it is the Church of the majority, as in Scotland, 
 but simply for the purpose of taking them away, — 
 appears to me to be a principle which cannot be worked 
 out without going much beyond the point, to which 
 anybody at present is proposing or desires to go. You 
 will be producing another new form and state of 
 inequality, in some respects more remarkable, between 
 one part of the kingdom and the other parts of it. It 
 would be one thing, if you were about to found 
 another Established Church — it would be one thing, 
 if you were only resuming superfluous endowments ; 
 but it is a very different thing, for the sake of bringing 
 about equality between different classes in Ireland, to 
 take away from one religious body, whose title is one 
 of centuries, everything by which its possessions exceed 
 those of another which does not advance any claim to 
 have such possessions for itself. Although we do not 
 carry the principle further, there may be some who will. 
 I look with great suspicion upon a principle which if 
 it is logically pursued, may lead to conclusions which 
 we all repudiate, and which we desire everybody
 
 41 
 
 to lay aside, because there is so great a difference, 
 as all agree there is, between the case of the Esta- 
 blished Churches of England and Scotland and that 
 of Ireland. Well, then, let us legislate in a manner 
 which that difference suggests ; but do not let us lay 
 down an abstract principle of levelling equality, as a 
 reason for doing what on other grounds w^e do not 
 justify. 
 
 I have thought it my duty to say what I felt upon 
 this subject. I do most heartily desire and pray that 
 all my apprehensions may be disappointed ; I do 
 heartily desire that all those good effects may follow 
 which my right hon. friend desires, and I am sure 
 expects, from this measure. I have said nothing upon 
 the subject of danger to private property, because it 
 appears to me, that there is in the nature of things a 
 broad and clear line between private property and all 
 property of this character. At the same time, I am bound 
 to acknowledge, that the circumstances of the present 
 times are peculiar, especially in Ireland ; and that in 
 Ireland language has been and is held as to private 
 property, which in a manner connects it with some of 
 the same considerations, which points to its origin 
 from confiscations in past times, and which parades 
 the fact that it is for the most part held in Protestant 
 hands — language which, I think, does in some measure 
 justify the alarm of those who fear danger ; and, 
 however well we may mean, if, while proceeding in 
 one direction we make a false step, if we go too fiir, 
 if we go beyond the limits of justice in dealing 
 with this description of ecclesiastical property, we may 
 be helping, perhaps not to kindle, yet to fan the flame, 
 which threatens also property of other descriptions. 
 
 I trust that my right hon. friend may deal success-
 
 42 
 
 fully with what is called the Land question. From 
 what was said the other day by the right lion. President 
 of the Board of Trade, we know it is not intended to 
 deal with it in a manner which can in the smallest 
 degree do violence to or infringe the principles of the 
 security of property. Whether or not all the desires and 
 hopes which have been excited in Ireland on that sub- 
 ject will or can be sg^tisfied by any measure fulfilling 
 that condition, remains to be seen. I most heartily hope 
 and trust that they may ; but of one thing I feel con- 
 fident, and it is, that we should be safer and upon surer 
 ground, if we were not to permit ourselves to be led to 
 hope we can be doing good, by violating the just rights 
 and reasonable feelings of our Protestant fellow- 
 subjects. Are they not people who have deserved well 
 of the Crown ? Whatever in their position has been 
 false or unfortunate, has been much more owing; to 
 our legislation than to themselves. If that position 
 has been made false with a view to fortifying English 
 interests in Ireland, I cannot but think it would be a 
 very unjust and ungenerous thing if we were to treat 
 them as if they had deserved ill rather than well of us 
 for their share in fortifying those interests. They have 
 been loyal, intelligent, and industrious subjects of the 
 Crown, and if they are not numerically the most 
 important, they are a very important class of her 
 Majesty's Irish subjects. Surely, in doing that which 
 is needful to allay discontent, and to sow the seeds of 
 a better feeling among other parts of the community, 
 we should be very cautious how we wound their 
 feelings, disregard their interests, and alienate them, 
 perhaps, without really conciliating other classes, who 
 are now discontented. 
 I repeat, I heartily wish and pray that the expectations
 
 43 
 
 of my right lion, friend of good from this measure may 
 be fulfilled. T do not say they may not. Althouo-h I 
 have offered the best argimients I could command, I am 
 by no means insensible to the force — in many cases the 
 great force — of the arguments urged on the other side. 
 I have told the House how far I can, and how far I 
 cannot go. It only remains for me to say, that if this 
 House shall pass, as I presume it will pass, in sub- 
 stance, this measure, I shall, for one, acquiesce in the 
 verdict of the House and of the country; and I will do 
 my best in committee to suggest improvements in 
 those details which, as it seems to me, are capable of 
 improvement, of course without attempting anything 
 w^hich may be inconsistent with the decision of the 
 House. I trust and hope that, if this measure should 
 pass into law, the members of the future disestablished 
 Church of Ireland will not take the advice AAdiich 
 seemed to be offered to them from the benches oppo- 
 site a few nights ago, — will not think they are asked 
 to co-operate in their o^tl destruction, by having put 
 into their hands the means of organization for future 
 activity and usefulness, and, as I trust, of future 
 revival and prosperity. I hope they will gird them- 
 selves up like men, and will use the means offered 
 them — and, putting details aside, I know no better in 
 the main than those suggested — of completing the 
 reconstruction of their Church upon the Voluntary 
 principle ; and although it cannot be without a sense 
 of great and grievous wrong and injustice, yet still 
 I hope they will submit, like men and patriotic 
 citizens, to a wrong done to them by those who sin- 
 cerely believe it for the general welfare, and will con- 
 tribute as far as they can to that end, by setting, 
 notwithstanding all they may have suffered, as good
 
 44 
 
 and bright an example of loyalty to the Crown as they 
 have set before, and at the same time bury in oblivion 
 all feeling of irritation, all feeling of animosity towards 
 any other classes of the community, and endeavour to 
 bring about, even out of this measure, so injurious to 
 them as I cannot but think it is, as much as possible 
 of future good. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 LONDON: E. CLAY, SONS, AND TxVYLOU, PKINTEUS.
 
 Wfmi